You know what held up LD? COST, and we aren't talking Blu-ray style cost here we are talking Maserati style cost here. The machines during production life NEVER dropped below the $700 mark, and Discs never dropped below $60. At the time Home Electronics high end started at around $600, in comparison to now hovering at around $1000. You want to know what the price of a low end Blu-ray player ($160) would be using the low end LaserDisc standards, over $1000. Would you spend that much on Blu-ray just to play the movies? Blu-ray didn't even start selling stand alone units until they hit the $600 price range and that was still considered a little pricey for most. The reason why Studios continued to support LD druing all that time was because it was widely popular in Japan and didn't cost that much more to produce for the US and European markets, even if it only had 3 million consumers. Blu-ray on the other hand is failing because of the fact that unlike LD, which was a major upgrade from VHS and BetaMax, it is not a major upgrade in comparison to the dominant format, the price is around that of DVD at launch but DVD at launch was a noticeable difference from VHS, LD had no chance because it was a rich toy for the most part and was bulky to boot. Try comparing it to valid technology, you can't because VHS and DVD both were far more stable at the 3 year mark in their life than Blu-ray, and don't forget the purchasing population has dramatically increased since 1997 and saying its made further penetration than DVD in the same period is like comparing Gone With the Wind and The Wizard of Oz ticket sales to Titanic's, STUPID, the comparison cannot be made without proper adjustments to the market. If studios aren't seeing a profit and something better comes out with more potential the least profitably market gets dropped... In the case of VHS vs LaserDisc DVD came out and LD was axed. Do you even watch where the industry is going or do you just come on here looking at what new is being said to boost Blu-ray's confidence? The market is stagnant for Blu-ray and there are dozens of companies lining up to provide some source for HD streaming content. Which do you think is more likely to be adopted, a technology based on 40 year old research using new processes with very little adaptability or a technology which has proven to work based on 10 year old research which can be adapted according to need?
This survey engadget is doing is as stupid and inaccurate as the one they are trying to disprove, and its clear that people who are clearly afraid that there was no real winning format in the HD Disc war are clambering about like there's no tomorrow. I find it odd that Engadget has since hired new people to carry the banner of Blu-ray since their old banner carriers have realized that the battle between HD DVD and Blu-ray was completely pointless in the end.
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
3dpenguin @ Jun 27th 2009 5:02PM
You've got to be kidding... or stupid.
You know what held up LD? COST, and we aren't talking Blu-ray style cost here we are talking Maserati style cost here. The machines during production life NEVER dropped below the $700 mark, and Discs never dropped below $60. At the time Home Electronics high end started at around $600, in comparison to now hovering at around $1000. You want to know what the price of a low end Blu-ray player ($160) would be using the low end LaserDisc standards, over $1000. Would you spend that much on Blu-ray just to play the movies? Blu-ray didn't even start selling stand alone units until they hit the $600 price range and that was still considered a little pricey for most. The reason why Studios continued to support LD druing all that time was because it was widely popular in Japan and didn't cost that much more to produce for the US and European markets, even if it only had 3 million consumers. Blu-ray on the other hand is failing because of the fact that unlike LD, which was a major upgrade from VHS and BetaMax, it is not a major upgrade in comparison to the dominant format, the price is around that of DVD at launch but DVD at launch was a noticeable difference from VHS, LD had no chance because it was a rich toy for the most part and was bulky to boot. Try comparing it to valid technology, you can't because VHS and DVD both were far more stable at the 3 year mark in their life than Blu-ray, and don't forget the purchasing population has dramatically increased since 1997 and saying its made further penetration than DVD in the same period is like comparing Gone With the Wind and The Wizard of Oz ticket sales to Titanic's, STUPID, the comparison cannot be made without proper adjustments to the market. If studios aren't seeing a profit and something better comes out with more potential the least profitably market gets dropped... In the case of VHS vs LaserDisc DVD came out and LD was axed. Do you even watch where the industry is going or do you just come on here looking at what new is being said to boost Blu-ray's confidence? The market is stagnant for Blu-ray and there are dozens of companies lining up to provide some source for HD streaming content. Which do you think is more likely to be adopted, a technology based on 40 year old research using new processes with very little adaptability or a technology which has proven to work based on 10 year old research which can be adapted according to need?
This survey engadget is doing is as stupid and inaccurate as the one they are trying to disprove, and its clear that people who are clearly afraid that there was no real winning format in the HD Disc war are clambering about like there's no tomorrow. I find it odd that Engadget has since hired new people to carry the banner of Blu-ray since their old banner carriers have realized that the battle between HD DVD and Blu-ray was completely pointless in the end.