NY TIMES article on why physical media will persist for now . . .

[Pinknik]

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/21/technology/personaltech/21pogue.html/?_r=2&oref=slogin&oref=slogin

[John B Good]

Sounds reasonable to me.

[apileocole]

Kudos to David Pogue. That's the best, most accurate and most honest summation of the situation I've seen.

The only correction I see is in this line:

Then there's the fact that to protect their cash cows, most studios don't release their movies on the Internet until a month after they've been available on DVD.

Which I would suggest might read "to ostensibly protect" in order to accurately reflect the current situation.

[xman]

Whew, what a relief. :)

[jstraw]

You gotta be kidding me....like anything Pogue writes...it's so full of holes.

[thegage]

You gotta be kidding me....like anything Pogue writes...it's so full of holes.
When you make a statement such as this, it would make your position stronger if you gave examples.

John K.

[Johnny66]

Sounds right. And he's only speaking of the US - here in Australia we really only have basic cable services (movie download devices and services simply aren't on the radar).

DVD (and Blu Ray) will be 'round these parts for another 5-10 years at least.

[LeeS]

I agree. David makes some good points here.

[phallumontis]

The comparison pics that he links to are interesting. I've never actually watched anything on Blu-Ray nor spent much time around an HD set. Interesting to see such differences in resolution. Now that I understand the purpose of the Apple TV, I realize how stupid it is.

Personally, I'll always be a physical media guy. When I eventually join the 21st century and get an HD setup, I'll buy an upconverting DVD player so I can still enjoy my movie collection. Even despite issues of picture and sound quality, watching files on a computer screen just isn't as exciting. I know I'm not the only one who feels this way, especially around these parts.

Good article, Pinknik, thanks for posting.

[jstraw]

When you make a statement such as this, it would make your position stronger if you gave examples.

John K.


Ok, I'll address Pogue's "four colossol reasons" one at a time.

First, downloadable movies require high-speed Internet connections - and only about half of American households have them. That number won't change much for years.

Half is a lot. How many was it three, five or ten years ago? The growth rate is relevant and he doesn't address it. He also doesn't explain why it's important. It's important for content on demand. Content doesn't have to be on demand to be competitive with a rental store or Netflix. If I have the functionality to have a download waiting for me to watch when I get home from work, that's competitive. It may even be a winner.

Second, downloaded movies don't include the director's commentaries, deleted scenes, alternate endings, alternate language soundtracks or other DVD goodies. It's just not as rich an experience.

They don't because they don't...not because they can't. When the marketplace demands it, they will. The content can be whatever the creators of the content decide to have it be.

Third, movie downloads don't deliver the audio and video quality of DVD discs - even standard-def ones. Internet movies are compressed to download faster, which affects picture quality, and offer older, more compressed audio soundtracks than modern DVDs. (Check out the astounding quality-comparison photos at http://tinyurl.com/3e488m for details.)

See the answer to #2. They will be what the market demands. A DVD contains less than 5 gigs. The download time for 5 gigs gets shorter and shorter...and again, it's not that relevant. My whole "queue" could download while I sleep or work...ready for me to activate and be charged for when I decide to watch them.

Finally, today's movie-download services bear the greasy policy fingerprints of the movie studio executives - and when it comes to the new age of digital movies, these people are not, ahem, known for their vision.

Pardon the interruption but....who decides what's on those glorious disks?

For example, no matter which movie-download service you choose, you'll find yourself facing the same confusing, ridiculous time limits for viewing. You have to start watching the movie you've rented within 30 days, and once you start, you have to finish it within 24 hours.

Again these are policies, not technical issues. The policies will change to meet the demands of consumers. If they want to kill DVDs, they have a well-established consumer expectation they have to meet.

[Taurus]

*Half* of American households have broadband? Really? I've never heard that before.

Also, do they have fast enough broadband to enable convenient downloads? Waiting hours for one standard def movie doesn't sound fun to me (and what about when that connection is being used by others at the same time?), then I assume it is stuck on one DVR or one computer, so if I want to watch the movie in my HT mancave on the dvd player in there, well, forget that idea.

[apileocole]

jstraw; what you're saying has merit, but it's regarding the continuing evolution of video via internet, whereas I took his article to be stating the current situation only, not so much addressing how this situation will change.

[Kayaker]

jstraw; what you're saying has merit, but it's regarding the continuing evolution of video via internet, whereas I took his article to be stating the current situation only, not so much addressing how this situation will change.

After reading the comments by jstraw to back up the claim that Pogue is full of holes, I just don't see it. Pogues article is well grounded in the facts of today as he presented them - pretty accurately to me. I can't find fault with his conclusions.

[Vidiot]

This is only about DVDs, not CDs. And I think Pogue (who's a very bright guy) would readily admit that the trend has started. It's just gonna take 5 or 6 years before movie downloads overtake packaged media.

Music is getting replaced by downloads a lot faster.