Sony talks future of OLED, Blu-ray's chances against DVD

In case you didn't get the message, Sony's due sooner-rather-than-later 27-inch OLED is going to be priced for the Mark Cubans, Bill Gates' and other people not you of the world, at least for the next couple of years. Even with recent massive investments, U.S. head Stan Glasgow tells CNET OLEDs in the future could be seen as a premium alternative to LCDs, but don't expect Sony to jump on smaller screens while they wait for the technology to catch up, HDTV is the focus. As for the upcoming standard def-streaming Hancock experiment? The first of many, if things go well, while at the same time he acknowledges format war winner Blu-ray may not penetrate to the same level as DVD since "a lot of people may be happy with an upconverting DVD player" -- which would be music to Toshiba's ears.

[DefPo3t @ Jul 3rd 2008 3:26PM]

Dear Sony

50 inch affordable oled HDTV please.

Thnx

[ddub @ Jul 3rd 2008 3:35PM]

SONY: NO

[tcc3 @ Jul 3rd 2008 4:00PM]

Beer and $20 bills fall from the sky now please

[DefPo3t @ Jul 3rd 2008 4:14PM]

While I do approve the beer comment dont you you think that it would hurt if it ur head while falling

[Informed1 @ Jul 3rd 2008 4:23PM]

Don't know about you, but if beer was falling from the sky, screw the $20 bills man, I'm running for cover!

[deadpool @ Jul 3rd 2008 6:50PM]

beer no bottle maybe? yes deadpool, you are a genius.

[Hunts314 @ Jul 3rd 2008 3:44PM]

"he acknowledges format war winner Blu-ray may not penetrate to the same level as DVD since "a lot of people may be happy with an upconverting DVD player" -- which would be music to Toshiba's ears."

this guy is fired tomorrow lol

[kjb434 @ Jul 3rd 2008 3:51PM]

Finally someone that realizes that BluRay was Sony's way of the Betamax fiasco behind them. So the won a format war. Big woop!

They lost tons of others and even create formats that no one would use....

[Temple @ Jul 3rd 2008 5:46PM]

Biggest problem with Blu-ray right now is that its so much more expensive then DVD. $30 for a Walk The Line is way too much. When they first get their media prices in line with DVD and player costs down, that's the time when Blu-ray will start to actually make progress in the market. However, its way too early for that, player costs are still around $300 and the market penetration isn't high enough. When costs are low enough to for $99 players and disks are equivalent to the DVD then it becomes a good alternative; especially for the HDTV market that is growing ever larger.

Regardless, Sony seems to be taking a two pronged approach being that they will also release a digital download service this Summer for their PS3, the main Blu-ray player currently.

[thedesolate1 @ Jul 3rd 2008 8:11PM]

@Prasand
You might have a point, however.... you must understand most consumers don't have enough memory/aren't computer literate enough to backup all of their media to HDDs.. also although it may seem like broadband is everywhere... it (A) Isn't widely adopted enough and (B) Is yet to be fast enough to download 1080p movies without taking forever. thus digital downloads are not a viable alternative from a business standpoint for Blu ray manufacturers and Hollywood. Hell most people would rather use a cheap DSL line to save money just to browse the web and check email. Your average Joe doesn't have a 30mbs web connection like I do or needs one. Oh and one last thing... all DRM can be cracked eventually so unless hackers cease to exist I think Hollywood would rather somebody take ages cracking a bluray disk and ripping it to their PC at a measly 6x and then encoding it and then uploading GIGS to the internet and then other people taking ages to download those GIGS with enough time to get caught by the MPAA.

[Dan @ Jul 3rd 2008 3:49PM]

Well there is a huge difference between fake HD and true HD no way Blu-Ray will get beat out by shitty up conversion dvd players. Unless a bunch of scumbag marketing people trick the masses aka dumb poeople lol

[Jagster @ Jul 4th 2008 2:54PM]

"Unless a bunch of scumbag marketing people trick the masses aka dumb people lol"

Hey Sony did it. HD-DVD was clearly superior in all aspects other than maximum storage size. It's sat that BD is still playing catch up to the "Dead formats" standard features and specifications. Marketing always wins (examples: iPod over Zen or Zune, TiVo over ReplayTV, Intel over AMD*, etc, etc, etc).

*Last gen, AMD Athlon stomped all over Intel P4 in performance, yet Intel’s marketing prowess kept AMD at bay.

[xcrunk @ Jul 3rd 2008 3:46PM]

upscaled DVD's.....HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!

I love it when people say upscaled DVD's are just as good as Bluray.

You must be either blind or deaf not to be able to tell the difference.

[kjb434 @ Jul 3rd 2008 3:52PM]

No one said they are better or just as good. What some with a fraction of a brain realized is that the majority of people don't care if BluRay is that much better when they are quite happy with DVD.

[Joe Dombrowski @ Jul 3rd 2008 3:53PM]

Personally, I hate it when people say that... Those people (which currently is a sad majority) drive the market, and if they keep repeating that mantra, Blu-Ray will go the way of the SACD, and I'd hate to see that

[Forrest @ Jul 3rd 2008 3:58PM]

I'm not sure many sane people are saying that.

I think what many sane people might be saying is that for the average consumer, an up-scaled DVD is "good enough". I think they're right.

Until you can find Blu-ray players at Walmart for the same price as that cheapo up-scaling DVD player, DVD is still gonna be on top IMO.

[CharlieX @ Jul 3rd 2008 4:01PM]

Ya know, from 14' away on my couch, upscaled DVD and BluRay look awfully similar on a 46" TV....

But when we get out the 1080 DLP projector and throw a nice 12' screen up on the wall. Wowzah.

[OziD @ Jul 3rd 2008 4:07PM]

For me its a matter of being moderately poor. If I hadn't gotten a PS3, I wouldn't have spent the extra money on a BR player, and would have been fine just using DVDs.

Of course this will go away in a couple months, maybe a year, when the prices drop again.

Us poor folk are pathetic :(

[tha-don @ Jul 3rd 2008 5:22PM]

i got alien and predator (separate movies, not AvP) together for $9 which was delightful. that would cost like $50 to get em on bluray. they look just fine on a 37 inch lcd. the dvd player which upconverts costs $40. i see no reason to even consider bluray at the moment. i think dvds look fine. this is why they're good enough.

[flupsie @ Jul 3rd 2008 5:25PM]

Every person who sees the two screens can tell the difference, no doubt about that.
But the threshold of whether to go for upconversion or true-hd is a whole different story. I for one see 1080p as a future standard. I want to be able to get that for a max of 1000 dollars before a switch to hd.
By that, I mean that current tv-stations all support it(in most major broadcasts), no external decoder required and true 1on 1 scaling, so i can truely use my tv as a monitor.
Not to even mention the quality of the picture compared to good ol' CRT's.

[Galley @ Jul 3rd 2008 5:40PM]

@xcrunnk: Or work for Toshiba

[Prasand J. @ Jul 3rd 2008 6:20PM]

A few months ago, or however long it was that the format war ended ... I wrote on engadget about the transition process ... and said that Blu-ray would be the last optical media (unless crystals are employed).

The problem is, many people invested a lot of money into DVDs ... from the players to the titles. They invested significantly more in the purchasing of DVD titles than they did in VHS titles, when VHS was so easily rented and copied. Think about it ... is your DVD collection larger than the number of actual (non-copied) titles you had on VHS? -- These people aren't the average engadget reader that wants to have the latest and greatest. Engadget has a hell of a lot of readers, but when pitted against the world ... it's just a drop in the bucket. -- Most of the world doesn't care about such things. I'd even venture to say audaciously that more than 90% of the world doesn't care.

We are an extreme minority.

The average IQ is "not" over a hundred. Those who are, fail to realize that at times (that people are not them, and do not think like them ... they are not independant thinkers, they are social thinkers). -- The rest, only care if "everyone" seems to be getting it ... then they don't want to be left out. They wanted an iPod because everyone seemed to be getting it ... and as such, the expectation is attached to the label / brand. -- iPhone, iPod touch ... people will get it because, they knew what happened before. Thus, they don't want to be left out this time or too slow to adopt it. -- They picked up DVDs, not particularly for the quality which was leagues beyond VHS ... but because of popularity, but most importantly ... the size. The moment there was a format war with two camps, it was obvious that neither format alone would gain enough popularity ... since even among the geeks only 50% liked either (in concept @ 50). Neither were revolutionary. With DVDs, the physical shape is what made it revolutionary, only geeks thought it was the quality. For example, how many people actually recorded on their video cassettes at the highest quality setting, knowing that they could fit four movies onto each video cassette if they forgo a little quality?

Would they have bought more video cassettes? Imagine you have the choice to fit only one track on an audiocassette, versus multiple tracks. Something expensive becomes cost effective only if it increases their social appearance or status ... the white headphones were a status symbol, they didn't buy the product ... they were buying the symbol, a symbol which also promoted convenience. -- Quality was and never will be important to the average consumer. Especially not in the face of "cost", and convenience.

American companies understand that, which is why they are okay with selling "mediocre" products. Why would they on a long-term put the resources into something which only a small percentage of their buyers would care about? I think it would've been a smarter move to create media which is not only smaller, but higher in quality. -- Not "too" small though, because then the buyer's fears of literally losing their investment would become a deterrent. However, the problem with such an approach would've been ... there would have only been one camp to the next DVD tech ... and as such, it would've been adopted socially. The war killed both formats. One's just dying slower.

But, smaller and better would've appealed to the consumers more.

Yet, here was HD-DVD, and Blu-ray ... essentially the same shape and size as the consumer's previous investment. Which after spending hundreds if not thousands of dollars on that prior investment ... came along and said, "what you spent your hard earned money on is now obsolete." If people bought as many video cassette titles as they did DVDs, the social burn would've been obvious in that transition also. However, in that case they actually wanted "smaller". Just like the LCDs etc are selling, not because of quality ... but because of size and shape. Hence why, Best Buy can sell a hell of a lot of mediocre panels ... the consumers never were concerned with quality. So ... where's the incentive to a society which never cared about quality to begin with? Where's the incentive to essentially throw away their previous investment?

Physical media is dying.

In my previous comment on the subject I said, it would be a smarter investment to purchase a raid solution and archive that soon to be antiquated DVD collection. Since right now the only reason Blu-ray is even a consideration is because bandwidth is an issue. However, something like Apple TV ... where they can get a similar high quality at almost the same price ... and conveniently (read "lazily") to boot ... downloads will replace the purchasing of physical media. Downloads will replace physical media ... long before Blu-ray can overcome the popularity of DVD. Long before Sony or someone else can create an even better physical media with wide acceptence. -- That does not mean there will be "no" physical media, yeah they'll still be made ... but downloads will replace such purchases as the "norm".

As such, as far as I'm concerned ... whomever has a blu-ray collection, it's already obsolete. People just have a hard time realizing it, and refuse to let go. Kinda like how the HD-DVD camp didn't want to let go of their investment. How do you think the rest of the world feels about having to let go of their DVD investment?

It's not gonna happen. Surely not for a media which looks almost the same, but the hardware etc. costs significantly more. Nah, they'd sooner download, and unless the internet self-destructs, or suddenly becomes exclusive ... then that's a promise. The longevity of these companies who's revenue is largely backed by such sales ... is in their ability to remove the issue of bandwidth ... as well as ... their ability to make such things become significantly easier to use by the technology retarded consumers. -- I'd put money into the R&D department of my company for such an endeavor long before I would've done so with the Blu-ray fad. It was a sysiphean task, which the older generation attached "physical" media didn't want to give up or possibly even realize ... just the same as ... there will always be people who like tactile keyboards on their phones, but even a company like Nokia can realize the error in their inability to let go. -- Why do you think Sony's doing the Hancock experiment? So they can back the Blu-ray buyers, or see how feasible it is to abandon physical media? -- Granted, it's possible that with it being streamed at a price ... they are using that to garner interest in Blu-ray purchases. But really, if successful ... that avenue will become more realistic, I see them more sooner weighing the exploitability of that against the manufacturing costs of physical media.

To the non-believers ... Blu-ray "IS" another SACD concept ... you just didn't realize that from the beginning. The fact that there were two divided camps on the matter proved that it was more of the same. Non-revolutionary. Thus, wouldn't have changed much. It is, and always was SACD.

Doesn't even matter if I'm wrong. Since regardless of the media which comes out in the long-run ... regardless of what becomes the standard method of delivery. My collection on my 2tb drive raid arrays, will be easilly transferrable to whatever these company's want to spit out. So what everyone invests in, argues about, thinks is better or worse, whatever wins or loses ... makes no difference to me. I'm just saying ... do you really want to keep jumping through the hoops? When will you get a clue?

The companies sure have.



.

[phanbouy @ Jul 3rd 2008 7:29PM]

^^^
TL;DFR

[thedesolate1 @ Jul 3rd 2008 8:12PM]

@Prasand
You might have a point, however.... you must understand most consumers don't have enough memory/aren't computer literate enough to backup all of their media to HDDs.. also although it may seem like broadband is everywhere... it (A) Isn't widely adopted enough and (B) Is yet to be fast enough to download 1080p movies without taking forever. thus digital downloads are not a viable alternative from a business standpoint for Blu ray manufacturers and Hollywood. Hell most people would rather use a cheap DSL line to save money just to browse the web and check email. Your average Joe doesn't have a 30mbs web connection like I do or needs one. Oh and one last thing... all DRM can be cracked eventually so unless hackers cease to exist I think Hollywood would rather somebody take ages cracking a bluray disk and ripping it to their PC at a measly 6x and then encoding it and then uploading GIGS to the internet and then other people taking ages to download those GIGS with enough time to get caught by the MPAA.

Somehow I replied to the wrong person.....B4

[Dan @ Jul 3rd 2008 3:49PM]

Yep i agree upscale dvd's vs true hd , you have to be blind and dumb and deaf not to see the difference.

[kjb434 @ Jul 3rd 2008 3:53PM]

I guess much of the world fits your description then?

[john @ Jul 3rd 2008 4:54PM]

@Dan
Or don't have the equipment (HDTV and surround sound) to take advantage of the improvements. SDTV and stereo still rules.

John

[b.essiambre @ Jul 3rd 2008 8:35PM]

Seriously I would be willing to pay up to 2 to 3 times the price of a DVD player for a Blue Ray player. My brand new DVD player cost me 60 canadian.

[Jeff @ Jul 3rd 2008 4:02PM]

I'll have you know that i am quite rich, owning several haberdasheries in downtown fanciville, and am outraged at the presumption that i cannot afford several OLED tv sets for my spoiled children.

[Boarderwoot @ Jul 3rd 2008 4:06PM]

If only Netflix could take advantage of the infastructure that Cable TV has put in place and just start their own "on demand" network. Independant of the Cable TV bias and much more efficient than utilizing the Internet. Either way CD's will be phased out shortly.

[LongshotX @ Jul 3rd 2008 4:07PM]

You don't need Blu-ray on HDTVs less than 32 inch.

[Dan @ Jul 3rd 2008 4:25PM]

Actually anyone I show HD too they see the difference and like it. I just think Sony need to Advertise and get Blu-Ray out there more with more demos and what not i think people would by it up converstion is pointless since i have an HD DVD player a Blu-Ray player and a upconversion dvd player.

[The Dude @ Jul 3rd 2008 4:10PM]

"...Blu-ray may not penetrate to the same level as DVD since 'a lot of people may be happy with an upconverting DVD player'..."

I see Sony finally hired a C.C.O (Chief Captain of the Ovbious.) Money well spent.

[rawd @ Jul 3rd 2008 4:12PM]

huh Blu-ray is being adopted faster than DVD was

[Dave @ Jul 3rd 2008 4:21PM]

True , but the "Sony" member who said this is ex hd dvd fanboy...

[Bob @ Jul 3rd 2008 4:18PM]

The thing is, a huge amount of the market penetration now is 720p TVs.
They're cheaper, they're easier to find, etc, etc, etc.

Upconverting 480p/i to 720p isn't THAT much worse than downconverting 1080p to 720p. Yes, it looks better - but you're still converting, and that makes it look worse.

I was astonished at how good DVDs looked on a simple Progressive scan player, after we got a 720p TV. No, it's not 120hz 1080p blah blah blah.
The big deal is that the change from SD to Progressive Scan makes more difference than DVD to Blu-Ray.

They've just asked us all to buy THE NEW STUFF.
So we got a new TV.
Now you're telling us we have to spend MORE money, for THE NEW NEW STUFF?

On a site like this, of course, we look fro the newest, best tech. THe average person just wants to see pretty things.

[Evan @ Jul 3rd 2008 4:28PM]

"Glasgow: It's going to be years and years until price points come down to where they're anywhere close to LCD"

Sony is going to keep the prices inflated to make money, even if OLED doesn't cost any more to manufacture than LCD. Let's hope competition from Samsung and others force OLEDs to become a commodity so that the prices drop!

[Mr. E @ Jul 3rd 2008 5:55PM]

Blu-ray has an uphill climb simply because HDTV is still far from universal. As HDTV adoption continues, Blu-ray will grow. Once you have an HDTV, you are going to want true HD content to play on it. If someone's HDTV is too small to see the difference and they are a movie collector, they can think in one of two ways: (1) "I can't see a difference on this TV, so I'll keep buying DVDs for my collection", or (2) "I hope to get a bigger TV one day, so since I'm buying movies for the long haul, I'll go for the 1080p option so it will look that much better when I upgrade my TV." Blu-ray's ultimate penetration will depend on how the majority of consumers think.

As for OLED, I think that's going to be a case of too little, too late once they're finally able to get up to reasonable (say 52") sizes. Are consumers really going to spend tons of extra money to get a hang-on-the-wall TV that's 3mm thick, versus a hang-on-the-wall TV that's 80mm thick? I just don't see the advantage there.

[Nate @ Jul 3rd 2008 6:27PM]

It's safe to say that the same people that still use dial up for internet access will think DVD is all they'll ever need. Those of us who want more than 240 lines at a time on the screen will pay for more.

[Mike @ Jul 3rd 2008 8:11PM]

Like I'm going to buy into another region-coding mess of Sony's making?

[essentis @ Jul 3rd 2008 11:02PM]

seriously, just set the blu-ray disc to the dvd level and all this argument about adoption will go puff .....

[boe @ Jul 3rd 2008 11:49PM]

I don't want to upconvert standard DVDs but I have no interest in buying BR DVDs when they haven't started releasing the good version of most movies on BR.

Just like they played the crap edition with standard DVDs and later released the editor's cut or the dts version and then finally the editor's cut dts version - they want to try to play the same game with BR.

Fool me once - shame on you - fool me twice, shame on me. As soon as the studios want to release the undedited DTS-MA or DD-HD edition of all their movies, I'll be buying about 100 movies. Feel free to start making them.

I doubt I'm the only movie buff who knows the game and is also waiting for the good releases before replacing any of their movies with a BR edition.

[boe @ Jul 4th 2008 1:07AM]

I'm not about to buy a BR player until the good ones become affordable and fully featured. Following in the footsteps of the studios - most high end DVD player manufacturers haven't built fully implemented BR players. Some high end over $1,000 BR players still don't have HDMI 1.3 or have BR 2.0 full features such as network connections.

I'm not about to buy a BR player if only a few of the movies I want are on DTS-MA and I have to shellout lots of money for a player. I can get a gaming console to use as a player as they typically have plenty of firmware updates but they don't have the same transport standards as a high quality player. Either way you are screwed.

The BR manufacturers and the studios planned obsolesence is leaving us, the consumers not feeling any warm fuzzies. Do I want something better than standard def DVDs - hell yes! Do I want some half assed attempt at something better - hell no! Get it right and we'll come a runnin.

[harunyl @ Jul 4th 2008 2:44AM]

http://www.dryhome.org kurutemizleme avrupa standartında olan bir şirkettir thank very much l want buy a sony camera

[Mr. S. @ Jul 4th 2008 5:44AM]

When I become prez....

1. If you can't program a VCR, your shot on sight
2. If you think DVD is as good as BD, your shot on sight
3. If you can't turn your head while talking on the phone in a car, your shot on sight
4. If you think that PC's are better then macs since they have more software despite the fact that Macs can duel boot, your shot on sight.
5. Bum recyclers.
6. Everyone gets free power drinks, even the plants!

Vote for me!

[Mr. E @ Jul 4th 2008 1:42PM]

If you suck at grammar "your" shot on sight!

[Viridium @ Jul 4th 2008 4:27PM]

If you can't spell, you're shot on site - maybe as part of a duel!

[Larrysyr @ Jul 4th 2008 10:52AM]

For those of us who are now going through the recession, it's a bad time for investing in any kind of new technology, whether it's Blue Ray or anything else. The best bet for me is to keep my Netflix account active, and hope that HD quality downloads will work with netflix in the near future. That new internet box that they have is a good idea, only 99 bucks to buy, lets you download about 10000 movies for free with your current netflix account, and it's got component out, so hopefully, some HD content will be available soon. When I can get a Blue Ray player for around a hundred bucks, I'll splurge on one. In the meantime, watching DVD's from netflix on an upconversion player on a 42 inch plasma is not torture, and a lot cheaper than going to the cinema at 11 dollars a ticket. (plus, with gas now more than 4.00 dollars a gallon, I don't have to drive there and waste even more money).