Posted by lorincantrell on 01/01/07 11:45

Rexunrex@yahoo.com wrote:
> Aaron J. Bossig wrote:
>
> > The flaw in that comparison is that DVD did, in fact, replace VHS.
> > Therefore, nothing prevents DVD from being replaced by someone else.
>
> For most people DVD is sufficient. If they don't buy the new
> display, or have the ability to play HDDVD/Bluray on their computer,
> they will not even be familiar with any improvement that high def
> offers. No familiarity means no purchases.
>
> Another factor that will prevent adoption is that most people
> already have an investment in DVDs. Who knows what the
> average # of DVDs per person or household is, but I know
> people who have 100. And of course libraries and video stores
> have 1000s. So if you tell those people they're going to have
> to put out another $2000 or $20,000 respecitvely for new
> discs and they will balk. Not to mention the need to buy
> a high-def screen, the drive, and maybe a video card.

I agree with most of what you say. For most people (myself included)
DVD is more than sufficient. For those of us without the memory of a
goldfish, DVD is still "wow." That being said, and not knowing how
this rediculous format war will turn out, the HD formats do have a ace
in the hole, and that is backward compatibility. If someone shelled
out $150 for a DVD player a couple of years ago (and we've been at that
price point or lower for awhile), and three years from now that player
needs replaced, if an HD player is available at that price point, that
person will likely bite. I think in that way, HD discs have a shot at
eventually, slowly, supplanting DVD. Most people won't replace what
they already have, as DVD's are just too durable and good as they are,
but if they can buy a player cheap enough and and HD disc for the same
price as a DVD, HD can take over the new releases.

-beaumon

[Back to original message]