752 replies to this topic

[AndrewW]

momaw, on Jul 7 2007, 09:59 AM, said:

Clearly bu-ray are selling more discs, but at a 5:1 player advantage, a 2:1 sales advantage must be somewhat concerning

HD DVD fanboy

there you go, I beat Jace to it.

Andrew.

[Highjinx]

momaw, on Jul 7 2007, 09:59 AM, said:

Clearly bu-ray are selling more discs, but at a 5:1 player advantage, a 2:1 sales advantage must be somewhat concerning

Well, since many here consider the PS3 to be a mere game console, that would not be bought(much) to play Blu Ray movie disks and that Blu Ray stand alone players are much less than the number Hd-Dvd players out there, it must be somewhat concerning to the Hd-Dvd camp that more Blu Ray disks are being sold with less players .......................

[AndrewW]

Highjinx, on Jul 7 2007, 03:54 PM, said:

Well, since many here consider the PS3 to be a mere game console, that would not be bought(much) to play Blu Ray movie disks and that Blu Ray stand alone players are much less than the number Hd-Dvd players out there, it must be somewhat concerning to the Hd-Dvd camp that more Blu Ray disks are being sold with less players .......................

ahh the old double count.

when we want to crow about BD player numbers, we'll count the PS3s.

When we want to crow about BD disc attach rates, we'll just neglect to count PS3s (I mean they're only games consoles, right ?)

So HJ, how well does it pay to be on the Phase Hydra payroll ?

[momaw]

AndrewW, on Jul 7 2007, 08:15 PM, said:

ahh the old double count.

when we want to crow about BD player numbers, we'll count the PS3s.

When we want to crow about BD disc attach rates, we'll just neglect to count PS3s (I mean they're only games consoles, right ?)

So HJ, how well does it pay to be on the Phase Hydra payroll ?

oh my Andrew, they sure want their cake and eat it too.  Either the PS3 counts as a BD player and should be seen as a home media hub (as a certain someone has been claiming for near on a year now) or it is just a games machine (your quote seems to indicate that is the current stance for this jokester).  Personally I see it as purely a BD player these days.  To be a games console, it would need, like.....games.

My previous comment regarding sales for the install base was merely an observation, not some sinister attempt to promote that other format.  Obviously they have their own problems as well.

[marcusd]

Some more creative accounting in favour of BD, some people have too much spare time.

http://blog.pixelper...tions.com/?p=54

[ajm]

Just checking that I've got a handle on this.  

The big brains of internet blogs now see the "war" thus:

The delays in designing and manufacturing an 'on-paper' advantage for BD now amount to nought.
Brand names on BD side of the paper and on BD players aren't going to win it.
Region coding and other anti-consumer methods have no bearing.
Price premiums based on percieved quality not physical quality count for nothing.

It all boils down to who has signed up the most content?  

Am I the only one who thinks these people are not into putting the consumers interests first when voicing their public support for the one format?

[The_Preacher1973]

ajm, on Jul 9 2007, 04:16 PM, said:

It all boils down to who has signed up the most content?

Well, yeah. Otherwise we'd just unplug all the inputs on our displays and watch snow.

[Foggy]

The_Preacher1973, on Jul 9 2007, 04:25 PM, said:

Well, yeah. Otherwise we'd just unplug all the inputs on our displays and watch snow.

[must resist obligatory big brother jibe]

[The_Preacher1973]

marcusd, on Jul 9 2007, 03:38 PM, said:

Some more creative accounting in favour of BD, some people have too much spare time.

http://blog.pixelper...tions.com/?p=54

And if you want to add to the discussion on it you can go to the thread here:

DTV Forum - By The Numbers Thread

[ajm]

The_Preacher1973, on Jul 9 2007, 04:25 PM, said:

Well, yeah. Otherwise we'd just unplug all the inputs on our displays and watch snow.

  Um... yeah.  The point I was (trying) to make is that we can now take away all the FUD about Blu-ray being the "better" product and just concentrate on the true facts of this "war" which is that the side that locks up the content will prevail.

That's fine when all things are equal.

But when I hear bloggers like Bill Hunt trying to say they're giving comment with readers' best interests at heart I nearly choke.  I don't think these people have ever really asked themselves, are more expensive players, fluid specs, built in obsolescence and more restrictive terms of use best for consumers when the viewing experience is the same?

[The_Preacher1973]

Neilsen BRD/HD-DVD Videoscan Numbers for Week Ending 8th July 2007:

Week 66/34
Year to Date 67/33
Since Inception 60/40

I'll add the full top sellers list later. There's more interesting numbers in those than in the generic numbers above.

[JoshH]

The_Preacher1973, on Jul 14 2007, 10:10 AM, said:

Neilsen BRD/HD-DVD Videoscan Numbers for Week Ending 8th July 2007:

Week 66/34
Year to Date 67/33
Since Inception 60/40

I'll add the full top sellers list later. There's more interesting numbers in those than in the generic numbers above.

I would like to see some firm numbers on the ratio of HD / BD discs sold to the installed player base out there.

[The_Preacher1973]

Top Sellers Sales Ratios for WE 8th July

1. Ghost Rider BD 100.00
2. POTC: DMC BD 90.46
3. Planet Earth BD 82.35
4. The Patriot BD 82.30
5. POTC: COTBP BD 80.00
6. Apocalypto BD 75.26
7. Casino Royale BD 75.05
8. Bridge to Teribithia BD 73.83
9. Blood Diamond HD 70.10
10. Planet Earth HD 56.94

xx Black Snake Moan BD 46.38
xx Batman Begins HD 37.65
xx Untouchables HD 31.63
xx Blood Diamond BD 29.75
xx Black Snake Moan HD 29.74

The top 8 positions all go to BR discs.


YTD Best Sellers Sales Ratios As of June 24:

1. Casino Royale BD 100.00
2. The Departed BD 69.67
3. Planet Earth HD 44.56
4. PotC: Dead Man's Chest BD 44.54
5. The Departed HD 42.42
6. PotC: Curse of the Black Pearl BD 38.85
7. The Prestige BD 38.82
8. Apocalypto BD 36.58
9. Night at the Museum BD 34.88
10. Ghost Rider BD 34.33
XX. Planet Earth BD 31.93


8 out of the Top 10 for BR.

[yorac]

Interesting when you consider the Planet Earth figures for both formats on a YTD basis, it almost makes a mockery of the trends IMO, would like to see actual disc numbers before commenting further

[AndrewW]

reported

[The_Preacher1973]

yorac, on Jul 16 2007, 02:21 PM, said:

Interesting when you consider the Planet Earth figures for both formats on a YTD basis, it almost makes a mockery of the trends IMO, would like to see actual disc numbers before commenting further

Yes. Planet Earth is certainly the most interesting. It's been outperforming BR consistently since its introduction which you can see in the YTD figures where it has outsold BR by about 50%. When you look at this weeks numbers it's very interesting with the BR version outselling the HD-DVD for the first time and by about 44% (nearly a complete reversal).

The numbers for the week for The Patriot (BR) and Blood Diamond (HD-DVD) are also interesting. Both of these titles made their debut during this weeks data. Newer releases have consistently sold better than older catalogue releases across both formats yet The Patriot outsold Blood Diamond by about 15%.

I'd like a few more weeks of data before making any conclusions on this as volumes are still very small and can swing pretty wildly from week to week with just small changes.

I'm expecting another fairly quiet week for BR next week (no major changes in market share) but with a bit of a surge in the week after. Time will tell but at this stage I can't see any good news for HD-DVD in the short term. They have to continue with their strategy of getting more cheaper stand alone units into homes and using their higher attach rates to pick up some market share before retailers decide that the outcome of the war is a foregone conclusion. This is a slower, more measured strategy than Sony's attempt at a quick win using the PS3 but not without its risks.

Still, with the HDM market still being considerably less than 1% of the DVD market, I don't see any side calling it quits in the near future. This is going to run for a while yet.

[momaw]

It's not the raw numbers but the profit attributable to the total sales.  One format is considerably cheaper to master and replicate with far cheaper medium costs.  These numbers do not take that into account.  Profit is the ultimate decider in the board room.  The least effort for the maximum return wins out every time.

The_Preacher1973, on Jul 16 2007, 09:53 PM, said:

Still, with the HDM market still being considerably less than 1% of the DVD market, I don't see any side calling it quits in the near future. This is going to run for a while yet.

And with blu-rays big gun the PS3 having already made it's impact, a 1% market share says the format war is far from over, if it ever will be.  My money is on two formats.

[tobes]

momaw, on Jul 16 2007, 09:59 PM, said:

It's not the raw numbers but the profit attributable to the total sales.  One format is considerably cheaper to master and replicate with far cheaper medium costs.  These numbers do not take that into account.  Profit is the ultimate decider in the board room.  The least effort for the maximum return wins out every time.

Mo, that may be more myth than fact.
Here are two articles to read thru:
blu-ray-vs-hd-dvd-replication-costs-revealed
blu-ray-vs-hd-dvd-replication-costs-analyzed-again

Here is the summary of findings:

"Blu-ray does NOT cost significantly more than HD DVD

Using the pricing data and example calculations in this article we can make a few conclusions on replication costs at this plant. Replicating on HD DVD SL (15GB) will always be the most inexpensive option at any quantity. Replicating on Blu-ray DL (50GB) will always be the most expensive option. But the pricing of the other two media types (HD DVD DL and Blu-ray SL) is where the most interesting information is. Looking at the pricing and calculated data we can conclude that replicating content on the Blu-ray format is not significantly more costly than HD DVD. In fact, replicating on Blu-ray SL (25GB) can actually be less expensive than replicating on HD DVD DL (30GB). Hopefully this article will help to dispell the myth that Blu-ray disc replication is significantly more expensive than HD DVD replication......."

If you have better/more accurate information please share it.

[kamma]

tobes, on Jul 16 2007, 11:09 PM, said:

Mo, that may be more myth than fact.
Here are two articles to read thru:
blu-ray-vs-hd-dvd-replication-costs-revealed
blu-ray-vs-hd-dvd-replication-costs-analyzed-again

Here is the summary of findings:

"Blu-ray does NOT cost significantly more than HD DVD

Using the pricing data and example calculations in this article we can make a few conclusions on replication costs at this plant. Replicating on HD DVD SL (15GB) will always be the most inexpensive option at any quantity. Replicating on Blu-ray DL (50GB) will always be the most expensive option. But the pricing of the other two media types (HD DVD DL and Blu-ray SL) is where the most interesting information is. Looking at the pricing and calculated data we can conclude that replicating content on the Blu-ray format is not significantly more costly than HD DVD. In fact, replicating on Blu-ray SL (25GB) can actually be less expensive than replicating on HD DVD DL (30GB). Hopefully this article will help to dispell the myth that Blu-ray disc replication is significantly more expensive than HD DVD replication......."

If you have better/more accurate information please share it.

what about setup costs?

[momaw]

tobes, on Jul 16 2007, 11:09 PM, said:

Mo, that may be more myth than fact.
Here are two articles to read thru:
blu-ray-vs-hd-dvd-replication-costs-revealed
blu-ray-vs-hd-dvd-replication-costs-analyzed-again

Here is the summary of findings:

"Blu-ray does NOT cost significantly more than HD DVD

Using the pricing data and example calculations in this article we can make a few conclusions on replication costs at this plant. Replicating on HD DVD SL (15GB) will always be the most inexpensive option at any quantity. Replicating on Blu-ray DL (50GB) will always be the most expensive option. But the pricing of the other two media types (HD DVD DL and Blu-ray SL) is where the most interesting information is. Looking at the pricing and calculated data we can conclude that replicating content on the Blu-ray format is not significantly more costly than HD DVD. In fact, replicating on Blu-ray SL (25GB) can actually be less expensive than replicating on HD DVD DL (30GB). Hopefully this article will help to dispell the myth that Blu-ray disc replication is significantly more expensive than HD DVD replication......."

If you have better/more accurate information please share it.

More and more BD discs are moving towards dual layer.  This analysis goes for the cheapest BD disc and compares to the most expensive HD DVD, and BD is still more expensive.  Very simplistic analysis.  The comments section on the same pages is filled with disputes.

I think there is more too it than a few "phone quotes" can reveal.

If the boys in the industry (ie studios, etc) are saying the difference is significant (as they have been in the insiders thread at AVS), then I'll go with that.

As I have said before, none of us know what the real profit margin to the studios is, and that is what they will base their decisions on.

[tobes]

kamma, on Jul 16 2007, 11:36 PM, said:

what about setup costs?

Setup costs here discussed at the beginning of the second article.
Worth noting that setup costs are waived for large orders. The costs for smaller runs fall into line with the conclusion posted above.

Or are you talking about Plant setup costs?
No doubt production lines for BD manufacture cost money to build - but the studios ordering disc runs are not concerned with these setup costs (unless they happen to own/have share in the actual production plant). They're only concerned with what they're being charged for the batch of discs. Since the prices for BD25 and HD30 are roughly the same, it doesn't appear that higher plant setup costs have adversely effected the wholesale pricing for BD disc runs.

[tobes]

momaw, on Jul 16 2007, 11:55 PM, said:

As I have said before, none of us know what the real profit margin to the studios is, and that is what they will base their decisions on.

Exactly. So your original statement which proclaimed higher profit margins for HD titles due to lower disc costs is simply uninformed speculation.

I think any pro HD argument that drags in profit margin as a 'winning' factor is on very thin ice. Do you wonder why no manufacturer other than Toshiba has produced a standalone HD-DVD player?

[momaw]

tobes, on Jul 17 2007, 12:06 AM, said:

Exactly. So your original statement which proclaimed higher profit margins for HD titles due to lower disc costs is simply uninformed speculation.

I think any pro HD argument that drags in profit margin as a 'winning' factor is on very thin ice. Do you wonder why no manufacturer other than Toshiba has produced a standalone HD-DVD player?

woah, back up on the attitude there fella, or did you selectively miss this part of my post:

Quote

If the boys in the industry (ie studios, etc) are saying the difference is significant (as they have been in the insiders thread at AVS), then I'll go with that.

[tobes]

momaw, on Jul 17 2007, 12:10 AM, said:

woah, back up on the attitude there fella, or did you selectively miss this part of my post:

If the boys in the industry (ie studios, etc) are saying the difference is significant (as they have been in the insiders thread at AVS), then I'll go with that.

I'm sorry if you perceive my response as having offensive 'attitude'.
I read it, but not knowing who "the boys" are, nor having any gauge of what "difference is significant" means - it read a bit like industry scuttlebutt. Where are the figures?

[momaw]

tobes, on Jul 17 2007, 12:25 AM, said:

I'm sorry if you perceive my response as having offensive 'attitude'.
I read it, but not knowing who "the boys" are, nor having any gauge of what "difference is significant" means - it read a bit like industry scuttlebutt. Where are the figures?

Here's some info.  Your own article states BD50's are more expensive to produce

Quote

I was wondering about Blu-ray statistics and came up with an idea to create a simple site that allows all kinds of filtering and sorting, giving stats on the filtered selection.

The site can be seen at http://www.blu-raystats.com/.

Using the filtering I have noticed the following interesting statistics:

Almost 2/3 of the releases this year have been BD50s.

Sony has released more BD50s than BD25s since inception.

So the article bases the argument that blu-ray costs the same by comparing (via "phone quotes" - yeah reliable much) the cheapest and least used blu-ray disc against the most expensive HD DVD disc.  It admits BD50's cost alot more.  Well most releases these days are on BD50.

The problem with these figures is 1. the way they were collected and 2. the way they were analyzed.  BD25's are much cheaper to produce now, but in the early days this was not the case.  And this is when most of these BD25's in the market now were released.

I don't really wanna argue with you tobes, so I'm gonna leave my side of it at that.  I just don't agree with the sampling or data analysis used.