Samsung Says Blu-Ray Has Five Years Left

[shatnershaman]

I think i'm jabbering on randomly here...

Don't worry be happy it's the internet.

 

[memejoey]

I don't plan on replacing my DVDs or getting a HD television anytime soon

I like the higher resolution and the how the movies look somewhat crisper (i've watched some on a PC) but it really wouldn't be worth paying for a Blu-Ray drive, HD television, and the disks themselves just for that. I wouldn't even buy them online to download to my computer because its just not worth it to me.

After watching a movie for 10 minutes I get absorbed into it and unless I actually take a step back and really TRY to admire the quality, it doesn't matter to me whether i'm watching HD or SD.

I wont be getting Blu-Ray movies/tv series until normal DVDs aren't made anymore.

 

[ElArabDeMagnifico]

Besides, blu-ray used for gaming platforms could probably be used more than for blu-ray movies and stuff. As games improve (hopefully) in quality, developers will want to extend to more things they want to do that is limited to the other formats. Movies don't really have to do that, you just need the movie and some extra content, they only need blu-ray for less compression. But for games, they can be stored for more things.

The thing with Blu-ray though is that, at its current technology, the laser doesn't read the information fast enough for gaming. Hence the installs and repetition of data on the disk.

I'm not trying to say that Blu-ray will never be useful for gaming, but that they need to work on the read-speeds before developers can use the whole 50GB without repeating data or installing.

I thought it reads slower only because it achieves the same speed as DVDs with that slower speed.

(You didn't hear that from me though >_> )

 

[TheWickerPopstar]

Also, some of us take pride in our solid DVD/VHS/Blu-ray movie collections.

While pride is definitely a factor, I find that my hesitance to adopt DD comes from reliability and longevity issues. I'd rather not have to go through re-downloading my entire film collection when the hard drive is damaged (even solid-state drives can get a boo-boo), nor do I want to transfer the collection from on storage unit to another when mine is outdated (as we all know it will be).

 

[The_root_of_all_evil]

DVD's are as dead as romance, and for very similar reasons.

 

[goodman528]

OLED? That's just another tech war. There are lot of teches out there for achieving similar results.

DVD is not dead. These are the best years for DVDs, there are more movies available on DVD than any other medium other than film itself.

 

[Tomdoodle]

The format to replace/kill Blu-Ray is already around: downloadable HD movies on demand.

I think we'll have 3D cinema before we have that.

 

[stompy]

I thought it reads slower only because it achieves the same speed as DVDs with that slower speed.

(You didn't hear that from me though >_> )

Not from what I've heard. The read-speed isn't slower by choice, it's a technological limitation. I think it's got something to do with using blue light, but I'm not too sure on the reasons.

Anyways, you'd really think Sony would make its console download a game before it could play the thing for the hell of it?

Of course, this limitation will probably be overcome over time, but it's a barrier now.

The way I see it, Blu-ray has a lot of appeal in the world of Video Games with developers wanting more space and such for more ideas and stuff. Blu-ray isn't nearly as dominant in the other medias, but since the PS3 primarily uses blu-ray you have games on Blu-ray disks, whether that was the developers choice or not.

That, I think, is the major appeal of Blu-ray: the massive amount of data it can carry helps propel longer games with more content. 'Spose we're in agreement here.

 

[shatnershaman]

DVD is dead? Well then Zombies have taken the vast majority of sales.

 

[PhoenixFlame]

The format to replace/kill Blu-Ray is already around: downloadable HD movies on demand. The only limitations are the size of your hard drive, download speed, and availability. Mark Cuban had a nice write-up about this over a year ago, and as much as I like to touch my media as much as the next guy, he's got a point. If you can watch an HD movie at home of equivalent quality to Blu-Ray without a Blu-Ray player, why buy a player?

Recent revelations among service providers and the greater presence of bandwidth caps on plans means that we might be seeing this kind of format come in slower to the market. Depending on how the 250 GB/month stuff with Comcast works out (which, by the way is far greater than many non-US provider's bandwidth caps which have been in place for a while), you're not going to see HD-download-on-demand killing anything anytime soon, as far as I can tell. But a lot can happen in 5 years.

I expect blu-ray, now that the "format war" is over, to eventually bring down its prices just like DVD did. When Blu-ray players start coming down to reasonable levels and you start seeing more simultaneous releases, blu-ray will eventually have its time in the sun. I doubt it'll be dead for a while.

 

[Uncompetative]

Scratches...

Should have kept the shuttered jacket.

 

[Zerbye]

[Then why is Blu-ray still selling better than DD despite the fact that DD has been out longer?
http://forums.highdefdigest.com/high-definition-smackdown/60623-digital-doesnt-break-disc-dvd-bd-hold-up-despite-onslaught-negative-press.html

Tom Adams, president of Adams Media Research, said, "The fact is, despite what many on Wall Street seem to think, there is very little digital downloading going on. We're talking about $118 million in 2007 spending, and about $254 million this year - so against a $24 billion packaged-media market it'sreally not making much of a dent at this point.

Also, some of us take pride in our solid DVD/VHS/Blu-ray movie collections. Asshole.

Looks like I touched a nerve. Trust me, I understand people still like to touch their things.

Sorry, but after checking your link, Tom Adam's numbers are misrepresented. The $24 billion mark is largely due to DVDs, with only $194 million accounted for by Blu-Ray so far in 2008. DVD is still kicking ass when it comes down to raking in the dough, and commercial success thus far for both Blu-Ray and downloadable movies is still underwhelming by comparison. Long-term, I still see downloadable content being more valuable than physical media in terms of market penetration, environmental impact, and economy of space.

 

[Rack]

I'm actually one of the few people who likes Blu Ray, the extra resolution is nice, the crisp look actually enhances the experience a bit. But I'd never dream of paying anything like full price for a Blu Ray film, it's only worth having a player because of cheap online rentals and the occasional bargain bin sale.

 

[Zerbye]

The format to replace/kill Blu-Ray is already around: downloadable HD movies on demand. The only limitations are the size of your hard drive, download speed, and availability. Mark Cuban had a nice write-up about this over a year ago, and as much as I like to touch my media as much as the next guy, he's got a point. If you can watch an HD movie at home of equivalent quality to Blu-Ray without a Blu-Ray player, why buy a player?

Recent revelations among service providers and the greater presence of bandwidth caps on plans means that we might be seeing this kind of format come in slower to the market. Depending on how the 250 GB/month stuff with Comcast works out (which, by the way is far greater than many non-US provider's bandwidth caps which have been in place for a while), you're not going to see HD-download-on-demand killing anything anytime soon, as far as I can tell. But a lot can happen in 5 years.

I expect blu-ray, now that the "format war" is over, to eventually bring down its prices just like DVD did. When Blu-ray players start coming down to reasonable levels and you start seeing more simultaneous releases, blu-ray will eventually have its time in the sun. I doubt it'll be dead for a while.

Excellent points. I agree, it will take years for HD downloads to overtake physical media. My point was that the technology that is the likely successor to Blu-Ray, HD downloads, already exists. But it's true that the current infrastructure for distribution needs considerable upgrading before this happens.

 

[Nazrel]

This planned obsolescence is starting to get dumb. How much better can you really make this stuff? and that downloading thing, given that I personally have had to reinstall my OS 3 times so far this year, not gonna happen.

 

[UnrealCanine]

Death of Blu-Ray in 5 years? No-one I know has started buying Bluray. Don't predict the death before the true birth

 

[Gravy Devil]

Honestly, I don't even seen the need for HD or Blu-ray discs unless it is to just hold more space,like putting a trilogy to one disc. Friends of mine rave about the quality of picture, but to me I just don't see shelling out fo a Blu-ray when a DVD works just fine. It would be a completly different argument if DVD's were a simple chess game and Blu-Ray was a holographic chess game were you moved the images to attack each other with your mind. But it's really just that Blu-Ray is just another chess game with checker pieces thrown in. A little different, a little better, but nothing you can't live without.

 

[Aries_Split]

Honestly, I don't even seen the need for HD or Blu-ray discs unless it is to just hold more space,like putting a trilogy to one disc. Friends of mine rave about the quality of picture, but to me I just don't see shelling out fo a Blu-ray when a DVD works just fine. It would be a completly different argument if DVD's were a simple chess game and Blu-Ray was a holographic chess game were you moved the images to attack each other with your mind. But it's really just that Blu-Ray is just another chess game with checker pieces thrown in. A little different, a little better, but nothing you can't live without.

Sounds eerily similar to what people said about DVD.

 

[jacodemon]

Doesn't disc-based optical media degrade over time anyway? I heard (from a friend's uncles' former roommate) that CDs etc should ideally be cold-stored or they have about 20 years before the reflective bit degrades and can no longer be read...

So the media has an inbuilt obselescence beyond the planned product cycle and into actual physical lifespan...?

If that is the case, and I don't know of anyone keeping their discs in the freezer, isn't optical storage just a cocksuck in the medium-long term?