Blu-ray has 'five years left' says Samsung
by Randy Nelson 
{ Sep 4th 2008 at 8:30PM }
Griffiths' prediction could very well be accurate, but consider DVD, a format that is still going strong 12 years after the first player launched in Japan in 1996. To put things in perspective, Blu-ray players only hit the scene two years ago. With adoption of HDTVs continuing at a steady pace and that whole victory over HD-DVD thing, the format (for video, at least) has to have at least six years left in it.
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 2)
AoE @ Sep 4th 2008 8:41PM
Why must Bluray have more than 5 years left in it? I'm confused. I mean yes HDTV adoption is on the rise, but don't most people get their HD content from Cable/Satellite providers? Between that, rising bandwidth speeds and an overall push to switch to download and/or streaming services (OnDemand, Amazon Unbox, iTunes, netflix, MS & Sony's online video stores, etc. etc.) I don't think it's unreasonable to expect that people won't want to clutter their living spaces with piles and piles of physical media.
Hyams @ Sep 4th 2008 8:46PM
I can't speak for others, but I prefer physical media over digital ones.
When given the choice of buying the latest Slipknot CD and waiting five days for it to arrive, or downloading it instantly, I chose to order it and wait.
*shrugs*
GoldenS1104 @ Sep 4th 2008 9:06PM
@ Hyams
I agree. Having the physical copy makes me feel like I actually own it. I don't have a lot of experience with downloaded purchases, but I don't like the idea that there might be some restrictions of where I can use it. For example, I think you can only link an iTunes account with 3 computers or something like that. Ownership is very vague to me when talking about downloadable content, so I prefer to have the disc. Besides... I seem prone to HDD failures. >_
Averna @ Sep 4th 2008 9:09PM
I prefer physical media too.
There are areas of the world where we do not have unlimited bandwidth.
Shagittarius @ Sep 4th 2008 9:09PM
HD broadcasts that are not over the air really can't compare to an HD format disc. Nothing you see on cable/dish/download is really HD. Its all corrupted by the compressions they use to allow it to fit in the limited bandwidth afforded by cable/dish/broadband.
Even though your TV claims your watching something on cable in 1080p its not exactly that. Its compressed, some pixels are doubled, some aren't updated depending on the compression algorithm. Ultimately any of the other means of distribution are providing you with what esentially boils down to a less than 1920x1080 resolution movie that is simply blown up to fill that resolution.
The only true HD transfer media are Blueray HDDVD and OTA sources.
Besides all that which might change years down the line, I wouldn't rent a movie for 15.00 when I use to be able to own it for that much. If you think a downloadable model is going to give you unlimited views of your purchase your not looking at D/L movies the way the studios are, they want to charge you over and over and over again. When you buy physical media you do this...you think they would give that up just for a distribution method, no way. Its gonna be 10.00 a pop or some such shit.
Just say no to the DL model.
dongalos @ Sep 4th 2008 10:06PM
Download limits for many people where i live will stop this broadband High definition straight to your homes
we have download limits of 60GB a month on a regular plan, both the major ISP's are going by these rules so unless they decide to uncap how much people download per month i think people will be warry about downloading large file sizes
Jimmyjimjim @ Sep 4th 2008 9:24PM
Shagittarius: You're correct,mate.
In fact currently, the ONLY way to get uncompressed HD signal is through a digital antennae. The over-the-air-variety.
The HD antennae is why I cancelled cable. I get about 35 channels, half of which in 720p, and it looks GORGEOUS compared to digital cable. Watch a sporting event sometime. Looks like you're there.
josh @ Sep 4th 2008 9:44PM
eventually all movies and tv shows will be available via a combo subscription/ppv model. there is no reason for the cable companies not to do this, so they will... once the bandwidth is there.
i dont see the bandwidth being there in 5 years. ten? maybe? twenty? definitely.
if you could get any movie thats available in stores, in HD, on OnDemand, would you really buy discs? probably for your FAVORITE movies, the ones you want the 3 disc collectors set, you would. but for the movies you just want to watch once, the HD ondemand model will be enough.
and i am saying this as someone who owns about 1000 DVDs!
Josh Warner @ Sep 4th 2008 9:47PM
Shagittarius & Jimmyjimjim:
Close, but not quite. You're getting a less compressed signal, but there is NOBODY out there that broadcasts completely uncompressed HD streams. The bandwidth simply isn't there for any current technology, aside from fiber. The lowest-of-the-low MPEG2 streams were the worst at compression; modern h.264 streams have greatly improved this while taking no additional bandwidth. They weren't adopted sooner because the set-top boxes weren't powerful enough to DEcrypt h.264 in realtime.
The discs use very similar compression formats (VC-1, basically a h.264 counterpart) and ALL Blu-ray discs have compressed video streams. All of them. The difference is the level of compression and how smart the compression (and decompression) is. There is anywhere from double to several times more data available on the physical discs, but that is nowhere near enough room to fit an uncompressed stream. So, you end up with less visual corruption but you can be certain: it is compressed. These discs are better than compressed cable/sat feeds, but they are no paragon of perfection.
There is a wealth of misinformation out there about this. I am attempting to correct some.
Titanium_Orchid @ Sep 4th 2008 9:56PM
I am a consumer of digital and physical media.
When there is an album, movie or game that I really want or want to support or I care about the clarity of the audio/video, want the box art, etc., I will go out of my way to find a way to physically own the product.
When I want instant gratification and know that I won't care about the product after I'm done with it (for instance, the latest Harold and Kumar movie), I'll download it.
I don't really see Blueray going away in five years. Ten maybe.
Psaakyrn @ Sep 4th 2008 11:18PM
The question then, is how fast digital downloads will ramp up in speed and quality? (in theat whether it'll take 5 or 10 years to reach equilivant speeds)
Part of the fallacy is that HDTV media MUST be streamed. We're coming to a point in which streaming media is essentially not cost effective: there's just too much content, not all of which everyone wants. Non-realtime media is generally better off non-streamed unless it's time critical, and even so, downloading still has an advantage for time-critical data.
But the main killer would ironically be games. Based on replayability and lifespan per memory consumption, games clearly has an advantage. With games, downloading isn't too much of a problem since you can always be playing another game while waiting, and the download times can conceivably be offset by the playtime, unlike a movie which suffers from little replayability and generally short (compared to games) playtime.
Evan @ Sep 4th 2008 11:22PM
@AoE "...but don't most people get their HD content from Cable/Satellite providers"
Most people already get SD content from Cable/Satellite, including video-on-demand, and it didn't kill DVD. So why would the HD version of the same services harm Blu-Ray any more than those services harmed DVD?
Kellydude025 @ Sep 4th 2008 11:33PM
All i really wanted to say is that there are advantages and disadvantages to both. For downloads, many people don't like to have their bandwidth taken up. Also Download lacks re-playability, and can be missing features that many people adore watching. But at the same time it is also more convenient due to the fact that you don't have to go out and buy it, if you feel like watching a new release, just power on, wait a few minutes for it to buffer and you're good to go my friend.
Physical media on the other hand is more expensive and a hassle to buy. It can be damaged much more easily than data, on the other hand it doesn't lack features, and you can keep it as long as you wish. But it also causes more clutter.
There are too many advantages and disadvantages to both forms to say which one is more convenient. For all we know the next Gen of HD movies will be simple memory cards.
SoCoolCurt (PSN: KillaKornbread) @ Sep 5th 2008 12:18AM
well i know that i like both physical and digital media. i love the feeling of physically owning something and at the same time, the convenience of all digital. so i usually just buy physical media and rip it to digital. that way i still own it, but i can use it without having to switch disc (which i always fear breaking).
that said, Blu-ray isnt going anywhere in 5 years. especially not with all these ISP's putting bandwidth caps on their services now. they are essentially throwing a stick in the wheels of DD's bike. and plus, physical media will never completely die out since there will always be people out of reach of the latest services. for example, it's 2008 and i still live out of reach of any kind of respectable broadband internet service. im stuck with this just barely better than dial-up satellite internet. so at least for me personally, Blu-ray is here to stay cause DD is pretty much out of reach anyway.
Replica23 @ Sep 5th 2008 8:43AM
"I don't think it's unreasonable to expect that people won't want to clutter their living spaces with piles and piles of physical media."
In order for digital distribution to catch on the masses will need convincing it is alright someone else tell them what how they are and aren't allowed to use the products they buy. Until them it's completely hopeless.
Technology isn't always good you know. I'll still stick with physical media.
A Pissed-off English Gamer @ Sep 5th 2008 11:17AM
"I don't think it's unreasonable to expect that people won't want to clutter their living spaces with piles and piles of physical media.
3 hearts"
Certainly not an unreasonable assumption, but remember that people like to collect things. They like to feel like they're accruing a collection of good stuff, and physical media really solidifies that. There will always be a market to own things in the physical.
Marty @ Sep 5th 2008 6:05PM
Personally, I don't mind buying digital copies of music and videos, but when I can't display it on any other device other than the one I bought the content on, that's where I start getting annoyed. If MS / Sony / whoever starts making the data more modular, so I can download an album on my Xbox, play it on my computer, and store it on my iPod / USB drive, then I'll really jump on board.
I do believe that Blue-Ray will never be what DVD is today, and I have hope in digital media (Amazon's MP3 service is awesome), but I'm not sure if BRD will die by the hand of that or some other physical media. Only time will tell.
Josh @ Sep 4th 2008 8:42PM
He talks about Blu-ray being replaced by another format in 5 years, but doesn't offer even a single suggestion as to what that replacement could be. So basically, he's just talking out of his ass.
Blu-ray has long legs. It can handle high-quality 1080p movies, which is all we'll need for many years.
The only possible direct replacement could come with 2160p movies, but first we'd need 2160p TVs for that, and we're just now starting to get 1080p into the mainstream...
Oh, and lol @ his name.
Arnon @ Sep 4th 2008 8:46PM
HVD? ;o..
Holographic Versatile Disc
Inect @ Sep 4th 2008 10:22PM
We have heard of HVD but for the people that though blu-ray was expensive HVD will be worse and no one will want to switch to that in a few years. Sorry to inform you of that but mostly business will use hvd and we as consumers won't. At least not for 10+ years.
AlterEgo @ Sep 4th 2008 8:44PM
I admit I haven't read the source article, but what does he expect to take over after Blu-Ray?
Surely a man in his position can't think DVD will kill blu-ray (even though that'd be the most POSSIBLE outcome)
I hope he doesn't think DD's will be ready to roll out in 5 yrs time.
AlterEgo @ Sep 4th 2008 8:47PM
Okay, after reading...he's talking about OLED technology.
All I can say is good luck convincing consumers that this is what they want.
Hyams @ Sep 4th 2008 8:52PM
Especially cosidering that OLED is a type of TV ... how exactly is it going to replace Blu-Ray as a storage medium again, Mr. Griffiths?
AoE @ Sep 4th 2008 8:53PM
@AlterEgo,
Please read up on OLED, it's not what you seem to think it is (assuming you think it's some kind of media format)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Organic_light-emitting_diode
The next step beyond BluRay most assume, and this is probably why he didn't spell it out in little words, are download/streaming services. Bandwidth is ever-increasing and will soon be at a point that streaming HD content will be a non-issue for the majority of consumers (probably within... oh... say the next 5 years or so)
AoE @ Sep 4th 2008 8:56PM
Also there's a strong push from services and content producers toward subscription formats, where rather than owning a collection of disks, you rent access to a library of thousands of movies, music, or whatever content service you've subscribed to.
I realize that there are a lot of people out there who really enjoy physical media and cling to it (i'd be lying if i said i wasn't among that group.... i love special editions), but like it or not it's all going digital.
Ayrkain @ Sep 4th 2008 9:05PM
DD can potentially be ready in 5 years, if (and only if) somehow Comcast and ISPs like them don't start always metering their bandwidth. Monetizing that will indeed provide them with the revenue streams to start their own content distribution networks, but at the same time will stifle innovation that could make DD dominant much more quickly (eg, Hulu - a third party that negotiates with networks - has better streaming than ATT/Yahoo video streams). At issue here also is the attitude the ISPs hold, thinking any content stream will do. Consumers imo, seem to be saying, no, I want my content through my 360/PS3/Roku/preferred interface. Like we're seeing with gaming now, it then becomes a positioning war (exclusivity deals with networks & content providers, etc), which costs in consumer confidence. That's why I think it'll take longer, although in an ideal world, it shouldn't need to.
AlterEgo @ Sep 4th 2008 9:09PM
@ AoE
After reading that, what I said still stands.
I watched a video at the source that showcased an OLED Television on display.
Maybe I'm looking at it wrong, but how does OLED plan to replace a physical media format? Is resolution the only competing specification they share? How will you get the latest movie release on OLED? How will you let your friend borrow your OLED?
Get what I'm saying? If not, then honestly, I must just not be getting it. If I'm looking at it wrong, correct me because it seems confusing.
AlterEgo @ Sep 4th 2008 9:16PM
@ AoE
I read your other replies and understand a little more clearly, but still don't see this competing with BluRay or DVD at all.
In 5 years time, I feel like the market will be saturated with disc based media be it movies or storage. Consumers are going to have a hard time giving up their disc collection for something new and will most likely keep their blu-ray / DVD players for years on down the line. If their blu-ray player decides to break, they STILL have a collection of movies they'd probably like to continue to watch so they'll probably buy another player (which in 5 years should be at a reasonable price).
Likewise, the next generation of gaming's research and development should underway (or at least in its beginning stages) by that time and I'm pretty sure Sony is going to make it's next machine Backwards Compatible with PS3 games and Microsoft will be looking for the leading format instead of developing (or investing in) a new one for their next machine.
OLED can't possibly replace discs (IMO)...at least not in 5 years.
AlterEgo @ Sep 4th 2008 9:17PM
should be* underway
AoE @ Sep 4th 2008 9:45PM
@AlterEgo,
You're not getting it :( He was talking about the viability of BluRay, then switched tracks ENTIRELY to pimp Samsung's OLED products that are coming down the pipe. It's apples and oranges though, he wasn't suggesting that somehow a screen can/will replace a disk (he does mention that it can/will replace other screen technology however), that's like saying an apple is a suitable replacement for a car. So look at it this way: He was talking about two entirely different things, which probably was somewhat confusing.
AlterEgo @ Sep 4th 2008 9:49PM
@ AoE
Heh, I guess that's what I get for skimming thru the article.
>_
AlterEgo @ Sep 4th 2008 9:52PM
Okay seriously what the fuck happened to my "less than" sign?
I'm sure you people know it was supposed to be >_<
Joystiq, your old comment sucked. Ironically, your new comment system blows.
DangerMouse @ Sep 4th 2008 8:45PM
With technology improving in digital distribution and even flash memory, I'd say that Blu-Ray will be the last wave of optical media. It's hard to say whether or not it will be around in 10 years, but i can't ever see it achieving the popularity that DVD has.
JCD @ Sep 5th 2008 11:06AM
I disagree. Flash media will always cost more than optical media. And, as has been stated here quite a bit already, digital distribution both conflicts with ISPs wanting to control bandwidth and a consumers natural desire to actually 'own' a product they've purchased.
WRE @ Sep 4th 2008 8:49PM
Well no shit Blu-ray won't last another 5 years since the world is ending in 2012. Dur.
Frenzy @ Sep 4th 2008 10:30PM
lulz
Farseer (GDI) @ Sep 5th 2008 12:03AM
Dude, you're a fucking liar. I've talked to a lot of psychics, and none of them believe this 2012 Mayan calender bullshit.
;)
Snowblind @ Sep 5th 2008 6:00AM
The Mayans themselves did NOT claim the world would end on 2012. Only that a great change would occur.
Coincidentialy Scientists have recently predicted near the end of 2012, the Earth will have moved to the bottom of the Galaxy's "disc" which is likely to affect our gravity.
Hyams @ Sep 5th 2008 7:39AM
Snowblind, I'm sorry, but that's a load of pseudoscientific BS.
LaughingTarget @ Sep 5th 2008 8:28AM
Penn and Teller's BS had a good one on this. The world was supposed to end no less than 25 times since the 14th century (4 times in the 20th Century). Still hasn't happened.
However, I do love it when people panic about the end of the world. It kills the stock market, then I buy a shit load of stocks, bonds and index funds, the world DOESN'T end, then I get tons of money. So, please, believe the world is ending, it's good for us rational types.
TheAzureKnight @ Sep 4th 2008 8:54PM
Umm so why exactly should I jump in a buy a Bluray player this Christmas?
God this whole HD format shit is just one diaster after another. First that war and now sony and the bda are just fucking up month after month.
I mean do you guys realized that they've already double dipped on I Am Legend!? A movie that JUST came out this year!
Absolutely ridiculous.
I want to support Bluray despite my hatred of sony but if a major company like Samsung doesn't even believe that it has staying power beyond a measly 5 years then why the hell should I be confident that what I'm purchasing will even be around long enough to be truly relevant.
The prices for Blurays haven't dropped at all since HD DVD died. The prics for Bluray players are out of control.
Josh @ Sep 4th 2008 9:03PM
"I want to support Bluray despite my hatred of sony but if a major company like Samsung doesn't even believe that it has staying power beyond a measly 5 years then why the hell should I be confident that what I'm purchasing will even be around long enough to be truly relevant."
If you're worried about that, why do you buy games?
F1 @ Sep 4th 2008 9:07PM
That's because nothing else is like it in terms of HD except for digital download, and a lot of people don't have the type of internet to handle it. Currently Blu-ray has the monopoly in terms of HD and nothing will change that until the internet itself becomes more affordable.
AoE @ Sep 4th 2008 9:13PM
@F1,
uh.... cable? satellite? hell, over the airwaves broadcast television? There are PLENTY of ways that people get high def content that is not on disc. Actually you might be interested to know that BluRay makes up only a small portion of the HD content market... most people get their hd fix from cable/satellite providers.
Pointz @ Sep 4th 2008 11:49PM
Only poor people on the grind say shit like this. Keep up with the times like the rest of us. Most of us like having the physical media format and don't want to delete segments of our HDD's when it gets full.
LaughingTarget @ Sep 5th 2008 8:32AM
As a totally not poor person (totally middle of the road American, top 15% if I were making this much in Europe), why should I put money into BluRay if the world's leading electronics manufacturer has no faith in it?
You see, people like me don't get to have the ability to enjoy the finer things in life by being stupid with our money. If I went off, willy nilly, just buying everything, I wouldn't have much to go around when the good stuff does show up. BluRay is a bad buy, simple.
Fernando Rocker @ Sep 4th 2008 9:03PM
I prefer physical media for a lot of reason: sharing, re-sell, box art, booklets, having a nice collection in my TV room, etc.
I don't see me buying a downloadable game if I have the option of buying a physical copy.
Josh @ Sep 4th 2008 9:05PM
Same here.
Even buying games on PSN, WiiWare, etc...I'd rather have physical versions of them if available.
I just don't like buying things that aren't tangible.
Jacksons @ Sep 5th 2008 12:24AM
Exactly as Fernando and Josh said. What can I say, I still value the benefits of owning physical media far too much.
I can play a DVD on my computer, my home theater, I can take it to my cabin and watch it there, to a friends house, on an airplane, on a road trip...it goes on. Digital media has some perks, I'm just not interested.
Vejadu @ Sep 5th 2008 11:04AM
Same here. Digitally distributed media reduces the rights that we have to our movies, music and games. It allows the studios to dictate how and where we can use the media we buy. I'll always choose a physical disc over a download as long as discs are available.
Physical media gives us far more flexibility than you get with a download. With a disc, I can sell it if I choose to, give it as a gift, lend it out, rip it to a non-DRM digital format, view it in any compatible player I want and more. Digital is convenient for a rental mindset, but I doubt any kids are going to be excited to get a birthday present that consists of a card that lets them download the latest Pixar movie to their set-top box at home. It's just not the same as getting a disc they can start watching immediately.
Not to mention that for large collections, you will need massive storage to keep all of that HD content. For those of us who have large collections in the hundreds or even thousands of discs, you would need an insanely huge hard drive to store all of that content. And good luck when the HD fails.