Sorry, guys... I'm really with Jim on the whole BluRay thing. As a format, I suspect it is doomed to niche status for most of it's lifespan. Sales just have NOT picked up the way the BluRay Alliance would have had us believe, and I think there is a simple reason for that...
digital feeds are just another sourcing option and have their place for those that value convenience over quality. Stores still sell CD's and DVD's and the same model holds for Blu-ray, I might be able to download some low quality version of a movie but if I want the quality associated with file sizes up to 50GB, then I'm getting it on Blu-ray.
Somewhat true, but expanding the example of CDs/DVDs to BluRay isn't quite right or fair. The public does not adopt any technology in a vacuum, but does so in the context of what was already available (benefits perceived compared to what came before). Three different factors are conspiring together to work against widespread adoption of BluRay:
1. BluRay isn't "better enough" to supplant DVD in the general marketplace. When enthusiasts get into the "BluRay is/isn't better than upscaled DVD religious wars", they're really missing the point. Is the visual and audio quality of BluRay better than DVD? Sure. I'll even give you that it is "dramatically better". However, visual and audio quality improvements alone WOULD NOT have been enough to establish DVD in the marketplace (or CD before it). The most important change that helped CD/DVD media gain a foothold in the market was the switch from analog tape to digital bit-streams, and the other conveniences that entails. The switch away from TAPE is the point I'm making... Instant Fast-Forwarding, instant starting over, no rewinding, no long-term degradation in quality from use, pausing, and chaptering. All of those features were brand new. They were a potent reason, in addition to quality, to make the switch from VHS to DVD (or tape to CD). These technologies didn't see adoption due to increased "quality" alone. On the whole when you considered BOTH quality and convenience, they were dramatically superior to
what came before.
Unfortunately for BluRay, the new features it brings to the table aren't universally implemented and aren't really that compelling to the average consumer (all of the fancy interactive stuff for example, which did so well way back on CDi back in the day). I worked at a couple Audio-Visual retail stores right during the time when the DVD transition was happening (starting when there were 1-3 models of DVD players retailing for $400+ and ending right when the VHS decks were relegated to a back rack of the store), and let me tell you... Most consumers were far more interested in these "convenience" features, than they were in the quality improvement. And even ignoring those other convenience factors, you have to admit that the quality shift from VHS to DVD was far more dramatic than the shift from DVD to BluRay. Quality will drive high-end consumers (like us) to buy systems when they are priced at enthusiast levels. Quality isn't enough to sell it at the commodity level, because the average user doesn't care
enough to warrant the cost of buying into a new format.
2. The BluRay spec was "broken by design". It was almost like the consortium wanted it to fail. Just look at how difficult it is to get a stupid BluRay disc to play on a computer! And even with set-top boxes, since they kept revising the spec, different players support different features... It is obvious that in their obsession with both licensing fees (and the huge dollar signs they saw when dreaming of retail sales similar to the height of the "DVD revolution") and copy protection that they crippled the format almost beyond repair. That and the initial "fight" between BluRay and HD-DVD cost them 2 valuable years which allowed the quality and availability of online distribution mediums, like the iTunes store and Amazon Unbox, to catch up dramatically.
3. Video compression has become tremendously more efficient and high-quality. Simultaneously, computer hardware has become powerful enough (even at the ultra-low-end) to support real-time decoding of even highly compressed HD streams. Therefore, you no longer NEED 50GB to store 2 hours of high-quality 1080p content. Is the quality of an ultra-high-bitrate BluRay disc better than a "downloadable" 1080p H264 compressed MP4? Yes. Is it better "enough" to justify the tremendous added expense and inconvenience? Not for most consumers. You compare a well-produced BluRay disc to a well-compressed 3GB 1080p H264 High Profile MKV with AC3 audio... Is the BluRay better? Sure! But, then, so was Betamax. Is it "OMG, I can't even watch the other one anymore without getting a headache" better? Not at all. Now imagine your average consumer comparing the two... And add in that their local movie rental place has gone under, the Blockbuster video closed down, and the hassle (and extra cost for BluRay) of waiting for it to show up from NetFlix? And add-in ever increasing bandwidth availability, allowing the downloadable quality to increase incrementally over time as broadband data speeds creep higher and higher. All of this adds up to BluRay filling the same niche as LaserDisc did way back in the day. High-end enthusiast and not much else...
