If HD-DVD is so much cheaper to do, why aren't they cheaper than BluRay. In fact "The Shining" is coming out on both and the BluRay is $1.00.00 cheaper on Amazon.... I own both players so if one is cheaper than the other I go with that. If the price is the same I go HD-DVD
There's a Riot Going On
Shane and David are taking shrapnel over on Shane's blog regarding BD replication "rumors" (which are what Blu-ray fanboys calls factual, documented and critically contradictory statements from Sony's DADC division regarding BD disc yields over the span of a year) so I thought I'd run a flank attack and see if we can't create enough of a diversion to get those two to safety.
First of all, I wouldn't expect the purveyors of either high-def format to do their laundry in public, but absence of evidence, as they say, is not evidence of absence. So I went to the industry to see if there is anything that lent credence to the word on the street that Blu-ray replication may be more problematic than some like to believe.
PacificDisc is a disc replication house that deals with smaller production companies, not the major movie studios who have their own tightly integrated sources for disc replication. But their pricing policies clearly indicate that BD replication goes for a 12% - 26% premium over HD DVD (single layer discs in both formats, at quantities of 100,000 and 10,000, respectively). But don't read too much into this because after AACS encoding, PacificDisc sends their BD masters out to Technicolor (a subsidiary of European consumer electronics giant Thomson) for actually pressing. So you might be inclined to chalk up the pricing discrepancy to middle man syndrome.
Things get more interesting, however, when you start talking about the total picture. For instance, PacificDisc's (PD herein) website notes that "copy protection or encryption (AACS) is required on all Blu-ray discs (though not for HD DVD) and costs $2,500 per title plus $0.10/disc," that last dime being for royalties. And that's pretty much the route PD's customers take, paying the company for the AACS service because, in the sub 100K replication market, investing in equipment and software for Blu-ray just isn't in the cards.
So if you're looking to press 10,000 discs on Blu-ray, it's not the $1.75 per disc you see posted on PD's website, it's more like $2.10 a disc out the door. Now the difference with the $1.39 HD DVD disc is more like a 50% premium. In fact it's exactly a 50% premium. And you can forget about dual layer BDs (BD50), because they're not offered. Dual layer HD DVD replication, on the other hand, are offered and go for not much more ($1.71/ea @ 10K).
A spokesman for PacificDisc told me that getting a check disc to his BD customers could take as long as 10-14 days. PacificDisc can usually beat that outside number, but still, it's not like the one day turn around they often swing for DVD and, yes, even HD DVD check discs.
Most of his PD's high def business is, not surprisingly, HD DVD.
For actual replication, PD converted some of their HD-9 (dual layer DVD) equipment fairly economically to HD DVD production, so they can service their customers directly.
One last point – I asked about rumors of problematic yield rates with BD. My contact basically said he'd heard and read the same things we had, but it didn't really matter to him what Technicolor's BD yields were, since he only paid for finished and functioning product.
We also talked about the format war. My contact at PD said he's following it just like everyone else. Given Blu-ray players at $200-$300, he sees Blu-ray as dominating, but that's not $200-$300 years from now, it's this Christmas.
Can the Blu-ray consortium do it? And if they do, can the replication facilities keep up?
»
- Login or register to post comments
Comments
Submitted by Luis T Puig on October 10, 2007 - 11:32pm.
I agree with your post. I say that price will be the first factor that will determine the winner in this format war. Prices of players first, with the magic number been agreed to be about $200 or less, and then as the format becomes more and more relevant and makes an deeper penetration into the consumer marker, which would raise demand for titles?then the replication price factor will be the final deciding factor on the winning format?I think. But right now?price of the players! Toshiba seems to understand this better in my view, with the release of the 3rd generation players, one priced at $300, closer than anyone to the magic $200 price mark.
Submitted by Shane on October 11, 2007 - 12:19pm.
Luis- Is $200 really a magic price point any more or is that just what the newspapers are saying? You can't buy an iPhone for $200. You can't buy a Nintendo Wii for $200. The only iPods you can buy for under $200 are the Nano and the Shuffle. I guess what I'm saying is that HD doesn't need to reach these price points before people will buy. Masses of people are obviously willing to buy electronics that cost more than $200. But HD apparently does need to reach these price points before the mainstream press tells them it's OK to buy.
Submitted by Luis T Puig on October 11, 2007 - 9:45pm.
Shane-I agree that the $200 price of the players is not needed to make the format the dominant one, but unfortunately I think that right now the perception of the average Joe on prices of the high def players is that they are out of reach for a lot of them, couple that with your point (which I agree) of the media day in and day out saying high def players been expensive and you have a ?perfect storm? against mass adoption of either format. Now, as I have asked people at work and in my immediate ?circles?, it seems to me that most people are waiting for cheaper players on either format, is the $200 the price that they are expecting? For many the answer seems to be yes. So at least we can all agree that not many people can afford to buy (like I did) a Toshiba HD-XA2 at $800 a pop. But all indications seem to point to people waiting for cheaper prices before mass adoption. This is me: http://forum.hometheatermag.com/photopost/showgallery.php/ppuser/262/cat...
Submitted by Shane on October 13, 2007 - 7:29am.
Yes Luis, this was my point. Everything I've read in the mainstream press has said, "wait... expensive.. format war... blah, blah, blah. The fact that DVD became so ridiculously cheap created a big problem- how do charge people more for something better once they're used to $50 DVD players? It has just been very strange to me that this attitude has prevailed so thoroughly. Especially now that players for both formats are under $500. The VCR became ubiquitous even though it was more expensive than many of these players over 20 years ago. And today, as noted, I know many couples and families with a conglomerate of expensive gadgets- cel phones PDAs, several iPods, etc. Many of these devices cost the same or more, and yet get a big thumbs up from the newspaper gadget guys. Not only are they not saying that $299 the HD DVD player give you the best picture and sound you've ever seen, you'll more often read some nonsense about how you need a multi-thousand dollar TV to s
Submitted by Luis T Puig on October 15, 2007 - 11:57pm.
Shane- ..but people expect to pay big money for those other devices, aka: Ipods, PDAs, etc, but not for DVD players, even high def ones they have been spoiled into thinking any DVD player, been regular of high def should be no more that $200. and that's the problem for the high def formats both of them. and why I say that no matter whatever else happens, the first thing that will really significantly affect the adoption of any of the 2 high def formats will be the price of the players, and for that price to be less that $200. Just watch this holiday season, as the 3rd generation of HD DVD players come out (which are much cheaper than anything Blue Ray will have on the market), and I can guarantee you many of the cheap HD DVD players are going to be bought in better numbers than Blue Ray; THEN later, early next year, then we will see an increase in HD DVD disk sales, bringing the sales numbers to both formats closer than it is now as a result of that, that's my predition. players' p
Submitted by Talkstr8t on October 17, 2007 - 12:31am.
Fred, your analysis is flawed. First, using quotes from a replicator who is really only a broker doesn't reflect apples-to-apples pricing. Secondly, $2.10 for a BD-25 is cheaper on a cost/byte basis than $1.39 for an HD DVD-15. ($2.10 is 50% more than $1.39, but 25 is 67% more than 15).
Submitted by Fred on October 18, 2007 - 9:35am.
TalkStraight, or I can I call you McCain comma John (lame reference to 2000 Republican primaries) - I did clearly state it wasn't apples to apples pricing already when I said "But don't read too much into this because after AACS encoding, PacificDisc sends their BD masters out to Technicolor (a subsidiary of European consumer electronics giant Thomson) for actually pressing. So you might be inclined to chalk up the pricing discrepancy to middle man syndrome." As for the price per bit, people pay for a completed disc, regardless of the bits consumed, so as an argument, that's a "bit" of a Red Herring. Replication is only a fraction of the final price a consumer pays, but poor yields are negative factors when designing a business model that attracts investors to BD.
Site Map / Direct Links| Displays Speakers |  |
HT Systems Sources Electronics | |
Other Gear Software AV Interiors | |
Top Picks
|
|
Community Show Reports | |
Blogs
|
|
Shop Resources Subscriptions |
