Jump to content

Blu-Ray/HD-DVD Battle May Not Matter


mas
 Share

Recommended Posts

With all of the attention focused upon Warner Bros.' announcement to support Blu-Ray, the real market development story may have been missed.

With the maturation in streaming technology combined with a partnership in major players, a major manufacturer of streaming management software, and a legal firewall protecting managed copying of downloads to disks by consumers utilizing the Chinese alternative to HD and BR, CH-DVD We may be seeing an exclipsing of the hard media distribution model, rendering the Blu-Ray - HD-DVD battle for the most part, moot.

Two major high-def streaming providers become partners



http://www.betanews.com/article/Two_major_highdef_streaming_providers_become_partners/1199465372



By Scott Fulton



January 4, 2008, 12:04 PM



While Blu-ray and HD DVD have missed
their window of opportunity for resolving the high-def format dilemma, CES 2008
could see two of the biggest names in the high-def streaming field
demonstrating a realistic, connected alternative.



The alternative vehicle for high
definition movies on home consoles -- if there is ever to be one -- is the
streaming, on-demand, programmable network. Today that vehicle could be a big
step closer to reality, and just in time for next week's CES, with an agreement
between two services to forge one service: CinemaNow's streaming movie download
service will soon feature Macrovision's platform technology.



Since the summer of 2006, CinemaNow
has tried to operate a fledgling streaming movie service pretty much on its
own, in competition with Netflix and Movielink (now part of Blockbuster), both
of which already use the Macrovision platform. Last year, CinemaNow became
embroiled in a tangle with the DVD Copy Control Association, which attempted to
enact a provision in its new license that would prohibit any kind of licensed
copy of a DVD. CinemaNow's value proposition is based on the customer's ability
to burn and own what he downloads, though up until now, only a fraction of its
movies could be legally burned.



But the DVD CCA's attempt to
prohibit that provision failed, due in large part to an agreement between the
association and Kaleidescape, a company whose idea was to provide jukebox-like
kiosks for customers to buy, burn, and own legal DVDs. CinemaNow benefitted
from that agreement by being able to legally provide one of the key payoffs of
its original value proposition, leading to a software partnership with Roxio
parent Sonic Solutions..



With Blockbuster in financial trouble,
and with Macrovision's unprecedented move to to take control of Gemstar, the
company that publishes TV Guide, the pact announced today could be seen as the
true launch of a very viable brand in the streaming field. Macrovision has
dabbled with the idea of its own download service itself, but earlier this year
chose to focus its efforts on moving set-top boxes with its protection
technology into more households. The Gemstar purchase gives Macrovision the
leading brand in the scheduling department of its big picture, and now
the CinemaNow partnership could give it the last piece of the puzzle for a
truly completed streaming platform.



The challenge now for Macrovision is
to implement the managed copy provisions - the way for consumers to make limited numbers
of licensed copies of their videos that they can own permanently -- that
continue to weigh down progress in the blue-laser market two years after the
formal introduction of its two formats. With a court now mandating that the DVD
CCA cannot legally prevent licensed copying, CinemaNow and Macrovision are at
least somewhat protected by a legal firewall.



And with Sonic on their side, they
may be able -- as the two companies indicated in a statement this morning -- to
implement a service that legally and technologically enables downloading of
high-definition content on-demand to a hard drive, and then burning that
content from a hard drive to disc either from a PC or dedicated console. Again,
this is where China comes in. If it decides to let its manufacturers sell
CH-DVD blue-laser burners in the US, that country could effectively cut off HD
DVD's and Blu-ray's last toehold on the future of the high-def market: the
likelihood of one or both formats becoming widely implemented in DV-Rs.



Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mas, I have DEEP reservations about any streaming movie services due to America's horrible broadband infastructure. Implement this in Japan or other first world countries without a problem. However here in the states, I've seen reports where we cannot support it on a massive scale. It can be assumed this too would have to remain a small niche product.

And as far as new formats, ma an pa Baker down the road can come up with any new device they woudl like. They still have to convince the studios to back them through payouts (500 Million for Warner to go Blu) or promises of security (HDCP via HDMI?) to get them on board.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest srobak

Yeah, this is a ways off for sure. High def video + 2 channel audio is something like 8Mb/s I think??? which is still out of reach for all DSL providors and at the high end of service for most cable providors. Even if capacities were to double overnight, you still have to take network congestion into account, and the only way to get around that is via buffering. Buffering means disk storage means capturability, not to mention it is going to take an extremely long time to implement something like this and expect it to replace previously existing technologies... just like vhs, just like dvd... and just like a lot of the new technologies you keep bringing up on here, mas. :) People are not going to rush out and buy the gear they need to hook up this kind of service to their HD displays in droves... just isn't going to happen.

You kinda already have this service anyhow... HD On Demand... streamed, buffered, broadband. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You can debate market penetration if you like, but not available bandwidth!

Where do you guys get this information? I suspect it is based solely upon 'feelings'.

The fact is that the industry in the US is OVERBUILT with regards to capacity, with the percentage of dark fiber at very high levels!

In fact, the state of dark fiber is so high that it literally almost drove Owens-Corning, the leading manufacturer of fiber, within a fiber's width of going out of business! They even had to sell their Corningware line!

Not only that, but you are saying that the exisiting online market covered by telcos and cable companies is insufficient to support a movie distribution model. Hmmmm. So in other words, you are saying that the existing market that supports cable TV and current Internet access is insufficient to support Internet access and Cable TV as they are dependent upon the very same market. Newsflash, you don't need ubiquitous broadband access to 100% of the avaiable marketbase to succeed.

And the contention that "People are not going to rush out and buy the gear they need to hook up this kind of service to their HD displays in droves?" Yup, who is going to rush out and buy a computer and Internet access! And the use of converters has prevented cable TV companies from succeeding as well! NOT! And the need for a receiver or DISH/DirectTV - nope, it will never happen! LOL

The fact is that you wouldn't even necessarily need broadband access! It is entirely reasonable to order a movie in the morning and come back home in the late afternoon and view it in the evening. Not everyone absolutely needs instant real time access! This is like me arguing that no one would tolerate 1-3 day mail delivery times for Netflix rentals or, heaven forbid, to get off their posteriors to drive down to a Blockbuster only to wonder why the movie they wanted is 'out of stock'.

And where do you get that data size determines transfer rates for storage!? To download a movie you NEED 8MB/s capabilities? They are not even trying to stream so that you can watch in real time!

Unfortunately these responses don't reflect what the article even says! Did you even read the article? Why do I get the feeling that you simply skimmed the article's title and simply proceeded to respond with personal 'feelings', as the responses are non sequitar with much of the article's substance and market realities!

Are you even aware of Netflix's recent announcement? And we all ealize that software companies are going out of business utilizing the technology as well. LOL And how many are even aware of China's development role in an alternative blue diode DVD disk technology that will drive a market MUCH larger than what BR/HDDVD sees now?

Look, when you folks want to address real proposals made and not simply your imagined fantasy scenario based upon conjecture and misinformation, we can talk! Until then, read and learn.

[;)]

Yup, online delivery is absurd. Only Bill Gates and MS would make such an absurd assumption...oh wait...they did! ...And now they require online authentication by default.

ROFLMAO

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The fact is that you wouldn't even necessarily need broadband access! It is entirely reasonable to order a movie in the morning and come back home in the late afternoon and view it in the evening.

Perhaps - not here to debate that. Just wanted to mention that if an average movie (with extras) takes up about 6GB on a DVD, you'd need about 9 hours to download it on a 1.5mb DSL connection (which is probably what the average DSL-equipped home has these days). I realize that doesn't take into consideration any additional compression techniques that might be utilized, but it also doesn't take into consideration retranmissions/restarts that might be needed during a 9 hour period. However, given I wait 3 days to cycle a Netflix movie, it's not unreasonable to think I'd wait a day to download one.

OTOH, those file sizes are not High Definition - how long would that take?

(Here's the simple calculator tool I used: http://www.ibeast.com/content/tools/band-calc.asp)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest srobak
You can debate market penetration if you like, but not available bandwidth!

Couldn't agree more.

Where do you guys get this information? I suspect it is based solely upon 'feelings'.

It's called pricing and availability research... something I do on a weekly basis. When was the last time you specced out a multi-gigapop center to be built?

The fact is that the industry in the US is OVERBUILT with regards to capacity, with the percentage of dark fiber at very high levels!

Capacity (infrastructure) is entirely different from high bandwidth availability. Dark fiber is only within price-reach of your highest tier regional and national service providors, the government and universities - the latter two of which is because taxpayers pay for it. Have you any concept how much it costs to bring in gigapop capacity to an area and then service even a small number of households (something around say 100,000 units) with a miniscule 10Mb to the door (DOCSIS 1.1, which is what 90% of what cable-based Internet households have... think about those replacement costs)? Something like that doesn't even cast a light mist on a metropolitan area and then you have to start taking into consideration things like replacing end-user equipment (modems, routers, whatever) of which the providors will need to eat some of the cost of pass it on to the customers - who are already whining about prices - they damn sure aren't going to want to pay substantially more. That's pie-in-the-sky thinking, and not based on anything historical. Cable modem speed in excess of 3Mb has been available in massive market since the NCSA lost funding for the project back in 94, yet was so bloody expensive that only large companies was buying the service until the early 2000's - 8 years later.

In fact, the state of dark fiber is so high that it literally almost drove Owens-Corning, the leading manufacturer of fiber, within a fiber's width of going out of business! They even had to sell their Corningware line!

WHAT? They sold it because it was worth a truckload of cash which they needed in order to keep a lock on the explosive market of fiber by building more plants to keep up with the demand. They were not at risk of going out of business by any stretch. 15 years ago multi-mode, glass fiber cost nearly a hundred bucks a meter. Today it is a few cents... best move they ever made was to drop the prices to something reasonable and now everyone and their parent company has long-haul fiber runs between floors, buildings, plants, and even between racks in the same room. That doesn't even begin to include the POTS infrastructure rework. OC has made out like a bandit on the whole deal - 15 years ago they were only hampering themselves, as was the rest of the market.

Not only that, but you are saying that the exisiting online market covered by telcos and cable companies is insufficient to support a movie distribution model. Hmmmm. So in other words, you are saying that the existing market that supports cable TV and current Internet access is insufficient to support Internet access and Cable TV as they are dependent upon the very same market. Newsflash, you don't need ubiquitous broadband access to 100% of the avaiable marketbase to succeed.

No, but you do need it to at least 30%, and this has been proven time and again. Why do you think there is no genuine geographical competition between cable providors? Because then nobody wins. The existing online market IS sufficient to support an movie distribution model - if there was demand for it. Simply - there is not, at least beyond On Demand and HD On Demand which is already there. The major flaw I see with most of your posts regarding emerging technologies is that you seem to think that the customer/consumer base is a utopian entity that will just jump on the bandwagon of whatever the lastest research bug is, and hand out money blindly for it. Sorry - this is not at all the case. Real World Usable GPS just became the rave and affordable in the last 5 years, however I sit down the hall from one of the key guys who helped to develop it with Boeing 25 years ago, and those birds have been circling the globe for nearly a quarter century. The Internet itself runs on horribly antiquated technology developed in the 70's, but has only become a household item and word in the last 10 years. There are dozens upon dozens of technologies that have similar track records which you seem to blanketly ignore and keep trying to push that the hottest item in R/D labs is gonna be flying off the shelves in the next 6 months. Sorry man - but it just aint gonna happen. The two biggest things counting against it are demand and pricepoint... the same two things that have killed or slowed *every* evolving technology since the beginning of time.

And the contention that "People are not going to rush out and buy the gear they need to hook up this kind of service to their HD displays in droves?" Yup, who is going to rush out and buy a computer and Internet access!

Everyone here who wants to watch blockbuster high def movies on your computer screen while sitting at your desk or on a laptop through chincy laptops speakers (even the models with subs in the bases) - please post "Aye" now. Now - mas - you and I might have our computers hooked up via DVI and SPDIF to our 1080i/p and 7.1 systems - but that does not speak for 95% of the market out there!

And the use of converters has prevented cable TV companies from succeeding as well! NOT!

Of course not. Without converters - the entire cable thing would have flopped. I still have an old SA converter with the 11 channel buttons and 3-position line switch.

And the need for a receiver or DISH/DirectTV - nope, it will never happen! LOL

It damn near *didn't* happen. THink back a while here with me... when 1 out of every 15000 homes had an 8 to 12 foot metal dish in their back yard, costing $3k, required contractors and building codes to run your cabling, and you needed a box to move the antenna, another to tune it, and still another (each at a couple grand) to decrypt pay channels which you had to pay 100 to 150 a month EACH for. Cable stifled that market and pretty much eliminated it before it ever really got a chance to spread it's wings. Stationary dish technology that is in households today (the equipment for which you get for free) also existed nearly 30 years ago. Why wasn't it in your home back then? Ohhhhhhhh... it wasn't widely available, didn't have any carriers, and costed a bloody fortune - that's right. Same reason for all other technologies.

It is entirely reasonable to order a movie in the morning and come back home in the late afternoon and view it in the evening. Not everyone absolutely needs instant real time access!

Good luck convincing them of that. I might not, and you might not - but again - 95% of the rest of this country - modern world for that matter - wants what they want, and they want it NOW. Sit-down dinners are rapidly on the decline while drive-throughs can't get built fast enough. You REALLY think you are gonna sell this whole "buy it now, watch it later" pitch? Good luck!

This is like me arguing that no one would tolerate 1-3 day mail delivery times for Netflix rentals or, heaven forbid, to get off their posteriors to drive down to a Blockbuster only to wonder why the movie they wanted is 'out of stock'.

Blockbusters are closing faster than you can keep up. Those that are still around have taken a pretty big hit to their available libraries. Mom and pop video stores are all but history except in your small towns. With On Demand becoming more commonplace and less of a "feature", rental days are numbered. I give it... 5 years before Blockbuster is history, or is simply a name type endorsement kinda how "Chi-Chi's" and "Cigarette Boat" is today.

They are not even trying to stream so that you can watch in real time!

Which is precisely why it won't work.

And we all ealize that software companies are going out of business utilizing the technology as well. LOL

Completely wrong context. Nobody expects to pop a CD into a computer and be able to play a game 3 seconds later. That day is LOOOOOONG gone. Now users fully expect to put a disc in or download an installation package, then run it through a half dozen updates, an then maybe be able to play it. You really think the liesure-time TV viewers are going to accept that? Good luck with that. People on this very forum whine about how long it takes to load up a DVD or BR/HD disc, you really think they are going to accept what equates to "delayed telecasting" when they can pop in the disc or On Demand it instantly? Okay...

And how many are even aware of China's development role in an alternative blue diode DVD disk technology that will drive a market MUCH larger than what BR/HDDVD sees now?

Again - R/D does NOT drive the market. What manufacturers are willing to embark on and what consumers are willing to pay for and how MUCH they are willing to pay for it DOES. History has proven this over and over in the technological realm.

Look, when you folks want to address real proposals made and not simply your imagined fantasy scenario based upon conjecture and misinformation, we can talk! Until then, read and learn.

Couldn't agree more... *addressing* "RFP's" is one thing... putting a flag in the ground - and stating it will be the next sliced bread in 6 months and will be implemented in every household across the land is something else entirely... and is Utopian. I live on Earth however - and while your head may be elsewhere - so do you. You want to predict the future? Look at the past.

Yup, online delivery is absurd. Only Bill Gates and MS would make such an absurd assumption...oh wait...they did! ...And now they require online authentication by default.

That swizzle-stick also said that 640k of RAM ought to be enough for anyone, and since the very day he made that statement, BG and MS has also been the PIONEER of pushing resource demands through the bloody stratosphere. You want to know what is really gonna happen with anything? Just listen to MS... it has historically been the exact OPPOSITE of MS's initial statement for any given item.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest srobak

Blockbusters are closing faster than you can keep up. Those that are still around have taken a pretty big hit to their available libraries. Mom and pop video stores are all but history except in your small towns. With On Demand becoming more commonplace and less of a "feature", rental days are numbered. I give it... 5 years before Blockbuster is history, or is simply a name type endorsement kinda how "Chi-Chi's" and "Cigarette Boat" is today.

I need to amend this...

Blockbusters are closing faster than you can keep up. Those that re still around have taken a pretty big hit to their available libraries. Mom and pop video stores are all but history except in your small towns. With On Demand and rent-by-mail (NetFlix, Blockbuster, etc) becoming more commonplace and less of a "feature", walk-in rental days are numbered for large companies such as Blockbuster. I give it... 5 years before walk-in Blockbusters are history (etc...)

Sorry bout that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That swizzle-stick also said that 640k of RAM ought to be enough for anyone, and since the very day he made that statement, BG and MS has also been the PIONEER of pushing resource demands through the bloody stratosphere. You want to know what is really gonna happen with anything? Just listen to MS... it has historically been the exact OPPOSITE of MS's initial statement for any given item.

haha....Bill denies ever having said that. On one interview, he said this...

"I've said some stupid things and some wrong things, but not that.
No one involved in computers would ever say that a certain amount of
memory is enough for all time."

"Meanwhile, I keep bumping into that
silly quotation attributed to me that says 640K of memory is enough.
There's never a citation; the quotation just floats like a rumor,
repeated again and again."

Link to comment
Share on other sites




You can
debate market penetration if you like, but not available bandwidth!

Couldn't agree more.


Where do
you guys get this information? I suspect it is based solely upon 'feelings'.

It's called pricing and availability
research... something I do on a weekly basis. When was the last time you
specced out a multi-gigapop center to be built?


Gee, what is that ‘networking’
stuff? I was a staff engineer for Viacom and the development of two way capable
addressable broadband networks (including just a ‘few’ modifications to the data and encryption methods which
transformed the Oak methodology, but I ‘taught’ Zenith in Carlsbad how the
technology worked that resulted in the Z-Tac series of dual mode converters.)
and that lead to DBS in the form of Dish and DirectTV. Oh, and then, in
addition to a few other things, I was
in involved in the internal design and implementation (as well as performing
capacity planning) at IBM for RS/6000SP (in particular) and pSeries installations
utilizing The Switch and The Switch2 as well as the IBM 9077 Switched Routers, and which included ASCI White…You might have heard of Blue Gene. For
what its worth, this family of computers is the most powerful supercomputer on
the planet. Oh, and I was also stuck, I mean 'selected', to certify Intel's SP for Y2K compliance. You don't think they actually develop on Pentiums, do you? But IBM is forbidden to mention this fact! Can you imagine the commercials? "Don't use Intel, use what Intel uses..." Oh, and DeanG might get a hoot from hearing about the crisis expressed by Intel over the use of capacitors in the unit!!!And we were operating at these speeds literally 10 years ago…But hey, I have managed to even hook up my
confuser to the net – albeit with quite a bit of help from my half monkey, half
dog Bombay cat.


But what is more important is an understanding of
the business considerations that
drive the adoption of technology.

The fact is, I have watched, from an intimate first hand perspective, as the various generations of technology have progressed.


The fact
is that the industry in the US is OVERBUILT with regards to capacity,
with the percentage of dark fiber at very high levels!

Capacity (infrastructure) is
entirely different from high bandwidth availability. Dark fiber is only within
price-reach of your highest tier regional and national service providors, the
government and universities - the latter two of which is because taxpayers pay
for it. Have you any concept how much it costs to bring in gigapop
capacity to an area and then service even a small number of households
(something around say 100,000 units) with a miniscule 10Mb to the door (DOCSIS
1.1, which is what 90% of what cable-based Internet households have... think
about those replacement costs)? Something like that doesn't even cast a
light mist on a metropolitan area and then you have to start taking into
consideration things like replacing end-user equipment (modems, routers,
whatever) of which the providors will need to eat some of the cost of pass it
on to the customers - who are already whining about prices - they *** sure
aren't going to want to pay substantially more. That's pie-in-the-sky thinking,
and not based on anything historical. Cable modem speed in excess of 3Mb has
been available in massive market since the NCSA lost funding for the project
back in 94, yet was so bloody expensive that only large companies was buying
the service until the early 2000's - 8 years later.


[quote
user=mas]


Dark fiber is OWNED by
the regional telcos and cable companies as well as the owners of major rights
of way such as the railroad companies! “Within reach?” Who cares? It’s already
there! No one is talking about building a network! What they are proposing uses
existing methods of delivery and ,
for the most part, already existing technology. You were the one maintaining
that they had to have ubiquitous availability of 8MB/s service to each home to
deliver a download, and that is pure hogwash and that they require some fancy
new network!


And universities own
little fiber plant, let alone dark fiber! And I am not sure just how you think
that might impact this discussion at all, anyway! Having taught physics at the
university level, I was involved in the funding battles to just get the campus
wired for what everyone acknowledged was a necessary need! And most of the funds
to do so have been obtained by inclusion in proposals for research grants!
Universities have little or no ownership of dark fiber! Although their research
efforts can often benefit from high capacity networking due to their use of
off-site computing needs.


And I am well aware of
density issues that determine plant builds! I listened to objections just like
yours when with Viacom Engineering we built the first totally addressable two
way broadband network and pioneered the first Pay-Per-View event. And I was
there when we did the new business development model proposing real time security/fire
monitoring when all of the pundits like yourself said it was too costly and
that there was no demand. You’re right, it will never fly!


Service providers
upgrade capacity in response to demand. The capacity and bandwidth is already
there! On an all digital network, the telcos have been realizing a windfall as
they pull out all of the modems (that you are busy upgrading!) as they no
longer need to convert the digital backbone to an analog household without need
to overbuild in response to the last mile problem! (And even Verizon is opting
to do a complete overbuild to provide for a fiber based ‘last mile solution
despite more attractive disruptive technologies such as the wireless last mile
solution provided by technologies such as WiMax. Whether service providers choose to provide
service in low density areas is a totally separate issue, and one that doesn’t
matter at all in this scenario. That market is simply off the map. Digital downloads
to non-serviced areas are going to make no more difference than the lack of
subscriptions matter to the telcos and cable systems.NOW! And if the revenue
predictions are sufficient, they will build out those areas! This issue is moot
with regards to the proposed business model.


Bottomline, network
capacity is not a factor for such a bursty market demand.


And market penetration
is no more an issue than it is for ANY other network based service.



In fact,
the state of dark fiber is so high that it literally almost drove
Owens-Corning, the leading manufacturer of fiber, within a fiber's width
of going out of business! They even had to sell their Corningware line!

WHAT? They sold it because it was
worth a truckload of cash which they needed in order to keep a lock on the
explosive market of fiber by building more plants to keep up with the demand.
They were not at risk of going out of business by any stretch. 15 years ago
multi-mode, glass fiber cost nearly a hundred bucks a meter. Today it is a few
cents... best move they ever made was to drop the prices to something
reasonable and now everyone and their parent company has long-haul fiber runs
between floors, buildings, plants, and even between racks in the same room.
That doesn't even begin to include the POTS infrastructure rework. OC has made
out like a bandit on the whole deal - 15 years ago they were only hampering
themselves, as was the rest of the market.


[quote
user=mas]


Please pardon me as I
am too busy ROFLMAO on this one!


Here is the first
return on a web search :
http://composite.about.com/library/PR/2001/blowens7.htm


http://bagoliefriedman.blogspot.com/2006/10/bankruptcy-court-approves-owens.html


You might note that OC
filed for bankruptcy due to their liability
exposure in regards to asbestos.


“They sold it because it was worth a
truckload of cash which they needed in order to keep a lock on the explosive
market of fiber by building more plants to keep up with the demand. “


From the bust of the dot-com bubble through 2006, the main trend
in the industry has been consolidation of firms and offshoring of manufacturing
to reduce costs.


From Wikipedia, just to quote a source:



Dark fiber for capacity expansion



One reason that dark fiber exists in
well-planned networks is that much of the cost of installing cables is in
so-called civils - the civil
engineering work required in order to get the cables installed. This includes
planning and routing, obtaining permissions, creating ducts and channels for
the cables, and finally installation and connection. This work accounts for
more than 60% of the cost of developing fiber networks, with only a relatively
small proportion actually being invested in the optical fiber cable and
high-tech networking infrastructure.




It therefore makes sense to plan for
and install significantly more fiber than is needed for current demand, to
provide for future expansion and provide for network redundancy in case any of
the cables fail.


Additionally, many fiber optic cable
owners such as railroads or power utilities have always added additional fibers
for lease to other carriers.


In common vernacular, dark fiber may
sometimes still be called "dark" if it's been lit by a fiber lessee
and not the cable's owner.


Dark fiber overcapacity



In the dot-com bubble, a large number
of telephone companies (or telcos)
built optical fiber networks, each with the business plan of cornering the
market in telecommunications by providing a network with sufficient capacity to
take all existing and forecast traffic for the entire region served. This was
based on the assumption that telecoms traffic, particularly data traffic, would
continue to grow exponentially for the foreseeable future.


The
availability of wavelength-division multiplexing further reduced the demand for
fiber by increasing the capacity that could be placed on a single fiber by as
much as a factor of 100. As a result, the wholesale price of data traffic
collapsed. A number of these companies filed for bankruptcy protection, or went
bankrupt, as a result.


Just as with the Railway Mania, the
misfortune of one market sector became the good fortune of another, and this
overcapacity created a new telecommunications market sector.”







Not only
that, but you are saying that the exisiting online market covered by telcos and
cable companies is insufficient to support a movie distribution model.
Hmmmm. So in other words, you are saying that the existing market that supports
cable TV and current Internet access is insufficient to support Internet access
and Cable TV as they are dependent upon the very same market. Newsflash, you
don't need ubiquitous broadband access to 100% of the avaiable marketbase to
succeed.

No, but you do need it to at least
30%, and this has been proven time and again. Why do you think there is no
genuine geographical competition between cable providors? Because then nobody
wins. The existing online market IS sufficient to support an movie
distribution model - if there was demand for it. Simply - there is not, at
least beyond On Demand and HD On Demand which is already there. The major flaw
I see with most of your posts regarding emerging technologies is that you seem
to think that the customer/consumer base is a utopian entity that will just
jump on the bandwagon of whatever the lastest research bug is, and hand out
money blindly for it. Sorry - this is not at all the case. Real World Usable GPS
just became the rave and affordable in the last 5 years, however I sit down the
hall from one of the key guys who helped to develop it with Boeing 25 years
ago, and those birds have been circling the globe for nearly a quarter century.
The Internet itself runs on horribly antiquated technology developed in the
70's, but has only become a household item and word in the last 10 years. There
are dozens upon dozens of technologies that have similar track records which
you seem to blanketly ignore and keep trying to push that the hottest item in
R/D labs is gonna be flying off the shelves in the next 6 months. Sorry man -
but it just aint gonna happen. The two biggest things counting against it are
demand and pricepoint... the same two things that have killed or slowed *every*
evolving technology since the beginning of time.


[quote
user=mas]


“Why do you think there is no
genuine geographical competition between cable providors?”


Easy! For the same reason
it is difficult for any new entry to enter an established market! Has anyone here studied business?

The
tremendous expense to overbuild a network without any revenue until the network
is established is prohibitive! But you miss the point. This has been done by moving to the disruptive
technology called wireless satellite providers, as the cost of labor and
material and the continuing maintenance, and the single LARGEST cable cost
called “pole rental” is simply trumped by cheaper more efficient alternative
delivery methods! And now more efficient wireless network topologies such as
WiMax pose the same disruptive advantages to the wireless cellular providers
that satellite did to land based plant. What drives this is the LOWER total
cost of ownership! Not greater cost! You might want to investigate the concept
of ‘disruptive technology’ and examine the financial advantages implicit in the
model. And like it or not, the trend continues!

And your logic has just succesfully(sic) eliminated the possibility of cell phones entering the telephone market! As they have 'overbuilt' the traditional landline market using wireless delivery with reduced plant costs! And 'wireless cable' delivered via satlellite has done this to traditional land based cable as well!

And let's speak for a bit regarding a current topic that is even closer to the point! VERIZON!

They are infact retrofitting their entire land based plant with their 30 yeat too late last mile solution. Meaning tht they are going back and completely overbuiling a fiber drop to the every house at an enomous labor and materials cost. Do you have any idea as to the payback period required for this before they realize their first penny of proft from this boondoggle?

Why? Let's see, they are in a position, like all of the telcos who have an extensive trunk network of fiber, to simply drop in longer range broadband wireless tranceivers and to utilize WiMax devices for ALL of the home network attached devces, be they phone, fax, Internet, and even 'cell' phones, as the distinction between cell and telephone service disappears. And at a great ly reduced cost! But because they have invested billions in developing this last mile solution over the past way too many years, and because they have an entire generation of staff whose entire career has been focused upon solving and implimenting this solution, they have an emotional vested interest in going forward.

The irony is that with the now available disruptive technology known as WiMax, a cheaper effective method offering increased flexibility -wireless with lower maintenance costs- is available. The supreme irony is that to jettison the rather amazing solution that they have finally deveolped (and don't get me wrong! They indeed have finally done it - and have solved the last mile fiber issue ) would be viewed by many in the company whose entire career has been focused on this, as a failure! And that is indeed ironic! It is a triumph! - but one arriving just a bit too late as a disruptive technology has emeerged in te meantime!

And I suspect that it will take a new perspective - such as an outside influence to come in and to pat everyone on the head and give all of the well deserved bonuses for the accomplishment and to treat it as the accomplishment that it is instead of a failure while also acknowledging the 'sad'(sic) fact it makes more business and technological sense to leverage their exensive fiber trunk network and to go with the cheaper more viable future oriented broadband wireless technology called WiMax to deliver the last mile solution - and to expand the network capbilities to incorporate wireless on a wide scale at lower cost.

(And all of this is indeed ironic as one of the project leaders for Verizon is a good friend living in Los Collinas in the DFW Metroplex who came over and announced their success just a couple of months before I watched the technology being demoed at Lawrence Berkeley Labs - and watching a few engineers mouths drop to the floor in shock and horror as they realized the significance.) But hey, you are watching corporate inertia in action at its finest!

Downloaded movies simply leverages the existing Internet feeds to deliver the media without having to own ANY delivery network! They have no maintenance costs, nor need to build infrastructure - with the possible exception of supplying a very basis A/V interface - but where almost all associated equipment costs and maintenance are absorbed by the customer via customer owned and managed equipment!

The cable industry has dreamed of this since inception! (Do you remember Zenith's attempt at providing a 'universal' jack for outboard data receivers on their TVs as a cable-ready version 2 for addressable systems back in the 1980s?)



For movie downloads to
work, this extremely bursty market niche is not going to brownout the telco or
cable network any more than the current cable delivered HD movies is saturating
their network!


And yeah, I have
extensive experience in this area. Especially in the data and video encryption,
transmission and processing areas.




And the
contention that "People are not going to rush out and buy the gear they
need to hook up this kind of service to their HD displays in droves?" Yup,
who is going to rush out and buy a computer and Internet access!

Everyone here who wants to watch
blockbuster high def movies on your computer screen while sitting at your desk
or on a laptop through chincy laptops speakers (even the models with subs in
the bases) - please post "Aye" now. Now - mas - you and I might have
our computers hooked up via DVI and SPDIF to our 1080i/p and 7.1 systems - but that
does not speak for 95% of the market out there!


[quote
user=mas]


Obviously you didn’t
read the article! You download it to your computer and then you can burn
regulated copies for use in a futuristic device referred to in Buck Roger’s movies
as a “DVD player” You have choices as to whether it is HD, in which case the
EXISTING Chinese CH-DVD format is already available, and their global economies
of scale dwarf our market! And the Chinese are begging to enter the western markets!


Watching HD movies
natively on their computer, and 24” HD monitors are widely available as we
speak!, and this simply reduces the overall system requirements! And you dismiss the market using computer
connected appliances for multimedia playback? Hmmm. Let’s see, what market
segment is actually growing?! High end audio, or low-mid range computer attached
appliances?


I guess the iPod, et
al market is simply fading away! The large scale market wishes that it could be
so robust!


You keep referring to
R&D.

This stuff exists! That is the very significance of the announcement.

And providing an A/V interface simply for playback is prohibitive for a
computer if one chooses not to use a standalone player? Cable and satellite
companies only WISH they could have gotten off so cheaply compared to the cost
of converters/receivers!!! The cost of subscription to such a service would easily
address this aspect, leveraging the already widespread penetration of customer owned and managed household
computers! The Internet is already being used! You don’t have to reinvent this
market! This fact is exactly what they intend to leverage! BTW, JUST AS NETFLIX
INTENDS TO DO SO! Or did you miss their announcement?




And the
use of converters has prevented cable TV companies from succeeding as well!
NOT!

Of course not. Without converters -
the entire cable thing would have flopped. I still have an old SA converter
with the 11 channel buttons and 3-position line switch.


[quote
user=mas]


As is my point already
made. This aspect is simply a fundamental cost of doing business. And this does
not pose any kind of significant hurdle for a simple AV interface should
someone not already have this capability in a computer – and few being sold
lack this!




And the
need for a receiver or DISH/DirectTV - nope, it will never happen! LOL

It *** near *didn't* happen. THink
back a while here with me... when 1 out of every 15000 homes had an 8 to 12
foot metal dish in their back yard, costing $3k, required contractors and
building codes to run your cabling, and you needed a box to move the antenna,
another to tune it, and still another (each at a couple grand) to decrypt pay
channels which you had to pay 100 to 150 a month EACH for. Cable stifled
that market and pretty much eliminated it before it ever really got a chance to
spread it's wings. Stationary dish technology that is in households today (the
equipment for which you get for free) also existed nearly 30 years ago. Why
wasn't it in your home back then? Ohhhhhhhh... it wasn't widely available,
didn't have any carriers, and costed a bloody fortune - that's right. Same
reason for all other technologies.


[quote
user=mas]


Huh? Again, do a bit
of research into the concept of “disruptive technology(ies)” And you might want
to become aware of over the top hyperbole!


The reason the satellite dish market ceased to grow was SIMPLE!
Why would you do it yourself at great expense when cable did it for you cheaper with a greater
selection of services that were scrambled over the satellite (preventing many dish owners from seeing them?)! Duh!




It is
entirely reasonable to order a movie in the morning and come back home in the
late afternoon and view it in the evening. Not everyone absolutely needs
instant real time access!

Good luck convincing them of that. I
might not, and you might not - but again - 95% of the rest of this country -
modern world for that matter - wants what they want, and they want it NOW.
Sit-down dinners are rapidly on the decline while drive-throughs can't get
built fast enough. You REALLY think you are gonna sell this whole "buy it
now, watch it later" pitch? Good luck!


[quote
user=mas]


They dothis now by
virtue of waiting for NetFlix MAIL delivery
or the trip to Blockbuster.

But you’re right, it will never work. You utterly
missed the point, and the sarcasm. A long delay is ONLY a factor if you have a
dialup connection requiring the long download time! And even this is even able
to be overcome within a time window that is less that what is required for a NetFlix
rental.


Downloads need not take
any more time than does the existing cable or satellite feed. And that’s with
existing technology and plant.




This is
like me arguing that no one would tolerate 1-3 day mail delivery times for
Netflix rentals or, heaven forbid, to get off their posteriors to drive down to
a Blockbuster only to wonder why the movie they wanted is 'out of
stock'.

Blockbusters are closing faster than
you can keep up. Those that are still around have taken a pretty big hit to
their available libraries. Mom and pop video stores are all but history except
in your small towns. With On Demand becoming more commonplace and less of a
"feature", rental days are numbered. I give it... 5 years before
Blockbuster is history, or is simply a name type endorsement kinda how
"Chi-Chi's" and "Cigarette Boat" is today.


[quote
user=mas]


And thus you maintain
that with the increasing desire for “On Demand”, which technically is only
available via Pay per View, you say this doesn’t drive an order from home download
delivery service….. That is what they
are essentially proposing, coupled with the benefit of the LEGAL ability to archive the movies from a hard drive to a hard
copy! But you are still able to stream the movie from your hard drive to monitor to watch it. You have several options for playback,




They are
not even trying to stream so that you can watch in real time!

Which is precisely why it won't
work.


[quote
user=mas]


You’re right, and the
iPod, etc. market is dead. But you have missed the point.




And we
all ealize that software companies are going out of business utilizing the
technology as well. LOL

Completely wrong context. Nobody
expects to pop a CD into a computer and be able to play a game 3 seconds later.
That day is LOOOOOONG gone. Now users fully expect to put a disc in or download
an installation package, then run it through a half dozen updates, an then
maybe be able to play it. You really think the liesure-time TV viewers
are going to accept that? Good luck with that. People on this very forum
whine about how long it takes to load up a DVD or BR/HD disc, you really think
they are going to accept what equates to "delayed telecasting" when
they can pop in the disc or On Demand it instantly? Okay...


[quote
user=mas]


They have this now on
a more limited basis. Its called Pay per View, available since ~1983. And even this has not supplanted all of
the other delivery methods.




And how
many are even aware of China's development role in an alternative blue diode
DVD disk technology that will drive a market MUCH larger than what BR/HDDVD
sees now?

Again - R/D does NOT drive the market.
What manufacturers are willing to embark on and what consumers are willing to
pay for and how MUCH they are willing to pay for it DOES. History has proven
this over and over in the technological realm.


[quote
user=mas]


Oh, so now new technology and
increased capabilities does not drive a market...

What has driven the HD market? You mean
to tell me that before any of the HD products became available, that there was a groundswell
of grassroots voices screaming that existing resolutions were unacceptable and
thus they demanded HD??? You might want to let the HD community know this, as HD-DVD and
Blu-Ray only WISH that there was such a compelling need! I wonder why a standard DVD release sells many times the entire HD market. I guess those digruntled folks just haven't gotten the mesage yet... :-S




Look,
when you folks want to address real proposals made and not simply your imagined
fantasy scenario based upon conjecture and misinformation, we can talk! Until
then, read and learn.

Couldn't agree more... *addressing*
"RFP's" is one thing... putting a flag in the ground - and
stating it will be the next sliced bread in 6 months and will be implemented in
every household across the land is something else entirely... and is Utopian. I
live on Earth however - and while your head may be elsewhere - so do you. You
want to predict the future? Look at the past.


[quote
user=mas]


You have just
established that looking backwards to move forward drives the market (???)


The point is that they
are proposing utilizes what is essentially existing technology to achieve their
ends.




Yup,
online delivery is absurd. Only Bill Gates and MS would make such an
absurd assumption...oh wait...they did! ...And now they require online
authentication by default.

That swizzle-stick also said that
640k of RAM ought to be enough for anyone, and since the very day he
made that statement, BG and MS has also been the PIONEER of pushing resource
demands through the bloody stratosphere. You want to know what is really
gonna happen with anything? Just listen to MS... it has historically been the
exact OPPOSITE of MS's initial statement for any given item.



[quote
user=mas]


The point is again
missed. You are now playing Bill Gates and stating that downloadable movies are
a Utopian and impossible market requiring non-existent technology delivered
over networks that don’t exist.


Sorry, but that’s
simply incorrect.


The irony is that MS was forced to acknowledged
that and performed a mea culpa, and subsequently are now dominant -whether you or I like it.


Bottomline, you keep
addressing this entire concept as if it is “some pie in the sky” notion with
heretofore undeveloped technology requiring non-existent network. And that is precisely the point missed. It
does not!


I suspect the answer
may actually lie in who is able to implement their solution first, Netflix or
this group. Thus relegating the hard copy race to the small niche market that
is being fought over by Blu-Ray and HD-DVD.

------------------------------------------

And the bigger issue that this may well portend, is the shrinking market for hard copy video based deliverables, just as online music delivery is taking a big bite out of the hard copy music deliverable market.


Thus, the current debate over BR and HDDVD may well be a tempest in a teapot, as online delivery becomes more widespread and new formats (already in development) become available.

You see, some folks are actually forward thinking, and implimenting strategies that see beyond what is simply happening today, but which leverage existing technological developments available and occuring as we speak.


Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wow. Bare knuckles in the Home Theatre Forum. Must drop by more often (with my windows rolled up).

I am not remotely in either of your leagues technically. Both of you appear pretty correct in your base assumptions, but IMOH you are missing the big picture.

Exponential technology. I clearly remember the early '80's when I got my first 1200 baud acoustic modem. What a deal! 5 times the previous speed. Within 5 years I was at the National University of Singapore connecting to BITNET through the mainframe and carrying on chats with a friend at the University of North Texas and even sending program files and such back and forth. Not sure what the baud rate was, but exponentially greater.

The point is, one does not need much technolgical knowledge to see that BR, HDDVD, CD's or any such media are very near irrelevance. I cannot predict the technological nature of the next exponent in bandwidth, but I can suggest it will be, well, exponential. More than enough for real-time HD on multiple feeds.

The next problem will be the bandwidth for holographic/3D VR. Just save this thread and you can change a few specifics in a few years and not have to go through it all again...

Now, I am ducking out before I take a random bullet! [:D]

Dave

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In germany this is starting and I think within the next year or so everyone will be getting their tv over the telephone line.

Deutsche Telekom is offering VDSL (25.064 or 51.064 k/bit downstream, 10.048 k/bit upstream) with unlimited surfing/Telephone and a TV package with 70 normal channels and 6 or so HD channels (at present). They also offer video on demand with a film for 0.99€. Right now this package costs around 70€ a month. Where I live in Hannover they are doing the first tests and it should cover germany in about 2 years (+- a few thousand homes[*-)]). I myself am waiting for the other phone companies to start offering VDSL and then the price war will break out and we will be getting this offer for about 30€ month. This same exact senereo happened with DSL.

Ran

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As a recent owner of an Xbox360 with the Microsoft Live service I would say that streaming is a very viable and real technology that is here right now. I can download/stream 720p movies with 5.1 DD sound and watch them in my theater for around $4 a pop. I have Verizon FiOS service at my house and even though the total file size for a 2 hour movie is around 13GB I can start to watch the movie after a minute or two. I have to say that I really like the system which surprises even me!

I would be very surprised if Microsoft does not have some plans up their sleeves to allow for the secure burning of the movies or transfer to another device in the future. So I am actually going to agree with Mas on this one (shock horror [;)] ). These companies are not just thinking near term and downloading is just going to become more and more prevalent. I will even go further and say that I think Blu-ray disc and HD-DVD will be the last physical media formats released for movies (although flash memory may become a "sneaker net" way of being able to transport the movies to your car etc..).

Laters,

Jeff

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wish I had Verizon FIOS. It would take me days to download a 13GB movie, let alone the 40GB to get the high bitrate audio and video suitable for my 106" projection screen and lossless audio. I'm not saying it won't get there, but it's not there now and won't be in my neck of the woods in the next several years.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wish I had Verizon FIOS. It would take me days to download a 13GB movie, let alone the 40GB to get the high bitrate audio and video suitable for my 106" projection screen and lossless audio. I'm not saying it won't get there, but it's not there now and won't be in my neck of the woods in the next several years.

I have FIOS and its OK. However, I would still prefer to have a disk type medium (Blu-Ray ofcourse) in my collection. Downloads just doesn't do it for me like what they have on Xbox Marketplace right now or Netflix (which I both have too). I want something that I can easily bring from one place to another. Show (only - never lend : lol ) to friends. Stack on my DVD movie rack or something with all it's "original packaging glory". But that's just me! [;)]
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I seriously doubt you are going to see anyone pushing 40+GB files out! [;)]

Nor is their any overwhelming desire.

Heck, BR (and HD-DVD) are having enough trouble getting folks to buy into the platform itself compared to the much larger HD deliverable market. And what is the incentive to pay $48 for a dual layer BR disk, in addition to paying God only knows how much for a BR recorder just to make a hard copy...

One needs to remember that HD market is not only BR and HD-DVD.

And like the much larger satellite and cable HD market, the HD marketplace is are not rushing to satisfy those with extremely high end requirements, any more than the industry as a whole is aiming at this. Like it or not, I suspect that most will receive and be very happy with more modest requirements.

And reality posits that still more folks are more than satisfied with current and simply upscaled DVD standards - to the chagrin of the BR and HD-DVD folks.

If you want a good indication of the market, go to any WalMart, Costco, Fry's or Best Buy.

And then cry... [;)]

While a few may be satisfied with ONLY the most cutting edge capabilities, business reality dictates that those interests are not significant. Business simply does not have a big incentive to satisfy a <5% market share when a 70-80% market is available. And anyone expecting such is expecting that which has never dominated nor driven the real world market. And to guage anything less a failure is to ignore reality.

So the real option is to evaluate real world markets and the available deliverables. And services that are significantly out of sync with this are most likely bound for failure - despite how whiz bang they may be.

And this has been true in the AV community since the early 1980s when high end audio programming sources were specifically aimed at cableTV audiophile markets. And unless you worked with a cable company where you were able to evaluate them, how many of you actually ever heard them? Instead you got FM simulcast. And even that went away with the advent of your phony synthesized "stereo" reception where a mono signal was simply split and delayed - but everyone loved that red LED! We tried to resist the swap and explain that the stereo FM simulcast was actually better until the public outcry with their new "cable ready" sets became too loud! So the standard actually declined but everyone was happy! Ya simply can't fool the market, can you! Even when they are foolish.... (BTW, we also discovered that we could make everyone's LED light up if we simply increased the headend video modulation depth! ;-)

The fact remains that this high end niche market doesn't drive anything. It is a niche market that persists inspite of the mass market.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And reality posits that still more folks are more than satisfied with current and simply upscaled DVD standards - to the chagrin of the BR and HD-DVD folks.

If you want a good indication of the market, go to any WalMart, Costco, Fry's or Best Buy.

And then cry... Wink

While a few may be satisfied with ONLY the most cutting edge capabilities, business reality dictates that those interests are not significant. Business simply does not have a big incentive to satisfy a <5% market share when a 70-80% market is available. And anyone expecting such is expecting that which has never dominated nor driven the real world market. And to guage anything less a failure is to ignore reality.

Exactly the reason why WB dropped one of the competing format (HD DVD).

"The window of opportunity for high-definition DVD could be missed if
format confusion continues to linger," explained Warner Bros. CEO Barry
Meyer. "We believe that exclusively distributing in Blu-ray will
further the potential for mass market success and ultimately benefit
retailers, producers, and most importantly, consumers."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Folks also seem to neglect various compression schemas facillitating transport and download times...

Witness: http://www.betanews.com/article/The_DivX_codec_makes_a_play_for_settop_boxes/1199745381

The little codec that could, DivX, announced a series of
partnerships today that will use the protocol in set-top boxes for
Internet Protocol Television (IPTV).

DivX Inc. (which is not
related to the late, lamentable DIVX system used by Circuit City to
produce degradable DVDs) announced or extended partnerships with
Broadcom, D-Link Systems, Jaman.com, and Next New Networks....

Not to mention D-Link and Netgear Teaming up with BitTorrent!

http://www.betanews.com/article/DLink_Netgear_team_up_with_BitTorrent/1199746184

And I will let you folks query the stories regarding MS turning the XBox360 into an IPTV device (not yet in the US) and of Comcast's support of the open "true2way" protocol for cable company independent 2-way capable devices.

All of this points to the advent of greater online deliverables.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Man, I got to say, you guys can talk about bandwidth, disc capacity, and all that other stuff until you are blue in the face, but people are always going to want the physical media. Some many not, true, but many will. I just cannot imagine opening up a present of Lawrence of Arabia on Christmas and it be a download. Give me the Blu-ray, and, yes, it will be on Blu-ray. It is time to get off the fence now and get a player.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Man, I got to say, you guys can but people are always going to want the physical media. Some many not, true, but many will. I just cannot imagine opening up a present of Lawrence of Arabia on Christmas and it be a download. Give me the Blu-ray, and, yes, it will be on Blu-ray. It is time to get off the fence now and get a player.

I personally agree with desiring a hard copy. But the marketspace as a whole disagrees based upon actual media sales.

But amidst all of the "talk about bandwidth, disc capacity, and all that other stuff until you are blue in the face", you must have missed the small and fundamental part that allows for the LEGALLY PROTECTED BURNING OF THE DOWNLOAD TO DISK.

And while I easily prefer the technical features of Blu-Ray to HD-DVD. The thought of paying $600 to play 2-3 games and to only play (as recording is another mess yet to be economically realized !) just a few disks is not compelling, versus what I can already do on my computer and my upscaling DVD player.

And why do I think that the MAJORITY of the country - heck, the world - agrees? Oh yeah, they have voted with their dollars, or in this case, their purchase of upscaling DVD players as the mass market has not bought into the recorded media aspect, regardless of how many watch cable or satellite in HD..

The technical debate is easy, but I would love to hear a cogent business strategy. And so would Toshiba and Sony! And i suspect that this will only happen when the players and media become more competitive with that of the prices of standard DVDs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...