Will this be the holiday season of the $299 Blu-ray player? And will such a low price usher in mass acceptance of high-definition video discs? Could be. Here's a leading indicator: Sony says it will have Blu-ray players priced at $399, possibly lower, during the holidays. Already some Blu-ray players are in the $350-to-$400 range, while the competing HD-DVD spec is flirting with $199 and $99 price points.
Today, Sony Electronics president Stan Glasgow said, "[Sony] Blu-ray will be down to $399 and slightly below that, but not much lower." That means Sony will take action to get the price of its least expensive player that low. Sony's cheapest, the BDP-S300, is about $410 to $420 with aggressive pricing. Six months ago, it was $600. Other Blu-ray players typically run $400 to $1,200 now. My projection of a $299 Blu-ray player before Christmas is based on this reasoning: Other brands can undercut well-known Sony by $25 to $50 a unit. If Sony gets to $375, competitors can do $325, and if they can do $325, a couple of stores will look to the magical $299 price point. (Though that's not as magical as $199.) Not bad for a product category that came to market in mid-2006.
More Sony news after the jump.
Meanwhile, Wal-Mart electrified the consumer electronics industry by starting Black Friday-style pricing--those low sale prices the day after Thanksgiving--at the end of October. It's offering the entry level Toshiba HD-A2 HD DVD player that does 720p but not 1080p for $198, a $100 reduction, and via an online "secret promotion" (not so secret, I guess). http://www.walmart.com/secret) for $99 one day only: Friday, November 2.
If you shop, know this: Blu-ray has the lead in supporting vendors, titles, and sales, but the war is not yet over. You could be stuck with the loser. Also, know what you're giving up with the entry models. The Toshiba cheapie, for instance, can't do 1080p. Some Blu-ray players out this fall will not support the enhanced BD 1.1 profile that includes a second video decoder for picture-in-picture (important to users); a second audio decoder for, say, the director's commentary (important to directors); onboard storage of at least 256MB; and an Internet connection. Some not all 1.1 features can be added via firmware upgrade.
Glasgow made his comments at a semi-annual briefing for editors and analysts in New York. Other news from the conference:
Sony's OLED TV, now sold in Japan in very limited quantities, has no U.S. sales prospects in the near future. "It's not a mainstream TV," Glasgow notes, at $1,800 for an 11-inch display. He sees OLEDs with their bright, low-energy consumption being valuable on cell phones and PDAs.
Sony's $300 e-book Reader will have enhanced PDF support in January, and current models will be upgradeable. The bulk of buyers are travelers. Some students are buying in, but to date there are few textbooks (and it's a monochrome unit). The biggest surprise, Glasgow says, is how much readers like being able to switch genres as their moods change.
Sony sees key holiday categories (i.e., those with lots of sales potential) as digital imaging, LCD TV, home video including high-def camcorders, desktop PCs, and notebook PCs. But HD camcorders need to come down from their $1,000-to-$1,200 entry pricing, which means holiday 2008 will be the breakout year for high-def video recording.
Sony sees less interest in plasma TVs this fall--but then, Sony bailed on the business (plasma king Panasonic may think otherwise). Sony believes sales of microdisplay TVs (rear projection sets using DLP or tiny LCD projection engines) may be off 70 percent this holiday season. A prime customer for microdisplays will be the person with an expensive AV cabinet who's happier with a 50- to 60-inch microdisplay TV costing $1,500 to $2,500 than a 5-inch-deep plasma or LCD that costs twice as much for the same screen size.
The iPod nano competitor NWZ-A818 ($180 street for 8GB) is picking up momentum, especially among in-person shoppers. Apparently it's easier to believe Sony finally has a credible iPod killer--well, challenger--when you see it in person. Doesn't hurt that Sony has backed away from the death-by-DRM-and-Memory-Stick features of earlier music players.
Post by Bill Howard
Stumble
Digg
del.icio.us
Slashdot
November 1, 2007 4:04 PM
HD-A2 does 1080i as well as 720p. Any 1080p TV will not care what signal it gets, i or p for the 1080 resolution. I wish the author got their facts straight.
November 1, 2007 9:17 PM
You're right but the author is saying that these lower models will not play in 1080p. I understand that a 1080p capable set can output to 1080i, but why would you want that? 1080p is almost twice as clear as 1080i. Plus if you spent the extra money to get a 1080p LCD, why wouldn't you want to view media in 1080p?
November 2, 2007 6:40 AM
Agreed. This isn't an issue of crooked facts, but crooked perception, sorry MomItsMe. The real question is why on earth would you go HD without the ability to do 1080p, and why would you buy a high-def DVD player that can only do the same? 1080p is MUCH MUCH better than 1080i, and if you're going to make the investment, you should go for the better quality, no matter what Jessica Simpson says in those DirecTV commercials.
That being said, this is kind of typical of WalMart, isn't it? Great price in bold, key words right next to it, only when you read the fine print do you discover you've got no reason to start lining up in front of the store with all the other folks....
November 2, 2007 9:46 AM
1080p is nowhere near twice as clear as 1080i. In fact, for film based video (24fps) 1080i60 will get you an almost spot on identical picture (outside of quick panning in a few situations.)
Plus, this $99 crowd buying this player are not the die hard AV enthusiasts. They are NOT going to notice the difference. (Unless, of course, someone tells them they should. ^_^)
November 2, 2007 9:55 AM
alan h, you are exagerating dog 1080p is not light years ahead of 1080i. According to Consumer Reports, even 720p(which most people have) is not noticably different than 1080p with tv screens under 50 inches.
November 2, 2007 10:07 AM
I have a blu ray player and an full 1080p sony bravia, so why would anyone want to buy a stupid hd dvd player for cost when it does not support 1080p. These poor pepole, when they go today to wal-mart to be suckered in to buy this "cheap" player, they are not going to know any thing about it. Then latter they realize that they should have bought somthing better. Before I bought my sony blu ray player I did a lot of research on line, and a lot of in store visits. So my point is this, yes blu ray is way more expensive but well worth the price. I realy dont think a firesale will make that musch differance for the hd dvd camp. And why is everyone allways forgeting about Disney, they're exclusive to blu-ray. They have a lot af movies that I cant wait to get my hands on alot of classics and new classics. Blu ray is world peace.
November 2, 2007 10:52 AM
I'm not a geek, but looking in on these forums really helped me decide when I bought the hdtv and blu-ray player. And,even if I hadn't already made the purchase,I would never run to Walmart for a $98 hd dvd player for my system.
I think the $99 crowd probably have 720p sets and are looking forward to making their currend dvds look better.
November 2, 2007 11:58 AM
@anonymous: fair's fair - if I'm a dog you need your eyes checked. 1080p is much MUCH better than 1080i. Just like 720p is much better than 720i, or even standard def. Honestly folks, do we need to go back to school on the differences between progressive and interlace? Head over and watch a few eps of DL.TV, then you'll understand. ;)
November 2, 2007 12:21 PM
720i isn't a support resolution of any HDTV format.
November 2, 2007 2:01 PM
Nice catch Chirpie! You're absolutely right, I really didn't mean to include 720i at all and instead say 720p is better than standard def. My bad, on that anyway. ;)
November 2, 2007 5:20 PM
*sigh*
For people that claim they have done research, you guys show that you know nothing about the 1080i/p issue.
If the source and the TV are both 1080p (and you don't have a complete garbage 1080p TV) 1080i is IDENTICAL to 1080p.
No, not unnoticable. ABSOLUTELY IDENTICAL. Yep, no difference.
1080p/24 gets converted to 1080i/60 (with NO loss in quality) and then gets converted back to 1080p/24.
Now seriously guys, the author of this article AND most of you here need to get a clue.
However, if the source or TV are 1080i, THEN there is a difference... hence why 1080i cable/satellite look worse than HD-DVD and bluray... the source is 1080i (and heavily compressed).
The output from the HD-A2 is absolutely identical to what you would get if it were outputting 1080p.
November 2, 2007 6:44 PM
@AR: Isn't that what everyone here is saying? Or is there some kind of perception problem in the air? Who's missing the clue again? Anyone? Anyone? Anyone find a clue? ;)
November 2, 2007 7:41 PM
@AR: 1080p is better then 1080i, if it wasn't then there would just be only 1080i or 1080p sets. 1080p IS FULL HD!!! And they are not IDENTICAL. Progressive scan is way better then Interlace, watch a fast moving movie like Cars or Ghost Rider, progerssive dvd players can upconvert to 1080p via hdmi cable. Regular dvd players are just 1080i via hdmi cable. I had played Transformers dvd on my blu ray player and it put out 1080p via hdmi. And then I played it on my hd tv in my bedroom on a ragular dvd player that is not that old and I could tell a huge differance. Try some movies on a non HD player and then your Hi Def player and see for your self. Just my thoughts. The best way to know is just do alot of reserach go to stores like Best Buy or Circiut City and of causre there's always the internet.
November 3, 2007 1:51 PM
Ok, who's smoking here? 1080p is MUCH MUCH better then 1080i. Those who say otherwise need to see this with there own eyes. If this weren't the case then why on Earth would 1080p HD-DVD players cost more then 1080i HD-DVD players?? Why would 1080p LCD's cost more then 1080i/720p LCD's. Think about folks. I own both a 46 inch 1080p Sony Bravia XBR LCD and a PS3 and watching movies like OPEN SEASON on this TV speaks for itself. I can't believe we are even having this discussion.
November 3, 2007 4:00 PM
Thank you, Mr. Reality! Finaly someone gets it.
November 4, 2007 8:32 PM
mr "AR" does not seem to understand that 1080i has to halve the frame rate in order to show (every other line) of 1080P. All this crap about natural upconversion through hdmi is still artificial upconversion. One of the first laws of physics: YOU CAN NOT create something from nothing.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1080i
"To compare 1080i and 1080p, it is important to compare framerates. Due to interlacing, 1080i has twice the frame-rate but half the resolution of a 1080p signal using the same bandwidth, although, also due to interlacing, 1080i looks to be the same resolution, although with more flicker. Faster frame-rates are especially useful in sports shows and other shows with fast-moving action. However, on some flat screens that do not support interlacing, this instead becomes smeared or jarred artifacts."
November 13, 2007 8:52 AM
You guys are such nerds yet know nothing about this issue. How sad are you, console fanatics?