Hollywood: downloads years away from replacing Blu-ray and DVDs

area512003 · 13 Mar 2008 at 15:53

Four Hollywood studio officials have said this month that downloads are not a threat to physical media because they take too long to download and are apparently complicated. “Downloading sales are not going to ‘hockey-stick’ soon. Every time I access a site and download, it’s not necessarily seamless.” said Disney's vice president of new technology.

neil_g · 13 Mar 2008 at 15:56

looking that the current internet network in this country we are a good few years away from streaming if you ask me.

v0n · 13 Mar 2008 at 16:07

The only thing that bottlenecks streaming and download technologies in UK is BT charging per gigabytage and ISPs tampering with usage using throttling, shaping and Fair Usage Policies. 8Mbit DSL in any normal place on earth can download 3 times faster than DVD quality mpeg4 stream, so "too long" is argument only if you live in UK or use AOL as your ISP.

Rebelius · 13 Mar 2008 at 18:15

If (theoretically speaking, of course) I were to start a download of 1080p versions of the Matrix trilogy tonight, I'm pretty sure it'd be watchable before an HD-DVD version I ordered from an e-tailer. It would definitely be here before a BluRay version!

chaparral · 13 Mar 2008 at 19:08

Rebelius said:
If (theoretically speaking, of course) I were to start a download of 1080p versions of the Matrix trilogy tonight, I'm pretty sure it'd be watchable before an HD-DVD version I ordered from an e-tailer. It would definitely be here before a BluRay version!

1080p matrix trilogy would take me weeks to download on my 1mb line (120k max,,but much of the time it maxes at less then 40k at peak times :mad:

)

Syph · 13 Mar 2008 at 22:20

What's wrong with discs anyway? Don't get me wrong, my CD collection is all now HD based, but these are files that are small and easy to shift around. I actually quite like my DVD collection.

I'm a techy sort of person, but I don't have anything under my telly capable of streaming or playing files from the internet.

unwashed potato! · 13 Mar 2008 at 22:49

Syph said:
What's wrong with discs anyway? Don't get me wrong, my CD collection is all now HD based, but these are files that are small and easy to shift around. I actually quite like my DVD collection.

I'm a techy sort of person, but I don't have anything under my telly capable of streaming or playing files from the internet.

nothing really except the cost and the time taken to get the item to you. if i was to order from say amazon, it would be roughly 2 days until i got the film, which i may only watch once, where as download almost definately will be with me before then and cost nothing.

tbh i don't think downloading will ever replace dvd's purely because people like to own the dvds.

Syph · 13 Mar 2008 at 22:57

Mammalian said:
... cost nothing.

I'm assuming you mean delivery cost?

Thing is, so many places don't charge for delivery and things get to you fairly quickly now anyway. Also, how many 'normal' people just pick up a film from Asda now, with the rest of the shopping. It's almost as cheap now to get them from supermarkets as it is ordering online.

And I know this is becoming less of an issue, but do people have the storage space to keep digitally distributed films?

It's going to be a good while, maybe towards the end of the life of Blu Ray, to replace discs world wide with digitally distributed films.

JUMPURS · 13 Mar 2008 at 23:02

Interesting it has came from Disney, when they have just announced they have passed 4m movies sold through iTunes.

Rebelius · 14 Mar 2008 at 01:13

Syph said:
And I know this is becoming less of an issue, but do people have the storage space to keep digitally distributed films?

With hard drive space being so cheap these days, I've got all my DVDs ripped so I don't have to bother with finding/changing disks all the time, and my DVD cases stay neatly on the shelf

If there was some sort of steam-like system for movies where once you've bought a film you could download it any number of times, storage wouldn't even be an issue - you could just delete a film once you'd watched it and then get it again later if you wanted to see it again. You could also "rent" movies by downloading them and them self-destructing after 5 days (like 4oD).

I would suggest just streaming instead of download/deleting but I guess a lot of people are like me and have FUPs to play along with giving us something like 20GB a month to play with between 4pm and midnight, which is exactly when I'd be wanting to watch movies.

unwashed potato! · 14 Mar 2008 at 09:18

Rebelius said:
If there was some sort of steam-like system for movies where once you've bought a film you could download it any number of times, storage wouldn't even be an issue

that would be crazy though, imagine the costs for the servers to power you to be able to download a full length film many times.

how big is the average film?

Phoenix211 · 14 Mar 2008 at 10:20

any sources for this stuff guys? sounds tres useful for my dissertation!

Dolph · 14 Mar 2008 at 10:26

area512003 said:
Four Hollywood studio officials have said this month that downloads are not a threat to physical media because they take too long to download and are apparently complicated. “Downloading sales are not going to ‘hockey-stick’ soon. Every time I access a site and download, it’s not necessarily seamless.” said Disney's vice president of new technology.

Well, streaming hi-def content with a similar quality to BR or HD-DVD (especially including audio streams) (30-40mbit/s continuously) is well outside the capabilities of most of the current networks in the UK and the US (The US is behind us and we're behind places like Japan and South Korea by a long way). Downloading hi-def content is more feasable, but it's not going to be trip to the shops quick.

Plus there's the issue of how rights would be managed with digital downloads, it's even more concerning than the current restrictions on physical disks.

El_Watcher · 14 Mar 2008 at 12:47

The other thing people are forgetting about downloads is what device do you use to get the film onto your TV?

ATM choices would be Xbox360, PS3, AppleTV box, HTPC.

Most people have 360 with 20GB HDD so not big enough for more than 2 films and prices of films isn't great.
PS3 hasn't started movie downloads yet, might might be OK.
AppleTV, are you limited to iTunes?
HTPC, how many people actually want a PC in their living room?

If companies like Panasonic, Samsung and Pioneer can come up with a standard box that has the capabilities and space, for a sensible price (<£200), then maybe it will take off once broadband is not an issue.

shrek2 · 14 Mar 2008 at 22:17

http://www.gamesindustry.biz/content_page.php?aid=34141
Microsoft disagree. Whatever that bloke has been smoking please pass me some. Digital downloads has barely dented dvd sales and he is expecting it now to take over the hi def market?

Glaucus · 14 Mar 2008 at 22:30

what a load of rubbish. it'll catch on just like mp3's did and take the industry several years to catch up. Rather than getting it in place now. They'll wait till it's all pirated to hell and dents there income before they finally wake up.

Rebelius · 14 Mar 2008 at 23:38

Mammalian said:
that would be crazy though, imagine the costs for the servers to power you to be able to download a full length film many times.

how big is the average film?

The Usenet providers manage it for subscriptions of $20/month, so why couldn't film Studios for a few dollars a film?

AcidHell2 said:
what a load of rubbish. it'll catch on just like mp3's did and take the industry several years to catch up. Rather than getting it in place now. They'll wait till it's all pirated to hell and dents there income before they finally wake up.

you mean like it already is pirated to hell?