Why Has Blu-ray Failed To Catch Hold?

[wraggster]

My VCR is stashed in a closet, right next to a couple of CD-ROM players, a laser disc player, and other forgotten electronics. Is my Blu-ray player about to join them? Blu-ray really hasn't caught on — and probably never will. 'I'm surprised DVDs have continued to hang on,' said King, referring to the fact that player sales of over 20 million units in the US last year were pretty much evenly split between DVD and Blu-ray models. Blu-ray discs and players are clearly superior to DVDs, offering more features and a better picture overall. So why haven't shoppers been impressed (http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2011/04/19/feeling-blue-blu-ray/)?http://entertainment.slashdot.org/story/11/04/19/1552200/Why-Has-Blu-ray-Failed-To-Catch-Hold

[Fonixx]

Honestly how much an improvement is Blu-Ray over Dvd compared to Dvd over VHS? I've got a 46" tv and i'm still very happy with Dvd quality and the practicality of 12 devices in my house with a Dvd drive. But obviously VHS had to go for obvious reasons.

[Qmark]

Umm... because it's vaguely harder to rip bluray discs?

I think the real reason is, bluray doesn't offer any significant improvement over dvd on old CRT televisions, of which several still exist.
To get the most (or anything useful) out of bluray, one has to buy a rather large flatscreen, a bluray player, a bluray disc, and possibly a surround system - all of which cost far more than just buying the dvd for $5-10 less (or simply renting it), and watching it on hardware one already has.
That and the bluray disc that looks awesome in the living room is completely useless in all of the dvd players elsewhere around the house.

[adventure_of_link]

only real advantage to blue-ray is how it holds over 50GB of stuff. that's it. it's ironic too, since the HD-DVD died so blue-ray can live on, and now both HD-DVD and blue-ray will both be dead, despite being obvious superiors to DVD..