Will streaming kill physical media?
Chris Gould takes a look at the current state of streaming vs physical media...
Over the past few months it seems like more and more people from various backgrounds have been making the argument that physical media is 'dead' and that streaming is the new king. As someone whose collection consists of thousands of pieces of physical media across a variety of formats I have my own views on this subject. In light of this I thought it might be interesting to put forth the current state of streaming vs disc-based formats as I see it, hopefully to spark some debate and see where our readers stand on the matter.
Firstly it's fair to say that I'm not completely without bias in this argument. I've written for DVDActive for over ten years and I've seen DVD grow from its relative infancy to evolve into the dominant home entertainment format. I've also witnessed the emergence of Blu-ray, which has since gone on to become the format of choice for hardcore film enthusiasts and technical geeks. Both of these are physical formats and I love them. However, I also use a streaming service (Netflix) for the convenience of a quick fix, so I'm not some dinosaur completely opposed to on-demand services.
The convenience angle seems to be one of the biggest arguments made in favour of streaming services, so let's begin there. While my exposure to streaming is limited to the aforementioned Netflix I must agree that it's nice to be able to turn on the PC, PS3, BD player or tablet and browse a selection of movies and TV shows. There's no waiting around for the postman, nor any trips to the rental store to contend with. If I decide I want to watch something at two o'clock in the morning I simply fire up one of my devices and away I go. By comparison physical media is a positive chore. If I want to watch something new I have to plan ahead and pray that the postal system has its act together this week. If I want to watch something new in the early hours of the morning it means getting of off my lazy behind and driving miles to the nearest twenty-four hour supermarket and hoping they have something suitable in store, which obviously isn't an ideal situation. Another convenient feature of streaming is that it doesn't require any form of storage at the end-user's home. You can simply select your film, watch it, and then move on to the next one without the need to convert the spare bedroom into a display area for your collection of optical media. As someone whose house is stuffed to the gills with DVDs, Blu-rays and games, I can see why this is an attractive option for many. No, I don't think anyone can seriously make a convincing argument for physical media's convenience over streaming services, but what about selection?
Streaming services are great for a quick fix when you don't particularly mind what you watch, but what if you have a strong desire to see the latest movies or some obscure foreign film? While Netflix actually has a surprisingly good selection of foreign and obscure films they don't rotate all that often and are of course just a tiny sample of what is available. Recently I was astounded to find Galaxy of Terror in HD on Netflix, and in the past I've even watched the 'classics' Robot Jox and Buckaroo Banzai, along with some fairly recent Japanese and Korean features. However, if I wanted to watch something like Mr. Vampire or The Beastmaster I'd be out of luck. Even big name titles such as the Star Wars and Harry Potter sagas, and classics such as The Godfather and Jaws are conspicuous by their absence from the streaming services. From looking at the Lovefilm catalogue it appears as if they might offer some films that Netflix do not (and vice versa), but even if you were to sign up to multiple streaming services you still wouldn't have access to everything that physical media offers. Of course this could change in the future if the market shifts firmly towards the digital distribution model, but at the moment disc-based distribution has the edge in this area.
So you have your content, but what about the quality of said content? As things stand physical media is, for my money, head and shoulders above of streaming. From what I've been able to learn, Netflix still has the edge in the quality stakes over its main rival (Lovefilm) when it comes to streaming. Lovefilm's site claims that 1080p streams are currently only available on PCs, with other devices only supporting 720p. The bandwidth required for these streams is also higher than Netflix (but more on this point later). Netflix has recently overhauled its service to offer Super HD versions of some titles, but this is ISP dependant and many people are still left with the regular 1080p streams or below (although it seems frivolous to complain about such things). Although the quality of these streams is impressive compared to standard definition and even broadcast HD, it's simply not up to the standard of the average Blu-ray equivalent.
On this page I've included a number of comparisons between Netflix HD streams and the Blu-ray equivalents. Now I'll admit that the Netflix streams are actually quite impressive, especially if you're a casual viewer who views entertainment as a disposable commodity. As a film and home-theatre enthusiast I sometimes forget that not everyone shares my obsession and as such aren't really concerned with things like grain, colour reproduction, or artefacts. However, for people like me the advantages of physical media are obvious. In each of the comparisons on the page the Blu-ray version of the film is sharper and more detailed, with superior colour and contrast for a 'film-like' appearance. Then of course there's the audio. Some of Netflix's streams offer Dolby Digital Plus 5.1 audio, which is good, but still not as good as the higher-fidelity lossless audio found on Blu-ray. Additionally, a large number of Blu-ray discs are now releasing with 7.1 audio, something that streaming services do not yet offer. Extras are another plus for physical media, especially those that offer genuine insight into the filmmaking process. It seems to me that, while streaming isn't a million miles behind, if you want the very best quality you'll have to stick with those shiny Blu-ray discs until such time as the on-demand services catch up. Of course as the popularity of MP3 has shown sometimes quality just isn't the overriding factor in people's purchasing decisions.
This leads me neatly on to my next point, that of on-demand content delivery. For me this is the single biggest obstacle facing the mass-adoption of streaming services. I'm lucky enough to live in an area that offers cable broadband at speeds of up to 100Mbps (soon to be 120Mbps), but even I suffer from the dreaded buffering and drop-outs during periods of high network utilisation. It's all well and good advertising these high speed services, but bandwidth is finite and at peak times even the fastest networks can buckle under the strain. Of course this high speed doesn't come cheap either, with my service weighing in at £35 per month. Sure you can opt for a lower tier service, but these usually come with more restrictive bandwidth caps and when you consider that streaming an HD film can consume 2-3GB of data every hour it's not hard to see how you could go over your allowance. In some cases this only leads to a temporary reduction in speed - a minor annoyance to be sure - but in others it could lead to additional charges or the loss of Internet entirely. As more and more people sign up to streaming services the strain on the infrastructure is only going to get worse, so some serious investment is needed before everyone will be able to watch on-demand content at anything approaching Blu-ray quality. In many areas (particularly rural) people's only option is still ADSL down old copper phone lines, which simply doesn't offer anything like the bandwidth for current services let alone future developments. 4K is apparently the next 'big thing' and that will require even more bandwidth than today's HD content. No, the UK is still a long way from having the sort of broadband infrastructure that can support streaming as the number one delivery method, and I suspect this is true of many countries.
As an adjunct of the above point, I work in IT and in my experience the majority of people are scared to death of technology. Granted younger people are more conversant in such things, but I'm frequently amazed by how many twenty-somethings exhibit almost no aptitude for even the most basic of technical tasks (and don't even get me started on the 'we should go back to pen and pencil' brigade). When such individuals are ill at ease with concepts like inserting a disc into a drive - something that confuses people more often than you'd think - it's hard to imagine them coping when faced with the prospect of navigating an intangible library of movies on an 'alien' device. Of course these people were probably just as scared of VHS and DVD and will eventually learn the necessary skills, but I find suggestions that we are currently living in an age when everyone is comfortable streaming or downloading their entertainment highly dubious.
Another factor that is often overlooked is people's innate desire to hold something tangible in their hands; to build a library of films. Even as someone who owns what others might call an excessive number of DVDs and Blu-rays the current Steelbook craze bemuses me, but there are obviously people out there who are keen collectors and as such are creating the demand for that particular market. There's definitely a psychological component to the accumulation of material goods, and I always get more of a rush from receiving a Blu-ray in the post than I do from streaming or downloading a film. To me there's more inherent worth in the physical object than there is in the digital equivalent, which feels largely disposable by comparison. Of course I'm the sort of person who used to buy vinyl instead of CDs...
There are no doubt other arguments to consider on both sides, but if I went into that much depth this article would never end. So, to avoid droning on incessantly, here's a brief summary of the pros and cons of both delivery systems:
Again I'd like to emphasis that this is how I see the current state of streaming vs physical media. Your views and opinions could differ wildly from mine depending on your usage habits and preferences and ultimately this is what will drive the market. If enough people chose the convenience of streaming over the technical superiority of physical media that is where the industry will go. Of course the upshot could well be that such a move will force content makers to provide better quality streaming services that match, or even exceed the quality currently afforded by Blu-ray. So to answer the question posed by the title of this article, yes, streaming may eventually 'kill' mass-market physical media. However, I believe we're a long way off from that yet and even if it does come to pass there will still be a market for physical media of some sort, even if it is relatively small. Perhaps we'll end up with something akin to the vinyl market today. What do you think?
* Note: The images on this page were captured from Netflix HD streams and the equivalent Blu-rays for comparison purposes. Each of the films currently feature in the UK Netflix site's 'popular' section and represent a cross-section of films old and new.
Editorial by Chris Gould
Firstly it's fair to say that I'm not completely without bias in this argument. I've written for DVDActive for over ten years and I've seen DVD grow from its relative infancy to evolve into the dominant home entertainment format. I've also witnessed the emergence of Blu-ray, which has since gone on to become the format of choice for hardcore film enthusiasts and technical geeks. Both of these are physical formats and I love them. However, I also use a streaming service (Netflix) for the convenience of a quick fix, so I'm not some dinosaur completely opposed to on-demand services.
The convenience angle seems to be one of the biggest arguments made in favour of streaming services, so let's begin there. While my exposure to streaming is limited to the aforementioned Netflix I must agree that it's nice to be able to turn on the PC, PS3, BD player or tablet and browse a selection of movies and TV shows. There's no waiting around for the postman, nor any trips to the rental store to contend with. If I decide I want to watch something at two o'clock in the morning I simply fire up one of my devices and away I go. By comparison physical media is a positive chore. If I want to watch something new I have to plan ahead and pray that the postal system has its act together this week. If I want to watch something new in the early hours of the morning it means getting of off my lazy behind and driving miles to the nearest twenty-four hour supermarket and hoping they have something suitable in store, which obviously isn't an ideal situation. Another convenient feature of streaming is that it doesn't require any form of storage at the end-user's home. You can simply select your film, watch it, and then move on to the next one without the need to convert the spare bedroom into a display area for your collection of optical media. As someone whose house is stuffed to the gills with DVDs, Blu-rays and games, I can see why this is an attractive option for many. No, I don't think anyone can seriously make a convincing argument for physical media's convenience over streaming services, but what about selection?
Streaming services are great for a quick fix when you don't particularly mind what you watch, but what if you have a strong desire to see the latest movies or some obscure foreign film? While Netflix actually has a surprisingly good selection of foreign and obscure films they don't rotate all that often and are of course just a tiny sample of what is available. Recently I was astounded to find Galaxy of Terror in HD on Netflix, and in the past I've even watched the 'classics' Robot Jox and Buckaroo Banzai, along with some fairly recent Japanese and Korean features. However, if I wanted to watch something like Mr. Vampire or The Beastmaster I'd be out of luck. Even big name titles such as the Star Wars and Harry Potter sagas, and classics such as The Godfather and Jaws are conspicuous by their absence from the streaming services. From looking at the Lovefilm catalogue it appears as if they might offer some films that Netflix do not (and vice versa), but even if you were to sign up to multiple streaming services you still wouldn't have access to everything that physical media offers. Of course this could change in the future if the market shifts firmly towards the digital distribution model, but at the moment disc-based distribution has the edge in this area.
So you have your content, but what about the quality of said content? As things stand physical media is, for my money, head and shoulders above of streaming. From what I've been able to learn, Netflix still has the edge in the quality stakes over its main rival (Lovefilm) when it comes to streaming. Lovefilm's site claims that 1080p streams are currently only available on PCs, with other devices only supporting 720p. The bandwidth required for these streams is also higher than Netflix (but more on this point later). Netflix has recently overhauled its service to offer Super HD versions of some titles, but this is ISP dependant and many people are still left with the regular 1080p streams or below (although it seems frivolous to complain about such things). Although the quality of these streams is impressive compared to standard definition and even broadcast HD, it's simply not up to the standard of the average Blu-ray equivalent.
On this page I've included a number of comparisons between Netflix HD streams and the Blu-ray equivalents. Now I'll admit that the Netflix streams are actually quite impressive, especially if you're a casual viewer who views entertainment as a disposable commodity. As a film and home-theatre enthusiast I sometimes forget that not everyone shares my obsession and as such aren't really concerned with things like grain, colour reproduction, or artefacts. However, for people like me the advantages of physical media are obvious. In each of the comparisons on the page the Blu-ray version of the film is sharper and more detailed, with superior colour and contrast for a 'film-like' appearance. Then of course there's the audio. Some of Netflix's streams offer Dolby Digital Plus 5.1 audio, which is good, but still not as good as the higher-fidelity lossless audio found on Blu-ray. Additionally, a large number of Blu-ray discs are now releasing with 7.1 audio, something that streaming services do not yet offer. Extras are another plus for physical media, especially those that offer genuine insight into the filmmaking process. It seems to me that, while streaming isn't a million miles behind, if you want the very best quality you'll have to stick with those shiny Blu-ray discs until such time as the on-demand services catch up. Of course as the popularity of MP3 has shown sometimes quality just isn't the overriding factor in people's purchasing decisions.
This leads me neatly on to my next point, that of on-demand content delivery. For me this is the single biggest obstacle facing the mass-adoption of streaming services. I'm lucky enough to live in an area that offers cable broadband at speeds of up to 100Mbps (soon to be 120Mbps), but even I suffer from the dreaded buffering and drop-outs during periods of high network utilisation. It's all well and good advertising these high speed services, but bandwidth is finite and at peak times even the fastest networks can buckle under the strain. Of course this high speed doesn't come cheap either, with my service weighing in at £35 per month. Sure you can opt for a lower tier service, but these usually come with more restrictive bandwidth caps and when you consider that streaming an HD film can consume 2-3GB of data every hour it's not hard to see how you could go over your allowance. In some cases this only leads to a temporary reduction in speed - a minor annoyance to be sure - but in others it could lead to additional charges or the loss of Internet entirely. As more and more people sign up to streaming services the strain on the infrastructure is only going to get worse, so some serious investment is needed before everyone will be able to watch on-demand content at anything approaching Blu-ray quality. In many areas (particularly rural) people's only option is still ADSL down old copper phone lines, which simply doesn't offer anything like the bandwidth for current services let alone future developments. 4K is apparently the next 'big thing' and that will require even more bandwidth than today's HD content. No, the UK is still a long way from having the sort of broadband infrastructure that can support streaming as the number one delivery method, and I suspect this is true of many countries.
As an adjunct of the above point, I work in IT and in my experience the majority of people are scared to death of technology. Granted younger people are more conversant in such things, but I'm frequently amazed by how many twenty-somethings exhibit almost no aptitude for even the most basic of technical tasks (and don't even get me started on the 'we should go back to pen and pencil' brigade). When such individuals are ill at ease with concepts like inserting a disc into a drive - something that confuses people more often than you'd think - it's hard to imagine them coping when faced with the prospect of navigating an intangible library of movies on an 'alien' device. Of course these people were probably just as scared of VHS and DVD and will eventually learn the necessary skills, but I find suggestions that we are currently living in an age when everyone is comfortable streaming or downloading their entertainment highly dubious.
Another factor that is often overlooked is people's innate desire to hold something tangible in their hands; to build a library of films. Even as someone who owns what others might call an excessive number of DVDs and Blu-rays the current Steelbook craze bemuses me, but there are obviously people out there who are keen collectors and as such are creating the demand for that particular market. There's definitely a psychological component to the accumulation of material goods, and I always get more of a rush from receiving a Blu-ray in the post than I do from streaming or downloading a film. To me there's more inherent worth in the physical object than there is in the digital equivalent, which feels largely disposable by comparison. Of course I'm the sort of person who used to buy vinyl instead of CDs...
There are no doubt other arguments to consider on both sides, but if I went into that much depth this article would never end. So, to avoid droning on incessantly, here's a brief summary of the pros and cons of both delivery systems:
Streaming pros:
- Convenience
- Relatively low cost
- Acceptable quality (not the best, but 'good is good enough' for some)
Streaming cons:
- Quality inferior to physical media
- Heavily reliant on broadband availability and performance
- Use requires 'retraining'
- Limited selection
Physical media pros:
- Offers the best quality
- People like to own something tangible (collectors)
- Not reliant on broadband speed, bandwidth or continuity
Physical media cons:
- Require physical storage space
- Can break/otherwise corrupt
- Higher costs
- Some hardware compatibility issues
Again I'd like to emphasis that this is how I see the current state of streaming vs physical media. Your views and opinions could differ wildly from mine depending on your usage habits and preferences and ultimately this is what will drive the market. If enough people chose the convenience of streaming over the technical superiority of physical media that is where the industry will go. Of course the upshot could well be that such a move will force content makers to provide better quality streaming services that match, or even exceed the quality currently afforded by Blu-ray. So to answer the question posed by the title of this article, yes, streaming may eventually 'kill' mass-market physical media. However, I believe we're a long way off from that yet and even if it does come to pass there will still be a market for physical media of some sort, even if it is relatively small. Perhaps we'll end up with something akin to the vinyl market today. What do you think?
* Note: The images on this page were captured from Netflix HD streams and the equivalent Blu-rays for comparison purposes. Each of the films currently feature in the UK Netflix site's 'popular' section and represent a cross-section of films old and new.
Editorial by Chris Gould
Advertisements
Predicting the future
AsgerH wrote: Graversen it is actually you who think you can predict the future; you rushed in to support the ridiculous notion that just because a new form of transmission has been invented [..]
Funny, I always end up writing: "I honestly believe that..." While you indirectly but very strongly are saying: "This is how it's gonna be...". I'm at least admitting that I'm only trying to predict the future, while you have already seen it, so who is really the self-proclaimed "futurology experts"? Also, could you maybe tell me the LOTTO-numbers for next week?
AsgerH wrote: It is okay to like streaming and non-physical copies as you obviously do, but it is plain dumb to think that just because you and many others do then everyboy else will follow.
It is also plain dumb to think that human behavior will change to a general disinterest in physical copies.
So my views are ridiculous, dumb, and plain dumb? Try being a bit more condescending that's usually the easiest way to win an online debate, either that or calling the other guy a Nazi.
AsgerH wrote: You can argue all you want, but you are in the same boat as all the other people who wrongfully predicted the end of other media because of new technologies or distribution methods.
Right, so you still consider VHS and cassette tapes well used media?
AsgerH wrote: I think the perspectives I have shared are helpful for the people who are worried by self-proclaimed "futurology experts" saying that their beloved hardcopies might go away to tell them, that never before has a new medium done anything but ultimately take up it's own niche and thereby also made the qualities and attractions of the alternatives more clear. My arguments are for them, and their peace of mind.
Speaking of common sense, you need to either have been raised by monkeys or born before 1940 to actually worry that the development of media will have any kind of profoundly negative effect on your life.
AsgerH wrote: But my arguments are based on solid media research, e.g. by Niels Ole Finnemann, as well as common sense.
I'm still waiting for any proper sources. Niels Ole sounds familiar. I have also read a book once, it was my own diary from when I was 13 years old. Do you know anyone who is about 13 today? If you do, do you think that person has ever tried to use a VHS- or Cassette tape, or do you think many 13 years old has any interest in listing to music on CD's today?
Teens and lately also tweens (age 8-14) has a great spending power and therefore also influence on entertainment media. Now lets skip 10 year into the future, do you think a lot of the 13 years old in 2023 has any interest in DVD's or blu-rays, or whatever physical media movies are sold on? I don't think so.
I guess if your generation could live forever, the physical media would also strive forever, but when kids are growing up with MP3's on their mobile phones, buying games on App Store and Steam, and watching movies on Netflix. I don't think it will take that many generations before both kids and grownups don't have any relation or interest in the inconveniences of physical media, other than the nostalgia feeling.
AsgerH wrote: People always preferred hardcopies.
Considering "preffered" is in simple past I guess you mean "People has always preffered hardcopies". If people in general prefers something, it must mean that more than half of all people prefers it, or in other words the majority.
Now I have already linked to statistics that proves that more than 50 % of all PC-games was sold digitally back in 2010, and it has only gone in one direction since. And there is really no point in proving where people prefers to buy and receive software (programs & apps) in general.
Recent studies also indicates that people now prefer to buy music online:
http://elitedaily.com/elite/2012/digital-music-...
eBooks popularity is also going up with extreme speed. Just consider how many Book Stores and Blockbuster stores has closed over the years. It just seems like digital media is taking over every single physical media:
http://googlelogo.org/physical-media-like-book-...
Considering how strong you obviously feel about this matter, how you feel the need to comfort the worried people, and how there is no reasoning with you at all, maybe it's really just you who are afraid of a digital future? I for once are embracing it and the possibility of it to happen.
Funny, I always end up writing: "I honestly believe that..." While you indirectly but very strongly are saying: "This is how it's gonna be...". I'm at least admitting that I'm only trying to predict the future, while you have already seen it, so who is really the self-proclaimed "futurology experts"? Also, could you maybe tell me the LOTTO-numbers for next week?
AsgerH wrote: It is okay to like streaming and non-physical copies as you obviously do, but it is plain dumb to think that just because you and many others do then everyboy else will follow.
It is also plain dumb to think that human behavior will change to a general disinterest in physical copies.
So my views are ridiculous, dumb, and plain dumb? Try being a bit more condescending that's usually the easiest way to win an online debate, either that or calling the other guy a Nazi.
AsgerH wrote: You can argue all you want, but you are in the same boat as all the other people who wrongfully predicted the end of other media because of new technologies or distribution methods.
Right, so you still consider VHS and cassette tapes well used media?
AsgerH wrote: I think the perspectives I have shared are helpful for the people who are worried by self-proclaimed "futurology experts" saying that their beloved hardcopies might go away to tell them, that never before has a new medium done anything but ultimately take up it's own niche and thereby also made the qualities and attractions of the alternatives more clear. My arguments are for them, and their peace of mind.
Speaking of common sense, you need to either have been raised by monkeys or born before 1940 to actually worry that the development of media will have any kind of profoundly negative effect on your life.
AsgerH wrote: But my arguments are based on solid media research, e.g. by Niels Ole Finnemann, as well as common sense.
I'm still waiting for any proper sources. Niels Ole sounds familiar. I have also read a book once, it was my own diary from when I was 13 years old. Do you know anyone who is about 13 today? If you do, do you think that person has ever tried to use a VHS- or Cassette tape, or do you think many 13 years old has any interest in listing to music on CD's today?
Teens and lately also tweens (age 8-14) has a great spending power and therefore also influence on entertainment media. Now lets skip 10 year into the future, do you think a lot of the 13 years old in 2023 has any interest in DVD's or blu-rays, or whatever physical media movies are sold on? I don't think so.
I guess if your generation could live forever, the physical media would also strive forever, but when kids are growing up with MP3's on their mobile phones, buying games on App Store and Steam, and watching movies on Netflix. I don't think it will take that many generations before both kids and grownups don't have any relation or interest in the inconveniences of physical media, other than the nostalgia feeling.
AsgerH wrote: People always preferred hardcopies.
Considering "preffered" is in simple past I guess you mean "People has always preffered hardcopies". If people in general prefers something, it must mean that more than half of all people prefers it, or in other words the majority.
Now I have already linked to statistics that proves that more than 50 % of all PC-games was sold digitally back in 2010, and it has only gone in one direction since. And there is really no point in proving where people prefers to buy and receive software (programs & apps) in general.
Recent studies also indicates that people now prefer to buy music online:
http://elitedaily.com/elite/2012/digital-music-...
eBooks popularity is also going up with extreme speed. Just consider how many Book Stores and Blockbuster stores has closed over the years. It just seems like digital media is taking over every single physical media:
http://googlelogo.org/physical-media-like-book-...
Considering how strong you obviously feel about this matter, how you feel the need to comfort the worried people, and how there is no reasoning with you at all, maybe it's really just you who are afraid of a digital future? I for once are embracing it and the possibility of it to happen.
Graversen,
a) "who is really the self-proclaimed "futurology experts"?"
You are. You keep telling us that teens won't like physical coopies ten years from now. And your "I honestly believe that" is only rhetoric in that context.
b) "I'm still waiting for any proper sources. Niels Ole sounds familiar. I have also read a book once, it was my own diary from when I was 13 years old. Do you know anyone who is about 13 today? If you do, do you think that person has ever tried to use a VHS- or Cassette tape, or do you think many 13 years old has any interest in listing to music on CD's today?"
No, I did'nt think you would know Niels Ole. He is a professor in the topic we are discussing. As you might hvae found out, google is invented actually. And your comparison sucks; it is you, not I who lean upon wiews at a 13-years old maturity level.
As for 13-years olds today I know a lot, and they all have hardcopies of anything they really like. Do YOU know any 13 year olds (apart from yourself)?
c) "Try being a bit more condescending that's usually the easiest way to win an online debate, either that or calling the other guy a Nazi."
Look who's talking. But yes, no medium has ever replaced another, and people haven't been satisfied with "downloaded" or "taped" copies of transmissions ever before, so the idea that they will suddenly be *is* ridiculous.
d) "Considering how strong you obviously feel about this matter, how you feel the need to comfort the worried people, and how there is no reasoning with you at all, maybe it's really just you who are afraid of a digital future? I for once are embracing it and the possibility of it to happen."
You are not embracing, you are proclaiming (the superiority of your own prefrence).
My predictions of the future are based on the theory that people will remain basically people. That has nothing to do with lottery numbers.
And no, I do not fear a digital future, and neither do I fear that people will stop wanting ohysical ownership of the stuff they like.
You ARE making predictions, and they are based on disregarding the fact that a sufficient number of people want hardcopies for the simple reason that they are stable and easily kepttu ensure a broad and lasting makret.
This IS ridiculous, it is the same, old same old superstitions of all the people who went before you saying this will stop that.
But I can see that you will not stop saying "hardcopies will disappear" until time has proved you wrong in a decade or so (or will you ever agree that a remaining large market is not just the last death throes?).
P.S.
Graversen
e) "Right, so you still consider VHS and cassette tapes well used media?"
You are either deliberately misunderstanding me you you are more stupid than I have given you credit for.
f) "Speaking of common sense, you need to either have been raised by monkeys or born before 1940 to actually worry that the development of media will have any kind of profoundly negative effect on your life.
Moron!
g)"Considering "preffered" is in simple past I guess you mean "People has always preffered hardcopies". If people in general prefers something, it must mean that more than half of all people prefers it, or in other words the majority."
Not surprisingly, your analysis is wrong - although it could have been right if the sentence stood alone and wasn't part of a larger context.
The sentence "People always preferred hardcopies." is called an enthymeme in linguistics: I omitted the obvious part saying "when it is something they actually like and regard as having lasting value". This simplified form of communication where one does not repeat that which is obvious and already clearly stated, is directed at people who can think, read, and understand arguments. I momentarily forgot I was talking to you, too.
But you make a good point in showing that you disregard context when attempting to construct arguments.
a) "who is really the self-proclaimed "futurology experts"?"
You are. You keep telling us that teens won't like physical coopies ten years from now. And your "I honestly believe that" is only rhetoric in that context.
b) "I'm still waiting for any proper sources. Niels Ole sounds familiar. I have also read a book once, it was my own diary from when I was 13 years old. Do you know anyone who is about 13 today? If you do, do you think that person has ever tried to use a VHS- or Cassette tape, or do you think many 13 years old has any interest in listing to music on CD's today?"
No, I did'nt think you would know Niels Ole. He is a professor in the topic we are discussing. As you might hvae found out, google is invented actually. And your comparison sucks; it is you, not I who lean upon wiews at a 13-years old maturity level.
As for 13-years olds today I know a lot, and they all have hardcopies of anything they really like. Do YOU know any 13 year olds (apart from yourself)?
c) "Try being a bit more condescending that's usually the easiest way to win an online debate, either that or calling the other guy a Nazi."
Look who's talking. But yes, no medium has ever replaced another, and people haven't been satisfied with "downloaded" or "taped" copies of transmissions ever before, so the idea that they will suddenly be *is* ridiculous.
d) "Considering how strong you obviously feel about this matter, how you feel the need to comfort the worried people, and how there is no reasoning with you at all, maybe it's really just you who are afraid of a digital future? I for once are embracing it and the possibility of it to happen."
You are not embracing, you are proclaiming (the superiority of your own prefrence).
My predictions of the future are based on the theory that people will remain basically people. That has nothing to do with lottery numbers.
And no, I do not fear a digital future, and neither do I fear that people will stop wanting ohysical ownership of the stuff they like.
You ARE making predictions, and they are based on disregarding the fact that a sufficient number of people want hardcopies for the simple reason that they are stable and easily kepttu ensure a broad and lasting makret.
This IS ridiculous, it is the same, old same old superstitions of all the people who went before you saying this will stop that.
But I can see that you will not stop saying "hardcopies will disappear" until time has proved you wrong in a decade or so (or will you ever agree that a remaining large market is not just the last death throes?).
P.S.
Graversen
e) "Right, so you still consider VHS and cassette tapes well used media?"
You are either deliberately misunderstanding me you you are more stupid than I have given you credit for.
f) "Speaking of common sense, you need to either have been raised by monkeys or born before 1940 to actually worry that the development of media will have any kind of profoundly negative effect on your life.
Moron!
g)"Considering "preffered" is in simple past I guess you mean "People has always preffered hardcopies". If people in general prefers something, it must mean that more than half of all people prefers it, or in other words the majority."
Not surprisingly, your analysis is wrong - although it could have been right if the sentence stood alone and wasn't part of a larger context.
The sentence "People always preferred hardcopies." is called an enthymeme in linguistics: I omitted the obvious part saying "when it is something they actually like and regard as having lasting value". This simplified form of communication where one does not repeat that which is obvious and already clearly stated, is directed at people who can think, read, and understand arguments. I momentarily forgot I was talking to you, too.
But you make a good point in showing that you disregard context when attempting to construct arguments.
AsgerH wrote: But you make a good point in showing that you disregard context when attempting to construct arguments.
Touché.
Touché.
For me I still prefer physical media due to the quality and reliability. I didn't buy high end media gear just to put up with poor compressed sound tracks and 720p (Yes, I know you can get better picture quality streaming but alot aren't). MP3's are still the very poor cousin of a CD track quality wise.
Here in Australia the internet is still catching up - a lot of houses will not have the speed required for high end streaming.
I can see streaming is the future - it seems to me to be the next step in the evolution.
The only problem is when you store things on a hard drive this can also lead to loss of movies when it fails. I have had a couple of hard drives fail and reliability is a concern - especially for example if I were to lose all my digital pictures. I have 2 back-up hard drives that I plug into a dock to ensure all things on my PC are backed up in case of failure - ensuring that the afore mentioned hard drives are electrically safe in case of voltage surges, etc. We would be devastated if we lost all out photos.
Here in Australia the internet is still catching up - a lot of houses will not have the speed required for high end streaming.
I can see streaming is the future - it seems to me to be the next step in the evolution.
The only problem is when you store things on a hard drive this can also lead to loss of movies when it fails. I have had a couple of hard drives fail and reliability is a concern - especially for example if I were to lose all my digital pictures. I have 2 back-up hard drives that I plug into a dock to ensure all things on my PC are backed up in case of failure - ensuring that the afore mentioned hard drives are electrically safe in case of voltage surges, etc. We would be devastated if we lost all out photos.
... how people's minds seem to run in circles.
"I can see streaming is the future - it seems to me to be the next step in the evolution."
YES - "it is the future" ... of TV. YES - "It is the next step in the evolution" ... of TV.
WTF do you think that has got to do with hardcopies?
It is two different markets. Always were. Will remain.
TV does not compete with hardcopies, timed or steamed transmissions makes no difference except in the quality of the service offered - for TV watchers.
Only hype and people who actually cannot tell the difference between TV and hardcopies (because they never cared in the first place) would be naive enough to suspect otherwise.
* The cheapest way to watch a movie more than twice is by buying a hardcopy.
* The only way to be sure you still have a movie in two years is a hardcopy.
* The best quality is obtained by buying a hardcopy.
* Hardcopies do not require maintenance and back-ups. You own it - problem solved.
The hardcopy market originally was for people who wanted to own their stuff. It still is. It will remain so.
I know people who use streaming. They haven't stopped buying hardcopies of what they really like, or what their kids really like. Streaming replaces impulse purchases and physical rental.
Streaming or downloads HAS not replaced anything else. It CANNOT replace anything else. It therefore WILL not replace anything else.
(Games and pop music fads don't last. Movies and serious music do. There is no comparison there. Show me a person who will skip hardcopy ownership of Genesis albums or Kubrick movies, and I will show you a person who doesn't really care for the stuff anyway.)
Streaming will replace hardcopies like public benches will replace home furniture.
"I can see streaming is the future - it seems to me to be the next step in the evolution."
YES - "it is the future" ... of TV. YES - "It is the next step in the evolution" ... of TV.
WTF do you think that has got to do with hardcopies?
It is two different markets. Always were. Will remain.
TV does not compete with hardcopies, timed or steamed transmissions makes no difference except in the quality of the service offered - for TV watchers.
Only hype and people who actually cannot tell the difference between TV and hardcopies (because they never cared in the first place) would be naive enough to suspect otherwise.
* The cheapest way to watch a movie more than twice is by buying a hardcopy.
* The only way to be sure you still have a movie in two years is a hardcopy.
* The best quality is obtained by buying a hardcopy.
* Hardcopies do not require maintenance and back-ups. You own it - problem solved.
The hardcopy market originally was for people who wanted to own their stuff. It still is. It will remain so.
I know people who use streaming. They haven't stopped buying hardcopies of what they really like, or what their kids really like. Streaming replaces impulse purchases and physical rental.
Streaming or downloads HAS not replaced anything else. It CANNOT replace anything else. It therefore WILL not replace anything else.
(Games and pop music fads don't last. Movies and serious music do. There is no comparison there. Show me a person who will skip hardcopy ownership of Genesis albums or Kubrick movies, and I will show you a person who doesn't really care for the stuff anyway.)
Streaming will replace hardcopies like public benches will replace home furniture.
FOLLOW DVDACTIVE
Follow our updates
OTHER INTERESTING STUFF
New Editorials
SXSW Film 2013 - Part 1
US - DVD | HD | BD
Will streaming kill physical media?
DVD | HD | BD
Gabe's 2012 Wrap-Up
DVD | BD
Netflix Reviewed
UK - DVD | HD | BD
Guest Column: Dark Shadows on DVD
US - DVD R1
Latest Reviews
Howl's Moving Castle
US - BD RA
My Neighbor Totoro
US - BD RA
Parker
US - BD RA
Doctor Who: Inferno - Special Edition
UK - DVD R2
Last Stand, The
US - BD RA
Latest News
Disney June Animation 2-Packs
US - BD RA
Disney Animation Blu-rays
US - DVD R1 | BD RA
Prince of Darkness
US - BD RA
ABC TV
US - DVD R1 | BD RA
Universal Steelbooks
US - BD RA
Most Talked About
More Scream Factory News
US - BD RA
Texas Chainsaw (2013, 2D)
US - BD RA
Spring Breakers
US - DVD R1 | BD RA
Prince of Darkness
US - BD RA
Host, The
US - DVD R1 | BD RA
My current collection of physical media is just short of 500 and I'm fast running out of space so I decided on a new approach. I invested in a couple of hard drives (2 and 3 TB) and an Apple TV (which for the uninitiated is a small set-top box about the size of a double-CD case). I've now also signed up for fibre-optic broadband, which has recently come to my area, so you'd think I have the ideal set-up.
A two-hour movie is roughly around 5 GB and on a good day will take around 20 minutes to download. Having now bought around 30 of them from iTunes, I believe that although there are some drawbacks that need addressing, digital downloads will eventually reach parity with physical media.
Some pros and cons. The picture quality at 1080p is impressive: the differences are marginal and you'd have to be close to the TV and know what you're looking for to spot them. The sound on the other hand is still Dolby Digital 5.1. iTunes Extras are now more frequently being bundled with new titles; these contain either a sample of what's on the Blu-ray or replicate them completely. Subtitles are currently a hit-or-miss affair depending on the studio. There appears to be a three-tier pricing structure: old catalogue (£6.99), recent catalogue (£9.99) or new (£13.99). Some new titles are given a digital early release.
The convenience and portability are where digital wins out over Blu-ray. So long as the computer is fired up with iTunes running, I can stream to mobile, iPod, iPad or main TV, or store on the smaller devices if I want. I'm finding more and more that if I have both a physical and digital copy of a film, it's just more convenient to wake the Apple TV and select it instead of hunting out the Blu-ray, loading the player, waiting for the menu, etc.
So now I have a kind of split approach. If it's a film I really, really like that will get repeated viewings, I'll buy the Blu-ray and probably a HD digital copy as well for portability (if it doesn't come with it). If it's an okay-ish film that's worth watching then it's digital-only. This has cut down on Blu-ray purchases considerably but still offers me the best of both worlds.