3 ms·
I would posit that BluRay has been less successful for two other reasons: 1. DVD video quality is good enough for most. 2. The Combination of DRM, unskippable
by rbritton 8y ago
I would posit that BluRay has been less successful for two other reasons:
1. DVD video quality is good enough for most.
2. The Combination of DRM, unskippable portions, and similar is enough of a barrier to discourage the upgrade. Personally, I will only watch a movie on disk when I don’t have time to rip it and remove that crap.
- gmueckl 8y agoThe DRM and unskippable portions were the same for DVDs when they launched and yet they were a bigger success in an equal timeframe. I do not think that most consumers care enough about these two points to actually influence their decisionmaking. I'd be more interested in how the HD DVD as a very visible competitor blocked BluRay adoption because of consumers wanting to wait for a winner in that war.
- leoc 8y agoDVD quality may be worse than you remember. The difference is really very clear on modern HD screens.
- AnIdiotOnTheNet 8y agoIn my experience, only if you're really looking for it or play them side by side.
- leoc 8y agoThat hasn't been my experience. I was watching some instructional DVDs—well-produced, modern stuff https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v68ZP8tHhnc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v68ZP8tHhnc —on a desktop monitor lately and the difference really leaped out at me, despite my already knowing consciously that the video wouldn't be HD, and the fact that I'm far from being any connoisseur of video quality. Given that standard DVD resolution is never higher than 720 × 576 pixels it really shouldn't have been surprising.