Blu-ray's first two years outpaces DVD's
The success of DVD is the kind that consumer electronics manufactures dreamed of, and now after two years after the introduction of Blu-ray, it appears to be gaining steam even faster -- and during the worst economic crisis of our time. According to Richard Greenfield of Pali Capital, in two years there were about 1.2 million DVD players sold, whereas Blu-ray stand-alone player sales are estimated to be at 2.5 million -- no this doesn't include PS3s which are expected to be at 8 million. Of course choosing between a $129 DVD upconverter and a $199 Blu-ray player isn't that hard of a choice, but paying 30 percent more for a movie is. The news here isn't bad for Blu-ray either as it has managed to almost double its market share of the top 20 titles in the past six months. We have a feeling the members on the panel at the BDA press conference this Thursday at 7pm EST -- which we'll be covering live -- will have a few things to smile about.
Filed under: Blu-ray
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
Dave @ Jan 6th 2009 2:19PM
This is natural as many people see the advantage in HD and also are used to disc based media while when DVD came no one thought that the CD will hold movies as well :)
jason @ Jan 6th 2009 2:29PM
I think that alot of people get caught up in music going from tape to cd to download. Movies have certainly ventured into download(and stream) but they are different things. Also there is that whole 'I don't want to replace my dvds' thing. It is likely Blu-ray won't ultimately be as successful as dvd(and I don't think anyone thinks so), but it certainly not only is here to stay, but is doing just fine so far.
Byrdman @ Jan 6th 2009 3:14PM
you do know that a blu-ray player will play dvds, so you wont have to replace your current collection, just stop buying dvds and start buying blu-rays
jason @ Jan 6th 2009 3:40PM
I totally agree. I should have added that. I meant it to be a little snide since I don't feel that way(like I need to replace anything). Go Blu :)
Kumar @ Jan 6th 2009 2:31PM
Reminds me that you can cook any number to benefit you.
I wonder, out loud of course, how those sales relate to the percentage of households with TVs, with HDTVs, with cable/satellite programming, between this past year and when DVD first came out years ago.
Sure it's good to see sales increases, but you have to remember that 'just buying someone a couple of DVDs for xmas' didn't exist as an acceptably-lame xmas present until after DVD established itself. Blu has the advantage of piggybacking on that cop-out present. ;)
Larry @ Jan 6th 2009 4:07PM
Agreed that % of top 20 chart is pure junk. That is way too much number spinning for my tastes.
NIUHuskie @ Jan 6th 2009 4:20PM
Kumar, there are valid questions about the state of home entertainment between now and when DVD came out, but the probable answers to those questions actually make the BD performance even more impressive. The only thing necessary for anyone to make the jump to DVD was a television, and I think it's pretty safe to assume that television penetration is about the same now as it was when DVD was hitting the market (pretty darn close to 100% in the US). So there were no other required purchases that required anyone to hold back from jumping into DVD. To get into Blu-ray, an HDTV is pretty much required. Granted, a lot of people had HDTV's before Blu was introduced, but we all know that the penetration of HDTV's in households is not anywhere near the penetration of SDTV's when DVD came out. I think we can all agree that the options available on cable/satellite are a lot better now than when DVD came out too. All in all, I think the deck against Blu-ray is stacked a little higher than it was against DVD, and yet it's outperforming DVD over the same period in it's lifecycle. Pretty impressive.
Boo Radley @ Jan 6th 2009 2:47PM
People ultimately like to buy their movies and although the surveys show many people don't know the difference between SD and HD you should never underestimate people's desire to keep up with the Joneses. I have Blu-ray and HD-dvd because I work with film and I can very easily tell the difference between HD and SD, bus I know many people who bought a $4000 HD TV and Blu-ray and hooked it up using a composite cable and marveled at the quality.
Either way I'm happy as long as I continue to be able to buy physical media with extra features that I can watch at my convenience at the quality level I prefer. That's not to say I don't watch on demand films, but I certainly wouldn't watch dark night that way, but a lesser film I couldn't justify parting with $25 for, absolutely.
MasterCKO @ Jan 6th 2009 3:09PM
can we let the "will Blu-Ray survive?!?!" type of articles die now, please?
Jonsson @ Jan 6th 2009 3:41PM
Yes I agree.
Despite the fact that To$hiba tried their best to screw the entire HD market Blu-ray is actually doing very very well. So, can we get rid of those crap articles now...please?
zargon @ Jan 6th 2009 5:09PM
Toshiba tried to screw the HD market? Toshiba went the route that everyone did with DVD, jointly agree on a format and making that the standard. Sony and ultimately the BDA apparently decided that they didn't have to play by the same rules, probably since it didn't benefit them as much, and decided to force their format to the market.
In the end, it came down to which group was willing to spend the most to have their format win. I would say that the parties involved with Blu-ray are the ones that tried to screw the HD market.
WebDev511 @ Jan 6th 2009 5:09PM
@Jonsson
Yeah, the BDA isn't ever going to try and make money. Everyone who's anyone knows they are a non-profit organization.
In reality the only people that can hold Blu back are the studios. Poor transfers, excessive DNR, crappy menus and overall poor implementation is the biggest remaining barrier. Movies on Blu are only as good as the studios are willing to make them.
Big Wizz @ Jan 6th 2009 5:13PM
Just as soon as Engadget.com stops posting Apple articles every 10 seconds.
AutumnBringer @ Jan 6th 2009 7:01PM
I would agree if I didn't feel like the "Blu-Ray will survive" articles were necessary to balance out the "Blu-Ray is dying, lolz PS3demographic Fanbois!!!1! Digital media is king, there can be only one!!" comments that are all the rage these days.
Jonsson @ Jan 7th 2009 7:15AM
@Zargon,
Standard ? Yeah right! Toshiba was the ONLY hardware manufacturer pushing HD-DVD. Nice "standard" indeed.
Fernando @ Jan 6th 2009 3:15PM
but......but......but.......I thought blu-ray was a dying niche!....Must be some type of lying or manipulating in those number!
Bozster @ Jan 6th 2009 5:16PM
5% of total DVD sales is whatever you want to call it niche. Even at 10-15% by the ludicrous measurement based on revenue of top 20 titles it's still a niche.
And whether it's dying or not is still in the air, we'll see in 2009 but more and more digital downloads and new memory card initiatives is something that should concern BDA quite a bit.
I personally don't have a problem with Blu-ray chugging on, just as long as they lower the prices to DVD levels or within $5 for new releases and ESPECIALLY with catalog releases where they charge $25-$30 for movies I can get on DVD for $4-$5. It's commendable they lowered the prices of hardware but they have to keep at it. The prices are again up and the only player I would recommend for Blu at solid price is Samsung BD-1500 that I recently got for $179 and it's fantastic.
If they do that, they might have a chance of getting out of niche status and getting market share to some formidable levels.
hdscreens @ Jan 6th 2009 3:24PM
I thought blu-ray was approaching it's Third year.
Ernesto @ Jan 6th 2009 4:05PM
this isn't a will Blu-Ray survive article, in fact hardly any of them are, it just comes about in the comments because certain people feel the need to speculate on the future of the medium ad nauseum (what for i have no idea).
If these people don't like blu-ray what are they doing reading these article anyway let alone commenting ? shouldn't they be busy downloading illegally ? or downloading/paying for inferior quality ?
Ah, the internet. Enjoy whats here and now and what you like/prefer but don't tell people how to spend their money I say.
Bozster @ Jan 6th 2009 5:07PM
The only problem with this comparison is that it's not really comparing same things.
At the time DVD was created it was much more expensive ($600-$900 per player today is not even close to $600 player in 1997), it was completely brand new technology and I'm not talking quality but the fact that people's technological savvy wasn't as high as today.
In general, Blu-Ray is evolution, not revolution of optical media in a way so the penetration should've been much higher then when DVD started.
And I really don't understand how you can measure growth when you take %20 of revenue of top 20 titles. This reeks of so much invalid conclusion that it's really puzzling to see how anyone can argue based on these numbers.
Pete @ Jan 6th 2009 5:50PM
So comparisons are only valid when the things being compared are exactly the same? But what if you want to work out whether you prefer apples to oranges?
DVD was expensive, but so was VHS. You could say that on average VHS was priced at around half that of DVD at the time, and we could say the same right now of DVD and Blu-ray.
Bozster @ Jan 6th 2009 6:15PM
Of course Pete.. if you are comparing to something it has to be with full comprehension of the circumstances then and now.
As I said, DVD's were a lot more expensive so that also affected the sales of hardware.
$600 or whatever for a player then was not the same as it was when Blu-ray started. Your salary back then was A LOT smaller then it is today in terms of dollar value but you still had similar prices. It's not valid to compare the two as if they are on equal grounds.
If anything Blu-ray should have been expanding in a much more rapid way then DVD as manufacturing technology, chips and other things are at a much higher level today.
But despite anything the comparison on a partial level to DVD is also not right. If you want to compare true progress you compare units not dollar values out of a certain segment of that market. That's cherry picking to show positive trends.
Gus @ Jan 6th 2009 7:24PM
I am a BR owner, but what I now hate most is the total lack of transparency and contempt they still treat consumers with, the BDA ALWAYS spins the truth and the policy just seems to be deceive lie and cheat until we have victory.
These BS figures are so cooked and manipulated they mean jack shit, why can't they just show exactly openly and honestly where things are at, then everyone can watch the growth WITHOUT complaint. As long as they continue to deceive, there will be many people continuing to predict and hope for BR's demise.
MasterCKO @ Jan 6th 2009 8:01PM
Look,
Even though the costs are different, the times are different etc, the economy is different, etc, the simple fact is that 2 years into the mainstream consumer life of the format, BD moved TWICE as many standalone players (this is in units sold) as DVD did in its first 2 years. Even with the all the asterisks, you can draw plenty of meaningful conclusions from that statistic alone. What concrete facts, market trends and actual data are you basing your "they should have moved more units" opinion on? It sounds like off-the-cuff gut reaction to me, but if you've put research into it, I apologize and I would like to hear more about it.
Regarding the NPD comparison that Ben refers to and that everyone complains about (which is also based on units sold, btw): I guess I can see why people have problems with it, but, as I've said in earlier posts, I personally think that it's a perfectly valid way to compare consumers' uptake of a new format versus those consumers that are choosing to stay with the older format (they are minimizing the effect of the monumental difference in library size by taking the top 20 of each format in order to get at purchasing patterns). Not to mention the fact that in the context that Ben uses it, he's comparing this stat to itself earlier in the year, which removes units and is definitely a valid way to get at the trend of "people are buying more Blu-Rays."
Gus @ Jan 6th 2009 9:20PM
@MasterCKO
I know your talking to Bozster, but you cant get hung up on standalone player sales at the same point in DVDs life cycle, the comparisons just don't wash IMO.
Bozster is right, DVDs at the same point in time were a lot more expensive, (another point to ask why has BR players dropped so dramatically recently, it's because they know they were in trouble, fire sale of obsolete profiles that were clogging up retail chains??, that's why we never see real data, only this continual $ volume BS)........" in two years there were about 1.2 million DVD players sold, whereas Blu-ray stand-alone player sales are estimated to be at 2.5 million -- no this doesn't include PS3s which are expected to be at 8 million" ...... Why then does the graph include sales figures with the PS3 in?? ..........So, what the graph is really comparing 10.5 million blu ray players V 1.2 million DVDs .
Apart from that, DVDs offered no recording ability, so at the time the high prices did keep people away until it was a viable option to buy the DVD player and keep the VHS to record. Today of course, everyone has the recordable option so it's a simple process just to buy a cheap BR player which is going to definitely increase stand alone player numbers for BR as compared to DVD at the same point in time.
The huge thing that is missing though when comparing BR to DVD is the PS2 effect. When the PS2 arrived , DVD sales skyrocketed astronomically. Looking at today's numbers, a comparison is being made between DVD without PS2 and Blu Ray with PS3, how convenient, and that shows how much trouble BR is really in IMO.
Whats going to happen to the comparisons when the PS2 effect hits DVD, are we only going to compare $ ratios of the top 5% then or whatever number is most convenient for the BDA?
PS2 was king and ruled the world, I would venture to say that a very high percentage of every home in the western world owned a PS2.
PS3 is very much in 3rd place today and it's market share recently has been declining, the PS3 will never ever reach the sales heights of the PS2.
Blu ray, IMHO, will always be a quality niche with probably 20-30%, but will never overtake DVD, by the time BR players potentially have enough market saturation to takeover the mantle, which would still be years away, it is too late, something else more user friendly will have taken the market.
Add to that the rest of the world which hasn't even heard of blu ray yet, where I live, blu ray is 1% of the market, there is other markets driving the formats success other than the USA.
As I said earlier, I just can't stand the constant bull shit, the never ending cycle of the BDA trying to sell their lack of success as actually being something spectacular, and all the fanboys getting swept along and agreeing.
All I want to see, is the facts presented as they are, in there real light, transparent for all to see as all other manufacturers do, then you will never hear a complaint from me again.
Pistol Pete @ Jan 6th 2009 9:38PM
2 Gus, what would be very interesting to compare would be sales data comparing DVD sales after 2 years of PS2 sales compared to 2 years PS3 sales, that is probably a more accurate comparison to what we see here and a more accurate picture of how bluray is really tracking.
Mark @ Jan 7th 2009 5:09AM
@Gus. Funai have already stated they broke even on blu ray sales by mid 2008. Sales of players in 2008 was 2.1 billion yen. There is no firesale or trouble about it. If Funai, purveyors of the cheapest boxes can make money then you can be sure everyone else is. Lower prices by various manufacturers just indicates competition, cheaper components, less components, and higher yields. Existing and new manufacturers are also announcing new models at CES - hardly indicative of a failing format.
You can pretend blu is a niche for a few years if you wish since HDTVs are still the minority but the world is rapidly going HD. Blu ray should have no trouble growing with HD.
DVD4ME @ Jan 7th 2009 8:12AM
Dream on Mark, if you read Funais last financial year reports, it clearly says they wrote off all the associated blu ray costs in one foul swoop with profits from other divisions.
That's robbing Peter to pay Paul, so enough with the BS.
Blu ray is a niche and the comments regarding the PS2 and PS3 I think are very relevant.
Lets have a look in another 12 months, it's going to be a lot harder to hide the constant bull shit then, maybe then we might get a few facts for a change.
Mark @ Jan 7th 2009 9:31AM
DVD4ME, your information is completely false.
"The market still consists of a small number of manufacturers. Having successfully joined the frontrunners significantly helped with breaking even," Sakata said. "
http://techon.nikkeibp.co.jp/english/NEWS_EN/20080808/156271/
They broke even in June with sales of 2.1 billion yen. The only write off they claim is related to tax-haven fines for a Hong Kong subsiduary. Later in September, they say this:
"Meanwhile, two new fields that did not exist a year ago boosted the overall sales. Sales of Blu-ray Disc players and STBs for the US terrestrial digital broadcasts reached ¥7.6 billion and 14.2 billion, respectively. "
http://techon.nikkeibp.co.jp/english/NEWS_EN/20081114/161233/
So not only have they broken even, but they made 5.5 billion yen more in sales in the 3 months following their previous statement. At today's rates those 3 months alone would represent approximately $60 million in sales. Here is their report if you wish to highlight where "they wrote off all the associated blu ray costs in one foul swoop with profits from other divisions. "
http://www.funaiworld.com/investors/financial_report/pdf/tan_e0811.pdf
Claim it is a niche all you want, or pretend it doesn't matter but you are wrong. I don't even know where your hostility comes from. Maybe you are bitter that HD DVD lost, but so what. Go buy a hybrid BD/HDDVD drive for your computer, transfer your content to a hard drive and get over it. If blu ray did fail, and there is no sign of it happening, then I can still rip and play the content any way I please. I did it with my HD DVD titles and blu ray will be no different no matter what crypto they stick on the disk.
That's just me. The mainstream won't even think that deep about it. They will just buy their HDTV and be (correctly) told by the salesman that a blu ray player plays genuine HD content and also their existing DVDs too. Players will become so cheap that some stores might even toss a player in for nothing to sweeten the deal. Expansion of blu ray with HDTV is obvious and assured until someone produces a digital platform which offers anywhere close to the same level of industry acceptance and support.
daxiang12 @ Jan 6th 2009 5:21PM
Off-topic:
How are the replies arranged on EngadgetHD? Why am I seeing the order of some replies changed everytime?
daxiang12 @ Jan 6th 2009 8:17PM
I came across this site: http://www.thedigitalbits.com/articles/cemadvdsales.html
According to CEA, since the launch in April 1997 till the end of 1999, 5.4 million DVD players were sold. And in the first two years (from 04 1997 to 03 1999, 1.8 million DVD players were sold.
Spiza @ Jan 6th 2009 9:50PM
Ya, I was about to post about this. This article is pretty much a lie.
Another note with this is that PS3 is eating blu-ray player sales, and the PS2 had yet to launch in America.
Bozster @ Jan 6th 2009 10:04PM
Right.. this is why I don't like and always diss figures like this.. it's illogical and is cherry picked.
I have no problems with Blu-ray, it can grow, stay the same or whatever, I'll still buy some movies on it until a viable alternative (downloads/flash cards or whatever) offers same quality and looser DRM. But what gets me is this blatant lying and cherry picking of statistics to make consumers get hooked into buying certain products.
It's simply immoral.
NIUHuskie @ Jan 7th 2009 2:12PM
So what is cherry picked about these stats? For the first two years of the lifecycle of DVD (even according to the article linked), 1.8 million players were sold. For the first two years of the lifecycle of BD, 2.5 million standalone players were sold. This number excludes the PS3, which isn't exactly fair since I'm sure many people are actively using it as a BD player just like a standalone user would (I know I am...I have no standalone player)...that's fine though, the PS2 wasn't released in the two year window after DVD was introduced, so it makes it a more apples to apples comparison.
The 5.4 million DVD units sold is an irrelevant stat. It covers 31 months. We haven't reached the 31 month mark for BD yet (that should be around the end of February). The price of DVD players after two years compared to where BD prices are at is also an irrelevant stat. DVD players didn't require an HDTV to take advantage of the features, Blu does.
The only arguing and spinning is coming from the anti-BD camp. 2.5 million > 1.8 million. And as I stated in an earlier post, the deck against BD is stacked a lot taller than it was against DVD. Cable/satellite options are better than when DVD came out, HDTV's are required to take advantage of BD and were not for DVD, and on top of that the economy is the worst that it's been in decades. The performance of Blu in this climate is still pretty impressive.
daxiang12 @ Jan 7th 2009 3:14PM
Actually the 2.5 million number is questionable as well. See the link here:
http://www.videobusiness.com/article/CA6613790.html
As of 11/11/2008 (29 months after BR launch), "Currently, the U.S. Blu-ray install base totals 1.5 million set-tops and 5.5 million PlayStation 3 consoles."
Anyway, as many have stated, PS3 is eating the stand-alone BR player sales. We will have a better picture in a few months.
evilmonkey501 @ Jan 6th 2009 8:22PM
wow. some people get upset over this stuff.... cmon. what exactly is bluray's competition in the hd arena? cable? ha! to compressed. the internet? to slow...how can bluray not eventually win out? it is what it is.