DVDGuy’s Blog @ Digital Digest

December 8 Update: I have updated this article with new data up to November 30. The graphs and analysis have also been updated to take into account the Home Media Magazine change of calculation model starting from April 26, 2009, by recalculating the figures before this date to suit the new model. This allows for a much more accurate comparison than what was previously published.

So Blu-ray has been released for some time now. We’ve all read the news stories about how well, or how badly, it is doing, depending on your source, but what is the real “state of play” when it comes to Blu-ray. This feature, through using Nielsen VideoScan data that I’ve compiled weekly now for more than a year, aims to shed some light, and at the very least give you the data so you can decide for yourself on the state of  Blu-ray.

You may remember that I wrote a similar feature around the same time last year. It might be interesting to read that again to find out just how right, or wrong, I’ve been before deciding whether to take this update more seriously, or not.

As mentioned above, I’ve been posting and analyzing the weekly Blu-ray sales stats since May 2008. These weekly stats are provided by Nielsen and published in the free digital edition of Home Media Magazine.

One of the stats provided is the percentage of Blu-ray sales as a total of Blu-ray and DVD sales based on the dollar volume for all titles. To put it simply, you add up the revenue from all Blu-ray and DVD sales and find out how much of it belonged to Blu-ray, and this is the figure which the graphs and analysis below are based on.

Basing an analysis on this figure is not without problems, the major one being that since Blu-ray is more expensive than DVD, its revenue will be higher per title than that of DVD and the revenue percentage figure is affected by this. And as Blu-ray prices drop, its revenue drops, even if the number of titles sold remains the same. The same may apply to DVDs, but it’s at a lesser extent as DVD is a more established format with less price fluctuations (Blu-ray being new is more likely to have price drops, and larger ones at the beginning).

Here’s an exaggerated example to illustrate this point. Let say the DVD version of a movie costs $1 each and it sold 900,000 copies, and if the Blu-ray version of the same movie was $10 each and it only sold 10,000 copies, then Blu-ray would have a revenue percentage of 10%, despite the number of Blu-ray sales being only 1.1% of DVD sales. And then a year later, with the DVD version still selling 900,000 copies at $1 each, but the Blu-ray version is now only $5 and selling 20,000 copies, then the revenue percentage is still only 10%, despite the Blu-ray version now selling twice as many copies. In real life, the difference in pricing is not that dramatic, and both Blu-ray and DVD prices will decrease, but perhaps with Blu-ray decreasing a bit more than DVD.

There is also another very important issue with the data when it relates to comparing 2008 and 2009 stats. The source of the stats, Home Media Magazine, changed their calculation method between the two periods (in April 2009, actually) and as such, it’s not comparing apples to apples in a real sense. The discrepancy is particularly bad for the last few weeks of 2008, and it has to do with changing the ratio of sales from Wal-Mart. The effect is that Blu-ray sales were over represented and DVD sales under represented in 2008, particularly in the last 6 weeks (although this period is not covered by this analysis). From the beginning of 2009 to April 19 2009, only the DVD figures were under reported, based on the new model used from April 26 onwards. Luckily, updated data is available for the period before April 26, 2009, so that both sets of figures can use the same calculation model. The analysis and graphs below is therefore using the figures that have been calculated using the *same* calculation method, and so it is comparing apples to apples. You won’t find the same stats in the forum thread that I usually posts stats in, since it would be too much work to update all the previous posts, but I might do so at some stage.

The best set of figures to base any analysis on would be the percentage of titles sold, rather than a percentage of revenue, but I do not have access to this information for all titles, only for the top 20. So please take all of this into account when looking at the figures.

First of all, let’s take a look at a graph showing the weekly Blu-ray sales percentage from when I first started collecting the data (4th May 2008), to the most recent set (27th September 2009) – click on the image below to see a larger version:

Blu-ray Sales Percentage - 4 May 2008 to 29 November 2009 - Click to see larger version

The immediate conclusion to make is that Blu-ray has made revenue increases over the last year and a bit, and since Blu-ray prices have dropped and hence meaning less revenue per disc, you can bet that the number of titles sold has increased even further than what the above graph indicates.

On the graph, I’ve noted several key milestones for the format, basically the weeks in which major titles were released. Some of the earlier milestones, like the release of I Am Legend, aren’t shown on the graph since it was released earlier than when I had access to the stats. Iron Man was a major release for the format, as you can see from the graph, it was unbeaten as a first week release until just recently, by Watchmen. To talk about important titles for the format, then The Dark Knight cannot be ignored, but as you can see from the above graph, it was relatively disappointing for Blu-ray for a first week release. This was because that it was such a hit title, that even the DVD version sold in huge quantities, thus diluting the Blu-ray percentage. This is why Iron Man was able to beat The Dark Knight, despite the latter being much more popular (or perhaps I should say, “because the latter was much more popular, even amongst DVD owners”).

December 8 Update: The graph above has now been updated with more stats up to November 29, 2009, including the record breaking Star Trek release and the best seller prior to that, Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen.

And it’s not just new releases that can give Blu-ray a weekly boost – catalogue titles, including ones that had already been released and practically given away towards the end on HD DVD like Transformers or King Kong, can still command huge sales (King Kong actually beat The Dark Knight in terms of the Blu-ray sales percentage). And even when there are no releases, Blu-ray can perform, an example is point 5 on the graph, which was occurred during the New Years break. The reason is that when there are fewer shoppers, those that are out there buying are often the more “fanatical” kind, early adopters, home theater enthusiasts and such, and they prefer Blu-ray over DVD. And every new release on Blu-ray, whether it’s a new movie or a classic, is “new” to Blu-ray owners, and such almost everything can be considered a new release and the sales figures roughly reflect this.

In terms of growth, the revenue growth as shown on the graph doesn’t look quite that spectacular, the peak for Watchmen apart. There is good reason for this, and that’s largely down the missing data – we’re not yet at the peak sales period, which is right now until the end of the year. However, the 2008 data does include this period, and most of the peaks occurred during this period as well. Only when the 2009 peak period has passed, can we accurately compare “peak to peak” to see the real signs of growth. And as mentioned earlier, the lower Blu-ray prices resulted in a revenue drop on a per title basis, which is most likely larger than any similar revenue/title drops for DVD, and the graph above cannot accurately reflect this either. December 8 Update: With a couple of more weeks worth of data, including the weeks featuring some of the year’s biggest releases such as Up as well as the aforementioned Transformers 2 and Star Trek, the growth looks much more evident. There are still a couple of big releases for the rest of the year, including Terminator Salvation (which should do great on Blu-ray) and Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince, we might even see higher peaks, although I think it will be hard to top Star Trek.

Let’s have a look at the 2008 to 2009 comparison based on the same time period using the same x-axis. Or in other words, May to September November 2008 sales as a comparison to May to September November 2009 sales. Here’s the graph:

Blu-ray Sales Percentage: 2008 versus 2009 Comparison (May to November)

December 8 Update: Note the dip at the end of both lines is for the Black Friday sales, which traditionally favours DVDs more than Blu-rays, since we’re talking about $2 DVDs compared to $10 Blu-ray titles (for 2009’s Black Friday, these were the discounted prices). I will update again at the end of the year. Every month of 2009 so far has outsold the same month in 2008, that’s to be expected. There were more peaks for 2009 as well, with Blu-ray better able to take advantage of hit titles (and 2009 gaves us more titles that the average home theater enthusiast, movie fans and PS3 gamers – the core Blu-ray demographic – would arguably enjoy more). The average growth for each week’s dataset is 158.64%, in other words, on average, a week in 2009 meant a near 159% increase compared to the same week in 2008 (this is using 2008 data that’s been updated for the post April 2009 model). But “percentage increases” are not that indicative of real growth, because if only one Blu-ray movie was sold last week, and two was sold this week, then that’s a 100% increase in a week, which sounds like a lot, but is really isn’t. The actual increase in market share for Blu-ray is about 6.59% on average for the above time period, meaning that on average, Blu-ray market share for a week in 2009 is likely to be around 6.6% higher than the same week in 2008 (so if Blu-ray had 5% market share in week 30 of 2008, then week 30 of 2009 should have roughly 11.6% market share). This is not an insignificant increase, and as I will mention again, due to the drop in revenue per title that should be greater on Blu-ray than on DVD, this increase may actually be larger.

For the above period (May to November), the 2008’s average was 4.48%, while the 2009 average was 11.07%.

From observation, Blu-ray growth seems to be driven by individual titles. For example, the release of The Dark Knight might have helped to sell more Blu-ray players, or to make more people aware of Blu-ray, and as such, this lifts the sale of all other titles. With many “Blu-ray friendly” hits coming this holiday season (Star Trek, Terminator Salvation, Transformers 2, Harry Potter), the overall Blu-ray sales percentage should increase beyond the temporary rise offered by these titles. How much remains to be seen, and I’ll update this feature when it becomes clearer. Now that two of the four hits I mentioned just above have been released, the picture is clearer and Blu-ray’s market share is on a very healthy trajectory, especially from May 2009 onwards, and there are still two more big hits from the list to go.

How was your week then? Mine? Pretty much more of the same really, kind of boring, but at the same time still feel like there just isn’t enough time to do everything I wanted to do. Must also get more sleep. But before I can do that, I’ll have to churn out this week’s WNR, and there’s quite a bit to go through.

Let’s start with copyright news, as if I have to say this since every issue of WNR has started with copyright news, and the graphics to the left of this sentence sort of hints at it a bit.

This week is the week that the high profile “movie studios versus ISP” trial started in Australia, with the MPAA backed AFACT and Australian ISP iiNet going head to head in court over allegations that iiNet “allows” its users to pirate stuff. There’s all sorts of arguments and statements being thrown around in court over the week, too much to go through all of them here in great detail (check out the link for more details). The AFACT doesn’t think iiNet is doing all it can to stop piracy, and iiNet claims that this whole thing has been a set up by the AFACT to get its day in court. The AFACT claims over 90,000 acts of infringements occured on iiNet’s network over the period of time they monitored activities, while iiNet believes this number is exaggerated and inaccurate due to the way the AFACT counted them (they counted partial downloads, even by the same person downloading the same file over time, as separate infringements). iiNet also revealed they were sent thousands of infringement notices by the AFACT over the course of a week, far too many for iiNet to be able to verify and process and they believe this “infringement spam” was a deliberate ploy by the AFACT to ensure iiNet would fail to remove users from its network and hence, “allow” piracy to occur.

I’m obviously a biased individual, but everything that iiNet has said so far makes sense. The plain facts, and the AFACT will agree, is that there’s a lot of piracy going on. A lot! But to get ISPs to police the thousand of infringement notices per week  is just really unfeasible, even if the ISP in question does not verify any of the notices and simply ban users at the first sign of trouble, which could then lead the ISP into legal trouble as the innocent users that got kicked of can sue for compensation. It’s easy for groups like the AFACT to produce a list of IP addresses of offending users, since they can just monitor the IP addresses on torrents, but the ISP will have to go through the data, match the IP address and the timestamp with user information, and then take action. But as IP addresses can be spoofed, and that just because an user’s IP address was on a torrent, it does not mean they downloaded it successfully or even intended to download it in the first place, or gave authorization to the person to started the download. Only the police have the resources and authority to get to the bottom of such allegations, and I doubt they will have time to investigate potentially tens of thousands of cases per week. Which is why going after the downloaders is such a stupid idea in the first place. Anyway, I’ll be posting more updates on the iiNet trial every week, but a decision in the case is unlikely to be had this year. Obviously, the AFACT would love a win here, but even if they lose, it may give them just enough to push the government into adopting some kind of three-strikes legislation to ensure this “travesty” doesn’t go on for much longer.

Sarkozy gives a big thumb up to piracy ... when it suits him

And the chance of such a legislation becoming a reality in Australia is quite high given what has happened with France adopting similar laws (pending appeal in their Constitutional Council). A big supporter of the laws,  is French President Sarkozy. But a French paper has revealed this week that Sarkozy is in fact a big supporter of piracy as well, but when it benefits himself. He allowed his staff to make 400 pirated copies of a movie about himself so he can give it out to diplomats to promote how great he is or something. His staff even went as far as making photoshoped jackets for the DVDs that removed the logo of the official distributor, so obviously they knew what they were doing was wrong, yet still did it. If downloading a pirated movie three times gets you thrown off the Internet and possibly into jail for 2 years, under the law that Sarkozy supports, then how many years will distributing 400 copies, which is way worse than downloading, get? By my calculations, it should be about 500 years.

The Pirate Bay has just been chased out of the Netherlands, after their version of the MPAA, BREIN, successfully sued TPB’s web host, a tactic that seems to be working. TPB was chased out of Sweden using similar tactics. And last week, even Google did their bit to kill of TPB, by removing the home page listing for the website from its index due to a DMCA complaint – luckily, the listing was quickly restored, possibly due to the public backlash.  The Pirate Bay website seems to have relocated to the Ukraine, in a bunker style hosting center that claims to be able to withstand a nuclear attack. The question is, can it withstand a MPAA attack? Let’s wait and see how the Ukrainian courts deal with this issue. As for the proposed Pirate Bay sale, there’s a lot of confusion as to what’s happening, because the handover was supposed to have occurred already.

Viacom is still after YouTube, but may have the "smoking gun" evidence they need to win the case

Still continuing with the theme of lawsuits, Viacom claims to have the “smoking gun” in their legal battle with Google/YouTube. Viacom got hold of some internal emails which suggested that YouTube managers were aware of the unauthorized content issue, but refused to take action. There were also claims that YouTube employees may have also uploaded unauthorized content themselves. Google/YouTube want to attack this case on the basis that Viacom employees had uploaded content for promotional purposes, and as such, it was impossible for them to know which clips were authorized and which were not. What interested me was that Viacom obviously knew the positive effects of YouTube, and thus were employing people to upload promotional clips. You can argue that they also benefit from unauthorized clips as well. I wonder would they be happier or angrier if YouTube banned all Viacom clips from their website, which would definitely solve the piracy problem for Viacom, but is this what they really want? It seems that these media companies want to exploit YouTube’s user base, but only if they have full control over what happens, which is not how YouTube or similar websites work – it’s the lack of control, the total freedom and spontaneity of the content and the users who upload them that makes or breaks sites like YouTube. If the content owners don’t realise this fundamental shift in the relationship between content owners and content users, then they’re in for a rough ride.

Still more lawsuit news, this time it’s the MPAA versus Real Network’s RealDVD case. An injunction was granted against the sale of RealDVD earlier in the year, but Real Networks is appealing the decision. It’s unlikely to be successful, since an injunction is the “safe” thing to do pending the verdict, but it’s also a “nothing to lose” situation for Real, which has already spent a bundle in legal costs, an appeal won’t make much of a difference now.

And from the “another way to solve the piracy problem without rooms full of lawyers” section, here’s Spotify’s solution – music renting. By paying a small monthly fee, customers gets to download up to 3,333 different ad-free songs at any given time to their PCs, iPhones or Android phones for offline enjoyment, but they lose access once they stop paying the subscription fee. It’s not an ideal solution, especially since DRM is involved, but it’s certainly cheaper than buying 3,333 songs, and less likely to involve you going to court.

Onto high def news, Blu-ray is probably not coming to the Macs anytime soon. The well sourced blogger who first broke the news that Blu-ray may be coming, then later posted that, well, it’s probably not.

Either move would have been understandable. Adding Blu-ray make sense, since Blu-ray is not that popular in the computing arena, but every PC has the ability to support it, unlike Macs.  Apple is also on the board of the Blu-ray group, and has done a lot of work to promote high definition video. On the other hand, Apple’s iTunes and Apple TV strategy means that they prefer online distribution over disc based distribution, so Blu-ray may be seen as a competitor.

Consumers only want 3DTV and 3D Blu-ray if it is cheap or at no extra cost

People may still be getting use to HD being standard, but already the next “big thing” in home entertainment is being hyped: 3D. Unfortunately, consumers don’t seem to be buying the hype, at least now right now, because a study has shown that there’s very little interest in 3DTV or 3D Blu-ray, not unless it comes at little or no cost to the consumer, which defeats the whole purpose of having something new. It is a bit gimmicky, but I personally like these kind of gimmicks, and I think 3D has a place in the home, even if it doesn’t exactly reach mainstream popularity.

Toshiba's Cell Regza TV: Records 8 HD channels at the same time!

What may be popular with consumers is the new generation of TVs. No, I’m not talking about higher than 1080p resolution sets, but rather, TVs that allow you to do more than just watch TV. Panasonic and Samsung went with Internet capable TVs that allows you to watch YouTube videos, check out the weather, and all sorts of other things without leaving the comfort of your couch. Toshiba is doing something different, mainly because it can. Toshiba owns the Cell processor that the PS3 uses, and they’ve been talking about it for a while, but they’ve finally managed to find a good use for it on their TVs. Their new Cell Regza range can record up to 8 channels of HDTVs at once to the internal 3TB HDD, for up to 26 hours. This means that if you missed on anything in the last day and a bit, on up to 8 channels, you can go back and watch it without having to torrent it. The powerful Cell processor also allows the TV to show 8 different channels at once. We don’t even have 8 HD channels here in Australia, but this would be extremely handy to have in lieu of a dedicated TiVo like set top box.

And finally in gaming, I posted about firmware induced problems for the PS3 last week, and it turns out I’m not the only one who wants answers, because a class action lawsuit has been launched against Sony regarding the problematic 3.00 (and 3.01) firmware.

I think people sue too much over in the US, and I think this is certainly something that probably shouldn’t waste the court’s time, but if it gets Sony to be a bit more careful about their firmware releases, or to come clean on why the drive freezing and no more disc reading problem seems to only come after firmware updates, then the effort would have been worth it.

The lawsuit is certainly going to divide the PS3 owners, some of which like me have personally experienced the problem first hand, while others don’t believe it’s actually real. It is certainly rare enough, but not so rare as to never happen, to have caused this divide. What I don’t like is the PS3 fans, that haven’t yet experienced this problem, claiming it’s all made up to make Sony look bad or it’s caused by people not knowing how to use their PS3s. I take these quotes from postings on the official PS3 board to illustrate this phenomenon:

The “you’re all Sony haters making this up, or you’re too stupid to own a PS3” brigade:

I still think many failures are cases of what’s called “future shock”. You have a rather sophisticated piece of electronics and users really don’t know how to operate it properly.

The “I’ve had this happen to me” group’s response:

And I think that’s a pretty ridiculous thing to assume. What’s to “operate”?, it’s a closed system!  That’s more like a lot of the unsubstantiated claims and misinformation I’ve been reading…on this board in particular. For some reason. Especially from people who think because there’s nothing wrong with their unit, everbody who’s does is either lying or too incompetent to know how to plug it in.

It’s real. It’s rare. It may already be a non existent issue in the new redesigned PS3 Slim. But it’s not right for Sony to charge people to repair something that I can think is almost certainly a manufacturing or design defect (either in hardware, or in the firmware), and it’s certainly not the owner’s fault.

Alright, that’s it for the week. More news next week, definitely more iiNet stuff, possibly NPD stats for game console which may see the PS3 become the number one seller, beating the Wii for the first time. See you then.

Welcome to another, slightly later than usual, WNR. Time to do a PSA, or public service announcement. With Microsoft revealing its new free anti-virus software, there’s now now reason, none at all, why you should not have security software on your PC (that’s firewall, anti-virus and anti-malware). Just with free anti-virus software, there are now at least 6 well known free software to choose from. With malware, at least passive protection, then you can’t really do worse than scanning your computer monthly using the full scan function of Malwarebytes’ Anti-Malware, another free software. And as for firewall, then ZoneAlarm Basic will offer you basic protection that’s better than the built in Windows Firewall. And with a little bit of discipline in terms of updating your operating system/browser with the latest patches, and not clicking on every link you find in emails and on website, then there’s a decent chance that your computer will remain malware free. Decent, but not guaranteed of course, which is why if you have the money, then investing in a security suite like Norton or Kaspersky Internet Security is a good idea, especially considering licenses often now come in 3’s and so you can protect all the computers in your home for a low yearly subscription fee.

Next week’s PSA: backups – do you have a system and if not, why not? Let’s move onto the news.

In copyright news, The Pirate Bay appeal is about to begin, but there has been some shuffling of the judges in the case. Judges, or just clerks, I’m not quite sure – the Swedish legal system is a bit different to that of the US or Australia. But a judge, or a clerk, has been removed due to bias, but the request for removal came from the people suing TPB, not from TPB.

This leads me to believe that this might not be done to ensure the result cannot be challenged, as the RIAA/MPAA claims, but rather that the person’s removal may in fact hurt the TPB. The bias in question was related to this person owning shares in Spotify, which has content distribution deals with the RIAA. Does this mean the person would benefit from TPB not existing? Possibly, as Spotify aims to offer what TPB offers illegally. However, it also might mean this person has the required technical knowledge to understand the major issues behind the case, and that in turn might hurt the copyright holder’s case more. I was once told that this type of case is often won or lost on the ability of the judge(s) to understand the technical implications of their decisions, and that judges that do not come from a technical background (that is, most of them) will usually rule in favour of the industry group. It’s understandable, as if the first thing you think of when someone says “torrent” is rain, then you would also be more likely side with major Hollywood studios as opposed to a bunch of kids who set up this website about pirate ships.

Pirate Party Australia: Ready to fight in the next election in Australia

Which is precisely why there should be more education and more public lobbying of the issues, which has generally been one sided in favour of the copyright holders. The Swedish Pirate Party’s fantastic results in the European Parliament elections shows that this is an issue that people care about and politicians and judges should realise that there are two sides to this issue, and is not a case good versus evil as portrayed by the copyright lobby. Which is good news then that Pirate Party Australia has managed to sign up enough members to contest the next Federal election, and I suspect they will do rather well in the polls, since there has been a lot of Internet related issues that have become major issues, such as the government’s ridiculous pursuit of a national censorship system, or the much needed national broadband network. And the piracy issue, particular with the current high profile copyright court cases, and the government’s hints at moving towards a three-strikes system, should ensure a lot of protest votes go the way of the PPA.

iiNet will defend itself in court next week over claims that it allows and promotes piracy

Speaking of high profile Australian copyright court cases, it will start next week but the Australian Federation Against Copyright Theft (AFACT) has dropped another key part of their case against iiNet. Previously, they had dropped the “conversion” charge, as they could not prove that iiNet was the main copyright infringer. Now, they’ve dropped the part of the case which say that iiNet engaged in primary acts of infringement, based on the fact that iiNet caches content for its subscribers. Of course, all ISPs cache content, that’s how ISPs work, and if an ISP can be found guilty this way, then all of them need to be shutdown immediately as they’ve all helped to plan terrorist attacks, share child pornography, commit acts of fraud and every other bad thing that has gone through their cache. The fact that charges are being dropped this late into the preparation phase, suggest that the original charges were far too ambitious, and lacked understanding of even some basic facts like how ISPs work. Were they perhaps too ambitious deliberately to scare iiNet into submission, into a settlement, not expecting iiNet to be so determined to fight the charges out in court? Who know.

Free All Music: Free MP3s, if you watch an ad ... too good to be true?

Now, whenever there’s a clever new way to fight piracy, no matter whether it will work or not, I’ll report it here. The latest is interesting, and it’s actually good for consumers, as if the plan works, you’ll be able to download legal MP3s for free, and all it will take is a moment of your time. The new idea, well not exactly new, is ad-supported MP3s. The plans is that after the user views  a short video ad, they will then be able to download the DRM-free MP3s to keep. Sounds pretty good to me, although it’s a US only thing apparently so I can’t take advantage of it. But if it sounds too good to be true, then it might just be that. The major problem I can see immediately is, well, how will the video ads actually manage to pay for the MP3s, each of them costing at least $0.50 each – a single view of a video ad, unless the user clicks on it, is going to generate a lot less than 50 cents, probably a lot less than 5 cents. But if the ads do manage to pay for the music, then it becomes a good business model and will go a long way towards killing piracy, much more than a new DRM scheme or more lawsuits. Let’s hope my math is wrong and that the system does work, because I don’t people will mind sitting through an ad or two if it means free stuff.

Let’s move onto high definition news, the latest rumour is that Apple will finally add Blu-ray support to its iMac range, despite Steve Jobs calling Blu-ray ‘a bag of hurt’, referring to the messy and expensive licensing process and the lack of user penetration. Both problems have been greatly reduced thanks to lower and simpler licensing schemes, and with current  market share double that of when Mr Jobs spoke.

But as it is, it’s just a rumour for now, and I haven’t really heard enough from the right sources to think that this is a certainty, not like with the PS3 Slim and Xbox 360 price cut rumours. Will Apple’s support help Blu-ray? Of course it will. Will it be a major help, probably not. Why? Well, Blu-ray has been available on Windows systems from day one, and despite there being a lot more Windows systems than Macs, it has been of almost no help to the format, and penetration of Blu-ray on PCs remain quite low. Still, with Apple’s well known and respected ability for working with HD video, having Blu-ray support is almost a necessity these days, rather than a luxury, although it remains to be seen whether hardware acceleration will be enabled in software (the Nvidia GPUs that iMacs use should support at least H.264 acceleration for Blu-ray playback).

One rumour about Apple’s reluctance towards Blu-ray is that its current Apple TV devices would be hurt by Blu-ray’s success, since Apple would prefer everyone to be buying movies through iTunes, as opposed to on disc. I don’t know if I believe this, as I think Apple’s reluctance is more to do with how people use Macs, and whether Apple thinks people will use it as a Blu-ray player, when they take into account the number of people who currently use it as a DVD player.

Foxtel Download: Free downloads for subscribers

But it is true that technologies like iTunes are in some ways competing with Blu-ray for the home video market share. But even within downloads, there’s great competition from the way it is being offered. The latest thing here in Australia is that our major cable/satellite subscription TV provider, Foxtel, has just announced that they will offer 400 hours of downloadable content for free per month for all subscribers. It’s technically just allowing subscribers to download for free the content they’ve already paid for and with subscribers using the IQ set-top-box, content that they already have the ability to record and keep. But with a billing system already in place, and an user base that is already willing to fork out cash for TV shows and movies, it will be interesting to see if Foxtel extends this download service to premium content like the latest episodes available straight after their showing in the US – with the payment being handled through the monthly bill. Foxtel already does this with on-demand HD movies through their set-top-box, so it’s not a huge step to extend this to TV and movie downloads on the PC.

Everyone knows about the infamous Xbox 360 RRoD problem, but I wonder if the PS3’s “no disc reading” problem might also get some unwanted spotlight in the near future. The problem I describe is one that I have personally experienced and posted about on this blog, and it seems to be still happening with the latest firmware updates.

I have no doubt that this problem is far less widespread than the RRoD problem, but there are still a large group of people who have suffered from it, and it seems to occur after every firmware update. I would guess that less than 1% of PS3s are affected, possibly much less than this, so it’s no surprise that some people feel the problem doesn’t exist because it has never happened to them. But it has happened, I can confirm from personal experience, with the people who posted comments on the blog, from users posting about their problem on the official PS3 forum and elsewhere, and so the problem is not imaginary. The worst part is that Sony charges $150 per repair of this problem out of warranty (mine was in warranty at the time), and if it is the firmware update process that somehow causes this to occur (and the PS3 firmwares themselves are not really known for their bug free nature), then I wonder if charging users this large amount is the right thing to do. And this problem pretty much only started showing up after the 2.40 firmware update, so something must have changed then that causes this problem to appear, but it’s all just speculation as Sony has refused to release any information in regards to this issue. And with the wholesale hardware changes in the PS3 Slim, I don’t think this will be an issue for the Slim, so that’s one reason to upgrade your old PS3s to the new one, even if the styling isn’t to my taste (I still like the old one better, hmmm, glossy).

Okie dokie, that’s itie for this weekie. More next week, so until then …

With Windows 7 coming in less than a month’s time, it certainly seems like it’s the operating system that Vista should have been, and I think Microsoft are on their way to a very successful launch, despite their horrible marketing campaign. And for those upgrading – and I hope you’re opting for a clean install because that’s the only way to get the best out of Windows 7, performance wise – then this is the perfect opportunity to go to a 64-bit OS if you’re not already using one. The reason is that to go from 32-bit to 64-bit, even within the same OS version, you’ll need a clean install, so you might as well bite the bullet when doing the XP/Vista to 7 upgrade. If you’re already using a 64-bit OS, then please ignore the blog I’ve just written, otherwise it’s well worth a read to find out if 64-bit is for you, or if 32-bit is good enough for now.

Otherwise, it was a fairly quiet week, with a few stories occupying the headlines to still make it a very interesting week, although most of it was yet again about the issue of copyright.

Let’s start with the copyright news. There was only really one news item that really caught the attention of people this week. And not even Sir Elton John could push the news out of the headlines, much of it thanks to the reactions to the story on the Internet.

A screencap of the Google cache of Lily Allen's anti-piracy blog, which has now been closed

Earlier in the week, musician Lily Allen decided to take a stand on the issue of online music piracy. But unlike many others who have come out against the proposed three-strike Internet banning policy, Ms Allen has come out for it, even launching a blog called “It’s Not Alright” to voice her views on piracy. Now there is nothing wrong with someone expressing their views, in fact, that’s what the Internet is for. However, if you do come out with some opinion, especially a controversial one, then make sure you are untouchable when it comes to arguing the facts. Unfortunately, Ms Allen made the mistake of not doing enough vetting into her personal history in regards to piracy, and in netspeak, she has been truly and thoroughly pwned. It turns out that, in publishing her anti-piracy views, that she might have pirated the article of high tech news and discussion website, Techdirt. And not only that, a few days later, it was revealed that Ms Allen was a distributor of pirated music herself, with some self-made mixtape MP3s that was available for download from her website, that featured songs that she (and her record company) did not have the distribution rights to. Oops.

Some dude said nearly 2000 years ago that “let he who is without sin, cast the first stone”. And if one is to take the moral stance that anyone who has downloaded or shared an illegal MP3 (and that’s a lot of people) is a thief and should be punished harshly, than he, or she, should at the very least ensure that they have not committed the same “crime”. Because the truth is that it’s very easy to commit this crime, it may be because you think you’re not doing anything wrong by not paying for something you never had the intention to pay for in the first place, or perhaps you think sharing songs is a great way to promote the song and the artist and it may lead to you, or the people you shared the song with, to become a fan and start buying. There are legitimate arguments for and against a heavy crackdown on piracy, but as the Lily Allen incident showed us, it’s far too easy to be labeled a pirate just because, earlier in your music career, your appreciation of other artists led you to make a mixtape that somehow ended up online. And as Ms Allen posted on her blog about the mixtapes, “I made those mixtapes 5 years ago, I didn’t have a knowledge of the workings of the music industry back then”. But Ms Allen, under the very legislation that you support, you would be punished for what you claim you did out of ignorance 5 years ago, and guess how many other people might get punished for similar acts if what you support becomes law? And the article you stole from Techdirt, well, that’s copyright protected as well, even if it were just some text on some website you’ve never seen before. So I’m glad Ms Allen spoke out, because she has successfully demonstrated the worst aspect of the three-strikes system, something nobody else could do until it was actually made into law. Ms Allen has since then decided to quit the music business, which could be to her genuine loss of hope in the future of the music business due to continuing losses to piracy, a publicity stunt, a bit of sulky sulk sulk over the whole affair,  or a bit of everything.

Oh, and Sir Elton John made similar statements but nobody really cared, not when the Lily Allen Show was so interesting.

UK ISP BT says that policing Internet usage could cost more than simply ignoring the problem

In all of this, it’s sometimes easy to forget that the whole point of the anti-piracy drive, and the three-strikes system, is all just about increasing profits for the music industry (and other industries). Not that there’s anything wrong with this of course, they have the right to take actions to increase their profits. But will the three-strikes actually stop piracy, and what about the cost to implement and maintain such a system. One of UK’s leading ISPs, BT, has came up with some estimates as to the cost of spying on Internet users, and they put the cost at £24 per person, or roughly £365 million per year in the UK. The UK music industry actually only claims £200 million in lost profits due to piracy per year, and as with their estimates, the actual loss is probably less than a quarter of this amount, if that much. The extra cost, the full amount of which will no doubt be passed onto the consumer, will hurt the Internet as access plans become less affordable and some are priced out of being able to connect altogether. This will in turn hurt legal online music sales and promotional efforts. I would be surprised if the music industry actually comes out ahead at all, but for them it’s of little risk since they scream so loudly about the seriousness of online piracy, yet are unwilling to fork out a single cent for a solution that they came up with. Probably the most effective way to actually kill off the three-strikes system is to actually force the music, movie (and other) industries to come up with the cash to implement such a system.

But the movie studios (or at least movie theaters) are spending on implementing systems that try and stop camcorder pirates. The latest such system uses infrared pulsing lights situated behind the screen that the human eye cannot see, but will be recorded onto camcorder images. This is supposed to deter pirates and purchasers of said pirated content, but they’ve obviously never bothered to download and examine a cam recording of a movie, what with part of the picture being blocked by somebody’s head, and the sound of popcorn chewing louder than the explosions in the movie. I don’t think quality is what people care about when it comes to cam recordings, and so feel free to spend millions upgrading cinemas with this technology, and in the end, some guy who works at the cinema for $10 an hour will still manage to get their hands on the original reel and hand it over to the right people to make a perfect rip.

So what would drive the copyright holders to spend so much fighting against online piracy, when by reasonable estimations, the loss to online piracy isn’t anywhere near as bad as the copyright holders make out, and that the benefits of the Internet will probably eventually outweigh any effect that piracy has. Many people can see that Internet and digital distribution provides a lot of new opportunities, but why does the industry treat it as a disease that must be eradicated? Well, William Patry, the senior copyright counsel at Google might have found the reason in his new book, Moral Panics and the Copyright Wars. He explains that this isn’t, nor will it be the last, time that copyright holders show mass panic in the face of a new distribution medium, to identify it as the enemy and do all in their powers to stop it, and then only to find out later on that it actually benefits them the most in the long run. It happened with the introduction of radio, television, VCRs, and now, it’s the Internet that’s public enemy number one where copyright is concerned. I guess it is understandable to a degree. To have something so valuable, you will want to protect it, against new things that you don’t fully understand and sometimes that means going too far. I keep on thinking back to the Susan Boyle episode, and wonder if her performance, and the show she performed on, would have been as popular if somebody hadn’t illegally uploaded the clip of the show onto YouTube. Had the copyright holders got to the video before the general public, how much of an adverse effect would that have had on the finances of said copyright holders, I wonder. Not to mention the financial fortunes of one Susan Boyle (although the publicity has had an adverse effect on her personal life, but that’s a whole other problem).

Onto high def news now. Still not much happening, and that’s true on the release front as well, as the last few weeks (after the Watchmen bump had subsided) has been fairly quiet ones. However, one thing is for certain, and that’s the price drops for Blu-ray happening all over the place, for both hardware and software.

Blu-ray prices have come down, for example, Crash on Blu-ray is now under $10 on Amazon

I’ve noticed this trend from analyzing the NPD stats, and NPD themselves have also been monitoring the situation and found that average prices have indeed dropped and are getting closer to the pricing of the DVD versions, even compared to just a few months ago. And from looking at the price history info on our own Amazon Blu-ray Price Index section, you can see the trend quite clearly. New releases, which used to be priced at just below $28 on Amazon, are now almost always under $24, with older releases previously hardly ever discounted, sometimes now falling to under $10. And whenever there has been a discount for older titles, it will usually shoot to the top of the charts. It’s good new for consumers and good news for the Blu-ray format, but probably not great news for the backers of the format, who have envisaged a premium format to combat ever lowering DVD prices. It hasn’t totally failed in this respect, as DVD prices are falling faster and so Blu-ray has at least slow downed the bleeding, but I think it’s time studios start to think about ways to sell more copies of the movies, rather than to make more money per copy.

Not much happening in gaming as it’s still a couple of weeks away from official sales figures for September, which should tell us how well the PS3 Slim is doing, and whether the discount to the Xbox 360 Elite has worked or not. The Wii price drop has been confirmed as well, but it comes too late in September to really have an effect on the month’s sales figures. But the fact that Nintendo is doing it may suggest they’ve had a look at the September sales figures and weren’t really happy with what they saw. And there is also news of a further $50 rebate offer for the Xbox 360 Elite, which suggests that Microsoft weren’t that happy with what they saw as well.

That’s it for now, have a great week, and see you in about 168 hours time.

Windows 7 is almost upon us, and by all accounts, it’s one of the rare instances where Microsoft actually get things right (XP being the other one). The question I’ve been seeing a lot of, and it’s also one that I myself have asked when I got my new computer last year, is should I keep on using a 32-bit OS or a 64-bit one?

First of all, a little background on the issue. 32-bit computing has been with us for quite a while now, ever since Windows 3.11 and 95. But what does it all mean? Well, a 32-bit OS is one that can work with 32-bit chunks of data in a single operation. Accuracy of data, particularly decimal values, also increase as the number of bits increase – a 64-bit system can represent a decimal value up to 14 significant numbers, whereas a 32-bit system, can only go up to 7.

32-bit Windows Memory Limitation ...

The bit rating also determines how much memory the system can support, as each byte of memory will require their own address location. With 32-bit computing, up to 2 ^ 32, or 4,294,967,296 different locations can be addressed. 4,294,967,296 bytes work out to be 4 GB. But if you need to add more memory to your system, then you have reached the limit of 32-bit systems the extra memory will simply be ignored. You will actually get less than 4 GB of memory being available in Windows if you are using the 32-bit version, as other devices with memory, such as your graphics card (which can come with 1 GB+ of memory these days) will also use up the available addressing space. This is why it’s common to see only 3.2 GB or less on 32-bit Windows with 4 GB of memory. But with a 64-bit OS, you now have 2 ^ 64 address locations to work with, and this means support for up to 16 Exabytes of memory (1 Exabyte equals 1,073,741,824 GBs)! We’ll probably colonize Mars before we’ll need a computer with that much memory.

In order to use a 64-bit OS, there are a couple of requirements. First of all, your CPU must be 64-bit compatible. Luckily, most CPUs these days are. AMD’s Athlon 64 makes this clear in its naming, and practically any Intel CPU released since 2005 (including some Prescott P4’s, and everything after the Pentium D). And obviously, you need a 64-bit OS. And then in terms of software, you’ll need 64-bit drivers for your various devices. All 32-bit applications will still run perfectly fine in a 64-bit OS (that’s because even though most of you are running a 32-bit OS, you’re actually already using a 64-bit CPU, and so you’ll already taking advantage the 32-bit compatibility that 64-bit processors offer). 16-bit software won’t be supported at all though, but it’s unlikely they will run in Windows, even the 32-bit version – but you can still  use DOSBox to run these programs in 64-bit Windows.

... But 4 GB Is Fully Usable In 64-Bit Windows

Upgrading to Windows 7, particularly doing a clean install as many will be doing, is an excellent opportunity to upgrade from 32-bit to 64-bit. And you do almost always need to do a clean install in order to make such an upgrade. The rest of this article will examine the benefits, and some of the drawbacks, of upgrading from 32-bit to 64-bit so that when you do make the decision to go with Windows 7, you can make the right decision. Note that the retail DVD disc of Windows 7 will come with both 32-bit and 64-bit editions, and if you need to go from one to another, you’ll have to to a clean install. If you are buying the OEM version or if you system comes with one, then the product key is usually limited to either the 32-bit or the 64-bit version, and you normally cannot go from one to the other without buying another set of keys (although your system manufacturer might be nice enough to exchange product keys for you).

Performance:

While in theory, the CPU’s ability to process 64-bit chunks of data, as opposed to only 32-bits, should provide a performance boost. In reality, thanks to processor extensions such as SSE4, the CPU is already capable of processing data in ever larger chunks, some 128-bit wide. The ability to take advantage of 64-bit processing also depends on the type of software. Software that performs lots of calculations, especially of larger numbers, and software that deals digital video, encryption, large databases will all benefit. Of course, these software will have to have 64-bit support, but that’s becoming much more common these days (K-Lite Codec Pack, ffdshow, x264, VirtualDub and Media Player Classic are just a small selection of software on Digital Digest that already have 64-bit editions). And of course, because 64-bit systems can support more memory, any application for which 4 GB is simply not enough will definitely benefit from 64-bit systems. But for general home use, there is very little noticeable difference between 32-bit and 64-bit computing, at least for now.
32 or 64: 64-bit has performance gains, albeit mostly theoretical or fairly insignificant. You certainly won’t be worse off with a 64-bit OS, so there’s no harm in being future proof.

Compatibility:

As mentioned above, compatibility is much less of an issue than a couple of years ago, since new CPUs are 64-bit these days. Driver support is also much better, particularly with the large vendors, and a quick browse of their driver section reveals 64-bit drivers ready for Windows 7 even right now. The only problem is with smaller vendors and legacy hardware, for example, a no brand scanner from 2004. Unless the manufacturer of this device was considerable enough to continue to provide driver updates (unlikely), or that Windows has native support, then you may be out of luck. Note that 64-bit Windows requires all drivers to have electronic signatures, and it won’t allow drivers without them to be installed – this brings improved security, but it also means custom drivers are out of the question and that you have to rely further on the manufacturer to provide signed drivers.
32 or 64: 32-bit will definitely be more compatible, but unless you can’t live without a particular legacy device, it shouldn’t be an issue for most people.

Extra Memory Support:

On the surface, being able to use more than 4 GB of memory sounds like it will be quite handy, as 2 GB is quickly become even standard on budget systems. And even if you use exactly 4 GB of memory, being able to use all of it, instead of just 3.2 GB of it, is also a good idea. But in reality, at least with today’s applications, the extra memory will not bring you a huge performance increase, and in fact, the performance benefits of even going from 2 GB to 4 GB is debatable. With Core i7’s triple channel memory support, getting 3 GB of memory so that you don’t waste the extra GB in a 32-bit OS is also a possibility.
32 or 64: A 64-bit OS will allow you to use the full amount of your 4 GB of memory, and allow you to upgrade to more when needed. But whether you will actually need more than 4 GB of memory is debatable. But as with performance, you have nothing to lose by going 64-bit now, even if you don’t need it right away.

Conclusion:

So the conclusion may be that while 64-bit is the future, going to a 64-bit OS won’t give you a huge amount of benefits right now. But unlike the early days of 64-bit computing, with missing drivers and patchy software support, these are all relatively non issues and you really have nothing to lose from going 64-bit. The increased performance from a small set of specialized tasks, the improved memory support and even some security enhancements means that the benefits just about outweigh the risks. And the benefits will keep on increasing, while the risk keep on decreasing over time as well. Of course, if you get the retail version of Windows 7, you can always stick with 32-bit for now and do a clean install sometime in the future when you need 64-bit.

But one thing is for sure, 32-bit computing is nearing an end. With CPUs already having moved on, driver support mostly in place, and the memory limit becoming an issue, Windows 7 will most likely be the last ever 32-bit Windows and it’s only a matter of time before we’ll all using 64-bit operating systems.