In broadcast/cable/satellite maybe, but on the disc front all of that momentum is being squandered by the confusion of a format war. That's my point. Imagine what might have happened if the camps had agreed to work together, or one had backed down. The entire industry would have worked actively to promote a single format. Sales would be much stronger now than they are, because there'd be very little risk to consumers. The only barrier to entry would be price.

I think you're right about sound quality not getting the same respect. Part of the reason for that is that convenience, price and ease-of-use seem to trump quality in the mind of most consumers. And most of them would rather download lower quality music than buy more expensive discs of higher quality. That's the danger with HD movies too, I think. But the format war certainly didn't help matters in terms of high-resolution audio. Nor do I think it's helping in HD movie discs.

I appreciate that some feel the format war has been driving prices down, which is good for the consumer. That's true and it's the most valid argument I've heard on the subject. But if the formats don't end up being viable, thriving businesses with lots of software support, super-low prices don't really matter. A $199 player can become just as useless as a $599 one. Cheap prices are not enough for a format to be successful. There has to be a business model that encourages the studios and manufacturers to support it. There has to be win/win.

What I'm looking for is the best overall balance of quality, price, and hardware and software support. HD-DVD is stronger with price, but BD is basically its equal in quality and it's got stronger hardware and software support (by which I mean manufacturers and studios). If BD prices continue to drop, that price advantage for HD-DVD evaporates. All the rest is just window dressing it seems to me. And the Blu-ray manufacturers also haven't slashed their hardware prices so quickly and drastically that it's virtually impossible to make a profit, so the business model still works enough to encourage them to stick with it. It's a pretty simple and logical argument it seems to me.

And I agree that Sony has a long history of screwing things up. And they still could. But even Sony has to get something right once in a while.I think I agree with everything you have said here. We differ in that I think HD media will become mainstream when the price is right. My observation is that the average consumer wants HD, even if they don't know much about it, but it still costs too much. Average consumers will make the move, but they will do so blindly and uninformed. Where that takes the two formats from there is up in the air. I don't subscribe to the idea that Blu-Ray will win. Nor do I think HD-DVD wins. My guess is both formats co-exist and dual format players become the norm.

I don't think people at avs fall into the most people category. Well I don't, I guess that's why I use Grado headphones with my iPod at the gym. Granted I just found out they have iGrado's that would fit better for moving around and stuff, but that comprimise is another subject.

I really wish SACD's were mainstream as they sound amazing...a dam shame :(Agreed... AVS doesn't fall into that category. I'm an audiophile myself. I am more familiar with the audio side of things than the video side, but it's quite obvious when I have people over and I try to point out detailed sounds and clarity and they look at me strangely that I am the minority. The number of car audio systems I hear that have distorted bass and shrill highs are testimony to just how tone deaf the average person is.

How many Itunes style online stores have SACD/DVDA quality up for buying online? How many of those movie websites online including Amazons own web movie service have extras? How about Xbox Live Marketplace? Heres your answer: 0.

Do you know why? Because no one gives a **** about hi-fi multi-channel audio. Period. Who cares about extras? Surely nobody buying a BD today that isn't the PS3.

Music for most people is background music. Even most audiophiles just want stereo. People are happy with mp3 and have don't have stereo systems that make the difference audible. If they do its just some in ceiling speakers or small crappy bookshelfs thrown around the house in a fashion that is VISUALLY appealing, not acoustically.

Radio sounds good enough for most people.

The masses want HD video. They see the difference in the store. They can see it at home. They are buying it. Everyday by the thousands. They aren't settling for SDTV anymore. You can have 2 formats and have people decide which one to buy with dual format players.


Leave the dead horse lay with the DVDA/SA = HDDVD/BD crap.

I think I agree with everything you have said here. We differ in that I think HD media will become mainstream when the price is right. My observation is that the average consumer wants HD, even if they don't know much about it, but it still costs too much. Average consumers will make the move, but they will do so blindly and uninformed. Where that takes the two formats from there is up in the air. I don't subscribe to the idea that Blu-Ray will win. Nor do I think HD-DVD wins. My guess is both formats co-exist and dual format players become the norm.

Agreed... AVS doesn't fall into that category. I'm an audiophile myself. I am more familiar with the audio side of things than the video side, but it's quite obvious when I have people over and I try to point out detailed sounds and clarity and they look at me strangely that I am the minority. The number of car audio systems I hear that have distorted bass and shrill highs are testimony to just how tone deaf the average person is.

I remember those days quite well. I used to sell the stuff (thegood guys/best buy) during school. Band pass box's and +3 on the tweets for the win for most of them, lol. Personally I went with Focal's which are very neutral.

Do a search of my post history and you'll see I've openly bashed and praised both formats for different things. I'm not surprised to see an HD DVD fanboy blast me without having all the facts though. :p


If you WERE format neutral, then you wouldn't have a signature intended to provoke the "other" side.

Be an HD fan, not a format fanboy.

I don't think people at avs fall into the most people category. Well I don't, I guess that's why I use Grado headphones with my iPod at the gym. Granted I just found out they have iGrado's that would fit better for moving around and stuff, but that comprimise is another subject.

I really wish SACD's were mainstream as they sound amazing...a dam shame :(

I can literally imagine the "WTF is he thinking?" glances seeing the Grados dancing about on your melon.. :p

May I suggest some Shure E5 or Etymotic ER-4S In-Ear-Monitors for complete sonic bliss on the move?

Do a search of my post history and you'll see I've openly bashed and praised both formats for different things. I'm not surprised to see an HD DVD fanboy blast me without having all the facts though. :pI have never seen you post anything but pro-Blu-Ray.... so I checked your post history and couldn't find one that had a critique of Blu-Ray, let alone an open bash.

I can literally imagine the "WTF is he thinking?" glances seeing the Grados dancing about on your melon.. :p

May I suggest some Shure E5 or Etymotic ER-4S In-Ear-Monitors for complete sonic bliss on the move?

lol, yes I've received a couple comments at the gym. Most think they are really old headphones or something (I've got the SR80'). iGrado's will be mine soon :)

I can't stand the in ear style but yeah the Sure's sound great, haven't tried the Etymotics.

I have never seen you post anything but pro-Blu-Ray.... so I checked your post history and couldn't find one that had a critique of Blu-Ray, let alone an open bash.

There was a time where he switched back and forth almost every day.

Post #4, 53, etc for example in just this thread..

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?p=8750714#post8750714

There was a time where he switched back and forth almost every day.

Post #4 for example..

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?p=8750714#post8750714Hmm.... that's wierd. mmmkay. :) Multiple personalities? Fight Club? ;)

Hmm.... that's wierd. mmmkay. :) Multiple personalities? Fight Club? ;)

People from both sides used to joke about it "what side is he on this hour?" lol

People from both sides used to joke about it "what side is he on this hour?" lol


Well, we don't have to worry about that anymore do we ;)

Well, we don't have to worry about that anymore do we ;)

Yeah, we were real concerned :eek:

Good lord, I hope not!Bet on it.

Bet on it.
I agree. What's to stop a download service to include all the extras like we see right now with DVD's and all HD media? I'm just wondering that if the download movie business is like the download music business then there would be a different pricing scheme of "burning the movie to optical disc" than keeping on HDD. Why are people scared of this if they don't even know the specifics? Let's talk if/when there are specifics to the download method in 5-10 years (if it happens).

To me the only downside (or upside, however you want to look at it) would be many B&M's (BB and CC) would lose money.

Why are people scared of this if they don't even know the specifics? Let's talk if/when there are specifics to the download method in 5-10 years (if it happens).


Were scared because the whole download quality issues/Microsoft/Computers running our lives/DRM thing instills fear. I agree with you that in 5-10 years the technology could possibly be foolproof and user friendly....but me and many others will remain very cautious and pessimistic about the whole download system.

Like Hal said in 2001: "I am incapable of error". OK Hal..... right.... :rolleyes: ;)

Anyways, I could *maybe* get excited about downloads if, and these are major "ifs" that MUST be met:

- The quality is 100% Full HD like discs are now
- There is NO DRM of any kind...I download it once and its mine forever and I get it back with zero questions asked if there is a drive failure or whatever.
- There are NO OS specific software packages required. In other words NO Microsoft or Apple "running the show".
- Hi-Res Cover art is still available for download & printing.
- Price is extremely cheap.

Do all that....AND I'll think of some more....then we might have something. ;)

Bet on it.

Why would I bet on something that I don't want to happen?

I have never seen you post anything but pro-Blu-Ray.... so I checked your post history and couldn't find one that had a critique of Blu-Ray, let alone an open bash.

Never posted anything but pro blu-ray? Hmmm...I wonder why it was that he was stripped of his moderator duties at a certain blu-ray forum?

;)

and honestly its not for you.... and thats fine i am more than happy with what ms has out there in the downloadable space. And with a few pricing tweaks will be even better.

- The quality is 100% Full HD like discs are now

unlikely to happen ever if anytime soon and with that said it doesnt matter to me at all when there is almost no difference between bluray/hd-dvd and the stuff you download on the live marketplace. (and i compare everything to live marketplace because they are the only ones doing hd movies).

- There is NO DRM of any kind...I download it once and its mine forever and I get it back with zero questions asked if there is a drive failure or whatever.

hd-dvd and bluray have drm so i guess you wont be getting either of those formats then? and to me thats the beauty of having something like live marketplace take over the rental market (which is 95% of the movies i watch). is that you just redownload it if you lose it or in the case of ms with their tv shows if your 360 hd fails they mark that you downloaded the content so you can delete it and redownload it at anytime.

- There are NO OS specific software packages required. In other words NO Microsoft or Apple "running the show".

again you dont have a problem buying a hidef player and only being able to play the content there or a specially equipped pc but seem to think its blasphemy to be locked to having it on the 360 (again using the 360 model only since they are the only ones that exist). and that said in the future i think ms will make a true system wide marketplace where you can watch on your pc/media center, zune and 360. just like apple will with the ipod,appletv and mac.

- Hi-Res Cover art is still available for download & printing.

it sounds like you want some sort of image download service where you burn your own disc.... to me you are thinking about the download service in the complete wrong direction. you have to think about it more from the rent & vos perspective.

- Price is extremely cheap.

this is the one area ms live needs to improve imo. its pretty expensive compared to netflix but for most movies you only want to watch it once and paying 5 bucks for a view is much better than 20 to own it and watch it once or twice.

Microsoft stated that the disc requires a FIRMWARE upgrade to the HD-DVD Addon, and they are afraid of bricking the drive by doing it online. Rightfully so, since theres thousands of people with bricked xbox 360s after each and every new update on the system it seems. So you are saying its A-OK to have movies that DONT play on a 100% fully supported hardware? Wow, your rational of whats acceptable seems somewhat soft, compared to lets say, if the same situation was for blu-ray. You'd probably write to the euro union to investigate the matter and look into banning blu-ray from circuit city. Get real. The guy has a major problem, he has a disc he PAID for and it doesnt work on the drive he PAID for that was ADVERTISED as a 100% supported device. Belittling him doesnt help.

Oh give it a rest. Your only sympathy for this guy is in using him in your non stop HD-DVD bash fest.

I gave up after the first page.....too much swaggering.

OP, 10 years is a long time. I would hardly summarize from MS's comment that they're pulling support from the optical disc market. Since the 70's, 10 years is more or less about the amount of time it takes for new technology to start gaining traction. Look at the 4/8 track/cassette/CD, or even DVD. DVD hasn't been around for 10 years, (it wasn't remotely mainstream in 1997) and yet new technology is already looking to replace it. I don't even consider LD or D-VHS competitors to DVD.

I don't understand why VOD or downloadable content in 10 years is such an unfathomable concept for people, let alone why anyone would make the stretch that MS is pulling support for HD DVD. Blu-ray and/or HD DVD will be old news by then. Look at the volume of online users 10 years ago - it's nowhere in the ballpark what it is today. In 10 years, I wouldn't be surprised if 90% or more customers in developed countries were online. Once that happens, you think people are going to go out and by a hard copy when one can be downloaded real-time and watched instantly? The only real hindrance to VOD/downloads right now are quality and draconian DRM. If those two major shortcomings are addressed, VOD/downloads will look fantastic.

All of this consumers being "confused" and not having "expertise" is nonsense. They have no trouble choosing between a Honda or Ford when buying a car. And those are much more expensive then a highdef disc player.

If your're looking for hidden agendas in this war, instead of skewing MS, I'd point the editorial gun at the studios. As many have stated on this thread, the posturing of the studios is the highest form of the cynicism and anti-consumerism and FAR outweighs whatever motivations MS has for their affiliation with HD DVD.

While the argument could be made that exclusive studios have a reason here or there for choosing one format over the other, you'd have to have your head in the sand to not realize that there are backroom deals galore on both sides whose sole purpose was to prevent studios from publishing on both sides, and thus consumers are now deprived of universal content which would have made the format war moot. If all content was available on both sides, there would be about as much confusion as when a consumer has to choose between Skippy and Jiffy peanut butter.

Of course, criticizing the studios is probably not the smartest thing for a person with studio contacts to do. Much easier to use a big fat target like MS. Like shooting fish in a barrel.

I gave up after the first page.....too much swaggering.

OP, 10 years is a long time. I would hardly summarize from MS's comment that they're pulling support from the optical disc market. Since the 70's, 10 years is more or less about the amount of time it takes for new technology to start gaining traction. Look at the 4/8 track/cassette/CD, or even DVD. DVD hasn't been around for 10 years, (it wasn't remotely mainstream in 1997) and yet new technology is already looking to replace it. I don't even consider LD or D-VHS competitors to DVD.

I don't understand why VOD or downloadable content in 10 years is such an unfathomable concept for people, let alone why anyone would make the stretch that MS is pulling support for HD DVD. Blu-ray and/or HD DVD will be old news by then. Look at the volume of online users 10 years ago - it's nowhere in the ballpark what it is today. In 10 years, I wouldn't be surprised if 90% or more customers in developed countries were online. Once that happens, you think people are going to go out and by a hard copy when one can be downloaded real-time and watched instantly? The only real hindrance to VOD/downloads right now are quality and draconian DRM. If those two major shortcomings are addressed, VOD/downloads will look fantastic.


In response, I quote the article:

“I don't know that [HD] will be delivered on an optical disc in five to 10 years,” he said, pointing to downloads and broadband delivery. [B]“At Microsoft, we'd rather it wasn't [on a disc]."

Did you even read it?

So, having followed most of this thread, I think I have a better understanding of Bill Hunt's thought processes underlying his decision to promote BD over HD DVD. I have thought some about why this leads to such intense reaction from the HD DVD supporters (besides the natural desire to want to be on the winning side).

While there are many factors, one that struck me is the underlying implication in his statements that those who have chosen HD DVD are undermining the chance for any HD format to win. Since most members here are pretty strongly supportive of the evolution of new HT technology, it feels like a pretty big slap in the face to have in implied that you are actually damaging the future. That is like someone insulting your momma - it leads to harsh response.

As one who dove deep into SDVD during the DiVX wars (and wrote letters - real paper ones, etc.), I want this industry to survive and thrive. I have more than $50K invested in my home theater, and we watch movies in it all the time.

The problem is, Bill's logic and conclusion are built on a set of assumptions and values that are not universal. He states that he does not think the interactive layer specs matter much. He doesn't, others do. Price points, disc capacity, studio support, etc. - all factor into his conclusion - and yet, fair, intelligent HT enthusiasts can legitimately believe that these various factors have different value than he does.

With different values, you reach different conclusions. There are probably as legitimate logic chains that can lead to conclusions that both formats can co-exist, that HD DVD should be the winner, or that both are doomed now. What you believe is shaped by your assumptions, your values, and your biases.

As long as the argument devolves into statements that the other side is undermining the future of HD, the flames will burn higher.

Ken

He hates our freedoms. ;)

Format neutral studios and lots of dual-format players would be FANTASTIC for early adopters and enthusiasts, but they aren't going to address the root problem here, which is that mass confusion about which format to buy is going to keep the vast majority of consumers from ever actually buying either format. Most people will go to the store, see three different formats and decide to just stick with DVD. In that circumstance, studio enthusiasm for each format will gradually wane, just as it did with DVD-Audio and SACD, and both formats will fade quietly away. Who wins in that scenario? Certainly not enthusiasts. Downloading enthusiasts maybe.

Far too many here forget that the masses are the biggest factor in all of this and that early adopters mean very little in regards to either format having any long term viability.
The masses of course want two things...one format and cheaper pricing of hardware...and even more so software.

With regards to future downloads, I have no problem with those as an option, but I have a big problem with that possibly being the only option.

With studios wanting to protect their content along with making maximum profits and software companies only too willing to help them out for a fee....I see a potential for a download only scenario in the future that reeks of the likes of the Divx fiasco.
Only this time with no alternative to downloads.
Just PPV or possibly pay a lot to buy options.

This scenario would be the end of HD H/T as we know it and with bandwidth, bit rates and HD lossless or uncompressed audio all lowered to what the masses will accept, rather than what enthusiast want.

Not sure if Bill realizes he is being sacrificed as a pawn by the BDA propaganda machine. His site has detoriated from a legitimate news source to The National Equirer when it comes to the format wars. But it is probably a smart business decision....

In response, I quote the article:

“I don't know that [HD] will be delivered on an optical disc in five to 10 years,” he said, pointing to downloads and broadband delivery. [B]“At Microsoft, we'd rather it wasn't [on a disc]."

Did you even read it?


Did you even read the comments from Richard himself? Or is it easier for you to continue to take his remarks out of context?

Were scared because the whole download quality issues/Microsoft/Computers running our lives/DRM thing instills fear. I agree with you that in 5-10 years the technology could possibly be foolproof and user friendly....but me and many others will remain very cautious and pessimistic about the whole download system.

Like Hal said in 2001: "I am incapable of error". OK Hal..... right.... :rolleyes: ;)

Anyways, I could *maybe* get excited about downloads if, and these are major "ifs" that MUST be met:

- The quality is 100% Full HD like discs are now
- There is NO DRM of any kind...I download it once and its mine forever and I get it back with zero questions asked if there is a drive failure or whatever.
- There are NO OS specific software packages required. In other words NO Microsoft or Apple "running the show".
- Hi-Res Cover art is still available for download & printing.
- Price is extremely cheap.

Do all that....AND I'll think of some more....then we might have something. ;)
That's the problem I have with the arguments against downloading 5-10 years from now. You are assuming there already is a status quo as to what you're going to get in the future. As far as I know, there are no specifics as to download speed, file size, image and sound quality, providers, extras, etc.....
What we have now with the 360 is great for what now exists: mostly 720P sets, 4-6 GB movies with today's download speeds. I don't see any excuse as to why these can't improve with time.
As to MS or Apple running the show, why do you think it's just them? What if netflix and BB got into the act as a way to increase revenue? Do you know for sure it will only be MS and Apple? Like I said too many assumptions on your part (as well as others) based on pure fear.

Not sure if Bill realizes he is being sacrificed as a pawn by the BDA propaganda machine. His site has detoriated from a legitimate news source to The National Equirer when it comes to the format wars. But it is probably a smart business decision....

You work in marketing if I recall, right?

I thought I smelled hyperbole.

I'm anxiously awaiting for the 'bits to have an article about how Paris Hilton was going to buy HD DVD but the Blu-ray Papparazi scared her away from it.

Of course microsoft wants you to download it because they want everyone to use HTPC's or Xbox 360's. They would like downloads but the market for huge high def purchases over the internet is still years and years from mass market sales like discs generate.

You work in marketing if I recall, right?

I thought I smelled hyperbole.

I'm anxiously awaiting for the 'bits to have an article about how Paris Hilton was going to buy HD DVD but the Blu-ray Papparazi scared her away from it.

Yup. I am in marketing now (with previous experience in sales, product management and investment banking) ....only in America :D

Kutaragi: PS3 platform is made for "e-Distribution" (http://www.gamespot.com/news/6152586.html)

Kutaragi does not think it will take long for digitally delivered PS3 content to catch on and gave a time frame of one to two years. With the availability of networked entertainment, it would seem that having optical drives would cease to be important, but Kutaragi goes one step further. "I expect even the hard disk to disappear eventually. If you have all the data on servers, you probably no longer need disk drives...But to do this, the server is crucial. It's a difficult problem."
'I'd be amazed if PS4 had a disc drive' (http://palgn.com.au/article.php?title='I'd+be+amazed+if+PS4+had+a+disc+drive'&id=5064&sid=9b1295071ac4912c3e8079f305c5bf6e)

Harrison touched on his vision of the future in an article in the latest edition of Wired magazine, arguing that, "We have to change the business model. We have to find a new way to reach the consumer. That will be the business model for the future of games," he said, before adding, "I'd be amazed if the PS4 had a physical disc drive."
So I guess Sony feels the same way about content distribution...How come blu ray supporters are not up in arms about this?

The problem is... HDD is way less reliable than Media CD. In 10 year, 4 HDD die on me...in 15 year of CD base media, only 2 have developped Rot...

Bandwidth cost a lot too... currently here in montreal, the basic package is 40$ is to 20gb down TOP
HDD on PVRs usually last 2 years before bad sectors show up - that's what I found - I'm on my third cable HD-PVR box. While the software on the pvr box is able to lock out bad sectors, in reality, you will still get the occasional lockups in recordings.

With heavy use, and too much reliance instant-replay-features (ie: always recording to disk even when you watch each channel), the hdd lifespan is also greatly reduced. Note though the main reason for bad sectors could also be users not treating the PVR properly and powering units off indiscriminately at the wrong time. The worst thing you can do is to have a main power bar and power that off, the power-off button on the PVR at least allows writes to complete, powering off the power bar can stop hdd writes in the middle.

However, the download service behaves like a PC and is more gentle on the HDD than the real-time pvr.

Kutaragi: PS3 platform is made for "e-Distribution" (http://www.gamespot.com/news/6152586.html)


'I'd be amazed if PS4 had a disc drive' (http://palgn.com.au/article.php?title='I'd+be+amazed+if+PS4+had+a+disc+drive'&id=5064&sid=9b1295071ac4912c3e8079f305c5bf6e)


So I guess Sony feels the same way about content distribution...How come blu ray supporters are not up in arms about this?

It's called having blinders on :D

yeah, forward this to Bill Hunt and see if his site picks it up ;)

Because Sony is making great efforts to make Blu-ray the HD distribution format, not trying to set themselves up to distribute HD as downloadable content.

And no, HD trailers aren't even close to the same thing as HD movies.

Kutaragi: PS3 platform is made for "e-Distribution" (http://www.gamespot.com/news/6152586.html)


'I'd be amazed if PS4 had a disc drive' (http://palgn.com.au/article.php?title='I'd+be+amazed+if+PS4+had+a+disc+drive'&id=5064&sid=9b1295071ac4912c3e8079f305c5bf6e)


So I guess Sony feels the same way about content distribution...How come blu ray supporters are not up in arms about this?

1 word; hypocrite

Because Sony is making great efforts to make Blu-ray the HD distribution format, not trying to set themselves up to distribute HD as downloadable content.

And no, HD trailers aren't even close to the same thing as HD movies.

Give it time Josh. Give it time. Sony will have allot of DL content in order to compete with 360 market place. It would be bad business and leaving themselves in the dust if they didn't offer comparable services to what MS and Apple do today.

They already lost out on the Walk-Man franchise to the iPod. That was a very profitable sector for them for many years. Gone. They will not want to repeat that same mistake in other sectors.

In response, I quote the article:

“I don't know that [HD] will be delivered on an optical disc in five to 10 years,” he said, pointing to downloads and broadband delivery. [B]“At Microsoft, we'd rather it wasn't [on a disc]."

Did you even read it?

I reiterated what the MS rep said in the article. In 10 years, MS sees VOD/downloads as the future, not physical discs.

Did you even read my post?

First quote: He says "eventually," as opposeed to "five to ten years" by Microsoft. Not the same thing.

Second quote: he says that "will be the business model for the future of games". That doesn't concern us.

Additionally, Kutaragi was not in charge of Media Entertainment Convergence at Sony. Doherty is (at Microsoft, that is).

Kutaragi: PS3 platform is made for "e-Distribution" (http://www.gamespot.com/news/6152586.html)


'I'd be amazed if PS4 had a disc drive' (http://palgn.com.au/article.php?title='I'd+be+amazed+if+PS4+had+a+disc+drive'&id=5064&sid=9b1295071ac4912c3e8079f305c5bf6e)


So I guess Sony feels the same way about content distribution...How come blu ray supporters are not up in arms about this?

Because he's talking about gaming? And gaming has been moving that way for a number of years and is now at a level where it can be tried effectively on consoles as opposed to PCs? Or is that just "context"?

Give it time Josh. Give it time. Sony will have allot of DL content in order to compete with 360 market place. It would be bad business and leaving themselves in the dust if they didn't offer comparable services to what MS and Apple do today.

They already lost out on the Walk-Man franchise to the iPod. That was a very profitable sector for them for many years. Gone. They will not want to repeat that same mistake in other sectors.

I agree. I see Sony distributing SD content via the PS3 very soon. But HD content will remain strictly on Blu-ray because it is not practicable to distribute 50GB movies to PS3s, nor will it be for quite a long time. I don't see Sony trying to position themselves for that by limiting bit rate or further compressing their HD content. I do see that with Microsoft.

Sony has invested heavily in Blu-ray and will not abandon that even if/when they branch out into downloadable library and it's successful. Besides the fact that movie length 1080p is not time conducive to the broadband infrastructure of North America and won't be for at least the intermediate future.

I'd remind you that a year into this format war, the vast majority of movie fans - even many who own HDTVs - aren't even aware of the format war, much less what the advantages and disadvantages of each format may be. You can't expect them to be aware of the advantages of combo players and combo discs…

All the more reason why the format war really hasn’t done anything to impede the adoption of HD! If anything, it’s brought the process closer to mass adoption quicker with the speedy price drops. Your belief that Blu-Ray’s adoption is somehow being retarded by the presence of HD-DVD is a complete fallacy. Even a single, unified format with full studio support would be struggling to gain a foothold in DVD’s dominant landscape.

Moreover, HD-DVD has always been poised for mass adoption better than Blu-Ray. It is less expensive to manufacture the hardware and software, it was quicker, easier, and MUCH less costly to switch existing DVD lines to manufacture HD-DVD discs, and it entered the marketplace with better quality products (eg. It didn’t take months to have dual-layered media available and working). One of the porn industry insiders had this to say about BD replication costs, "Blu-ray is extremely expensive to work with. Authoring in Blu-ray Disc is about four times more expensive than HD DVD, while replicating is three times as expensive.”

The fact the Sony has been subsidizing disc manufacturing since Day 1 should be a very big concern to anyone leaning towards either format. Software costs are pretty comparable now, but what happens if there is no competition from HD-DVD in the future? Look at the pricing structure that FOX adopted for Blu-Ray (when they were actually releasing movies, that is). $40 for bare-bones, mediocre catalog titles all on a 25GB disc! Is that the future we should all be embracing?

How about, based on the fact that I know, personally, many of the leading DVD producers involved in the business and speak with them regularly, both as friends and professionally. And most of them are telling me that a lot of the fun has gone out of the work for them because the studios are getting less and less interested in spending money to produce the kind of really great, in-depth special editions that were a hallmark of DVD. Many of the great producers from the early days of DVD have even moved on to other work…That’s why we're getting so much silly interactive crap, repurposed EPK featurettes, games and DVD double-dips (with little new content but trailers to promote future releases), but fewer and fewer really great in-depth documentaries and truly elaborate special editions. The business and climate in the home video side of Hollywood is changing big time, and not in a good way.

I’m not surprised that these execs have lost the novelty of producing special edition DVD features – after all, they’ve exhausted every single opportunity to sell and re-sell the same title over & over again in an attempt at milking as much money as they can from the consumer. Starship Troopers has been on DVD at least 4 times that I recall – a standard edition (1998), 2-disc special edition (2002), superbit version (2003), and a second 2-disc set (2007)! Many people, myself included, have gotten sick & tired of rebuying our favorite movies as these studios continuously remaster or re-release the films. How many Spidermans / Spiderman 2 DVD’s have been released by Sony?

One of the selling points of these new formats, besides improved quality, was supposed to be the next-generation interactive features like IME. Are you simply claiming these features aren’t important because BD still can’t get its collective sh*t together in this regard? HD-DVD was first to launch, first to receive perfect scores in PQ, first to offer the new lossless TruHD 5.1 decoding in its players, and remains the only HD format offering these PiP / IME features still AWOL on Blu-Ray. Remember back in August of last year when all the industry sources were telling you that 50GB discs were not working in existing BD players (Samsung) and prototypes (Sony, Pioneer)? Now BD has taken over a year and can't get BD-J working correctly? Yet you try to convince folks to buy into their product and shun HD-DVD! :rolleyes:

As many others have stated in this thread, you should be advocating for ALL studios to go neutral and to let the marketplace decide. The strong-armed tactics of the Blu-Ray format is not consumer-friendly, and you should be championing studio heads into allowing consumers a choice. Warner seems to be the only studio actually making profit from the HD formats due to their neutral stance, having the only 100K-selling disc to date (The Departed) and also having the #1 selling box-set in Planet Earth! Surely the under-whelming sales of box-office smashes like Pirates and Night At the Museum on Blu-Ray should offer Disney and FOX a dose of reality.

Because he's talking about gaming? And gaming has been moving that way for a number of years and is now at a level where it can be tried effectively on consoles as opposed to PCs? Or is that just "context"?

So if the PS4 does not have a disk drive....it would play BD disks using what? an add on?

Do you think Sony Pictures would not support downloadable content?

First quote: He says "eventually," as opposeed to "five to ten years" by Microsoft. Not the same thing.

Second quote: he says that "will be the business model for the future of games". That doesn't concern us.

Additionally, Kutaragi was not in charge of Media Entertainment Convergence at Sony. Doherty is (at Microsoft, that is).

Did Doherty clarify what he was saying or not? Does Doherty agree with the interpretation of his comment or not?

Does his clarification matter more than the interpretation of a journalist?

I guess it depends on which lens on the 3-D glasses your are looking out of :)

Did Doherty clarify what he was saying or not? Does Doherty agree with the interpretation of his comment or not?

Does his clarification matter more than the interpretation of a journalist?

I guess it depends on which lens on the 3-D glasses your are looking out of :)

I find it interesting that you objected to my post but cheered on mikemorel's blatant quote manipulation.

Maybe that's because I'm not 'your S.O.B.' ;)

I find it interesting that you objected to my post but cheered on mikemorel's blatant quote manipulation.

Maybe that's because I'm not 'your S.O.B.' ;)

I wasn't cheering or jeering either one. My comment was that whether you accept what Doherty said or not on this thread is based on whether you are looking out of the red lens or blue lens. Just a simple observation. I didn't say anything about what lens you were looking out of ;)

All the more reason why the format war really hasn’t done anything to impede the adoption of HD! If anything, it’s brought the process closer to mass adoption quicker with the speedy price drops. Your belief that Blu-Ray’s adoption is somehow being retarded by the presence of HD-DVD is a complete fallacy. Even a single, unified format with full studio support would be struggling to gain a foothold in DVD’s dominant landscape.

Moreover, HD-DVD has always been poised for mass adoption better than Blu-Ray. It is less expensive to manufacture the hardware and software, it was quicker, easier, and MUCH less costly to switch existing DVD lines to manufacture HD-DVD discs, and it entered the marketplace with better quality products (eg. It didn’t take months to have dual-layered media available and working). One of the porn industry insiders had this to say about BD replication costs, "Blu-ray is extremely expensive to work with. Authoring in Blu-ray Disc is about four times more expensive than HD DVD, while replicating is three times as expensive.”

The fact the Sony has been subsidizing disc manufacturing since Day 1 should be a very big concern to anyone leaning towards either format. Software costs are pretty comparable now, but what happens if there is no competition from HD-DVD in the future? Look at the pricing structure that FOX adopted for Blu-Ray (when they were actually releasing movies, that is). $40 for bare-bones, mediocre catalog titles all on a 25GB disc! Is that the future we should all be embracing?



I’m not surprised that these execs have lost the novelty of producing special edition DVD features – after all, they’ve exhausted every single opportunity to sell and re-sell the same title over & over again in an attempt at milking as much money as they can from the consumer. Starship Troopers has been on DVD at least 4 times that I recall – a standard edition (1998), 2-disc special edition (2002), superbit version (2003), and a second 2-disc set (2007)! Many people, myself included, have gotten sick & tired of rebuying our favorite movies as these studios continuously remaster or re-release the films. How many Spidermans / Spiderman 2 DVD’s have been released by Sony?

One of the selling points of these new formats, besides improved quality, was supposed to be the next-generation interactive features like IME. Are you simply claiming these features aren’t important because BD still can’t get its collective sh*t together in this regard? HD-DVD was first to launch, first to receive perfect scores in PQ, first to offer the new lossless TruHD 5.1 decoding in its players, and remains the only HD format offering these PiP / IME features still AWOL on Blu-Ray. Remember back in August of last year when all the industry sources were telling you that 50GB discs were not working in existing BD players (Samsung) and prototypes (Sony, Pioneer)? Now BD has taken over a year and can't get BD-J working correctly? Yet you try to convince folks to buy into their product and shun HD-DVD! :rolleyes:

As many others have stated in this thread, you should be advocating for ALL studios to go neutral and to let the marketplace decide. The strong-armed tactics of the Blu-Ray format is not consumer-friendly, and you should be championing studio heads into allowing consumers a choice. Warner seems to be the only studio actually making profit from the HD formats due to their neutral stance, having the only 100K-selling disc to date (The Departed) and also having the #1 selling box-set in Planet Earth! Surely the under-whelming sales of box-office smashes like Pirates and Night At the Museum on Blu-Ray should offer Disney and FOX a dose of reality.

Great post Bob, thanks!

I agree. I see Sony distributing SD content via the PS3 very soon. But HD content will remain strictly on Blu-ray because it is not practicable to distribute 50GB movies to PS3s, nor will it be for quite a long time. I don't see Sony trying to position themselves for that by limiting bit rate or further compressing their HD content. I do see that with Microsoft.

I bet they will.

Not everyone wants to go rent optical media. Not everyone buys every movie that is released. If the price is right. I believe people will buy the movies they like and DL(rent) the movies they don't(buy) from Sony's service of choice.

Does anyone think Sony would release on HD-DVD EVER? Even if by a miracle hd-dvd came out on top, is there a law that Sony has to support it? Who is to say they wont go 100% HD Downloads from multiple providers and the PS3 and screw over hd-dvd in that way? If blu-ray doesnt come out on top, then both formats are f*cked and there would no point in supporting hd-dvd.

Of course Sony would be the very last of studios to ever release titles on HD-DVD, but it could happen eventually depending on how large the installed base of HD-DVD players becomes. Sony did get on board with VHS eventually. But, as someone else already mentioned, it is far more likely dual format players become the norm.

It's interesting to me how many people seem to think Sony is the solution rather than the problem. I personally don't view it in those black and white terms, but there is this notion that since Sony continues to exert the most control over content, in part because they are also Sony Pictures, that everyone should just roll over and accept Blu Ray's inevitable victory.

In broadcast/cable/satellite maybe, but on the disc front all of that momentum is being squandered by the confusion of a format war. That's my point. Imagine what might have happened if the camps had agreed to work together, or one had backed down. The entire industry would have worked actively to promote a single format. Sales would be much stronger now than they are, because there'd be very little risk to consumers. The only barrier to entry would be price.

Is it not "confusing" for consumers to have to choose between DirectTV, Dish Network, or Comcast digital cable? Is it not confusing for consumers to have to choose between DSL, cable modem, or various wireless forms of Internet access? Is it the fact there are two HD formats or is it the notion that one of the formats must "lose" (dry up, blow away, become obsolete) that keeps people away from BD and HD-DVD? Is it confusion over the fact there are two HD different (yet very similar) formats or is it the fact many movie titles are only available on one format or the other that keeps people away?

I've read all of Bill Hunt's comments on this thread and I understand where he is coming from. But I still don't buy this idea that a) the format war is bad thing that threatens the future of HD optical media, and b) that if there were only a single format then everything would be rosy and prices would magically fall to the level that will precipitate mass adoption. I find the former to be an alarmist message, akin to the sky is falling, that does little but scare people and make them afraid to jump in to either format. Bill seems very reluctant to acknowledge any positive aspects or benefits to the format war and that competition (on a level playing field) is almost always a net positive for the consumer.

I appreciate that some feel the format war has been driving prices down, which is good for the consumer. That's true and it's the most valid argument I've heard on the subject. But if the formats don't end up being viable, thriving businesses with lots of software support, super-low prices don't really matter. A $199 player can become just as useless as a $599 one. Cheap prices are not enough for a format to be successful. There has to be a business model that encourages the studios and manufacturers to support it. There has to be win/win.

We can imagine or say "what if" all day long. But that's not the way it is today and no one knows what things would be like RIGHT NOW if there were a single format.

Is there anyone here that doesn't "feel the format war has been driving prices down"? I don't think it's a matter of feelings. It's hard to argue otherwise. It's hard to argue that if there were single format, prices would have moved toward mass adoption levels as quickly as they have. In fact, even with a single HD format, you could argue that prices might never reach mass adoption levels (sufficient to compete with regular DVD), relegating HD optical to a niche market forever. We can speculate one way or the other all we want, but that's all it is: speculation. None of these things are foregone conclusions.

As for the business model and profitability argument, what indication is there that this won't workself out (sooner rather than later) as long as the market demand for HD movie titles continues to grow? The format war and HD-DVD in particular has certainly accelerated the price drops in hardware, albeit a bit "prematurely" in the minds of some people. However, those price drops have to happen anyway in order for mass adoption to take place. I don't think it will be very long before HD players can be sold at $299 (or less) while still making a profit, especially if the volume is in the millions of units per year.

I'm no expert or industy insider, but that's how I see it. Chances are that neither HD-DVD or BD is going away for quite some time. My suggestion is that we devote our collective energies to sending the studios a single, unified, and consistent message: publish in both formats in order to reach the largest audience possible. Don't punish the consumer for choosing one format over the other.

Bradley

So if the PS4 does not have a disk drive....it would play BD disks using what? an add on?

Do you think Sony Pictures would not support downloadable content?

Do you think that they wouldn't provide a backwards compatability solution somewhere? After all, they've done their best on both platforms since the PS1 to ensure some level of compatability with the numerous games out there.

A PS4 with no backwards compatability would be a huge PR issue as well as one that would cause massive backlash among gamers who want to ensure that their existing library of games will work. Look at the heat MS got when so few Xbox games would work on the 360. Sony managed to do far better in terms of compatability with two planned solutions and still got a fair amount of heat for the games that didn't work.

I wasn't cheering or jeering either one. My comment was that whether you accept what Doherty said or not on this thread is based on whether you are looking out of the red lens or blue lens. Just a simple observation. I didn't say anything about what lens you were looking out of ;)

You're just interested in stirring the pot more than the actual contents of it.

You're just interested in stirring the pot more than the actual contents of it.

Oh he's interested in the contents all right. While plazman may not have indicated his opininon of the "lens" Grubert was "looking out of" but he sure revealed the lense he uses (as if his other posting didn't make that clear). ;)

Big ugly dongle works great for the 360. Well sorta.

So, your conspiracy theory is that Bill Hunt is too stupid to realize that he is being used as a pawn by the BD association? That's a pretty insulting assumption from a person who has spouted nothing but anti-BD propaganda and Toshiba and MS corporate talking points for over a year now. Let me know when you decide to include actual logic as opposed to blind emotion in your posts. Until then, you are just another ill-informed loudmouth with an agenda.

Yep. yep.

Quote:

I'd have to think 200+ posts into this thread, the answer to that question should be quite clear. At least it is to me.

But the answer isnt clear. Why not let the consumer decide, even if it means both formats fail.
Because I don't want HD disc based media to fail.

So given that, the answer is surprisingly clear. Consumers are no closer to deciding a victor than they were a full year ago. All we get is pointless bickering back and forth as if people's pride, morality, honor, and/or reputations are also at stake in this format war. And in my personal opinion, we are much closer to both formats failing.

publish in both formats in order to reach the largest audience possible. Don't punish the consumer for choosing one format over the other.

IMO, this should be the universal message. They did it on VHS. They do it on DVD. Now DO IT on HDM. All studios, that includes Universal, Disney, Fox, Weinstein, Lionsgate, etc. Publish on both formats and let the consumer decide. Either one or the other will drive the other out of business, or they will both peacefully co-exist. But it will be the end of the format war for consumers. Then it will be up to to the two camps to produce the cheapest, highest quality they can, advertise anyway they can, and the consumers will choose.

IMO, this should be the universal message. They did it on VHS. They do it on DVD. Now DO IT on HDM. All studios, that includes Universal, Disney, Fox, Weinstein, Lionsgate, etc. Publish on both formats and let the consumer decide. Either one or the other will drive the other out of business, or they will both peacefully co-exist. But it will be the end of the format war for consumers. Then it will be up to to the two camps to produce the cheapest, highest quality they can, advertise anyway they can, and the consumers will choose.

As previously indicated, pride and previous "arrangements" will prevent this from happening although I wholeheartedly agree that it's by far the best solution.

If studios and CE companies are so worried about losing out on the massive revenue stream that could come from the failed mass adoption of HD optical media then the best solution is to provide the largest variety of options for consumers and let them vote with their wallets.

Stiring the pot? Who? me? All I said was that the BDA supporters believe Bill Hunt, HD DVD supporter believes Doherty's clarification. Furthermore, BDA supporters seem to discount Dohery's clarification while lapping up Hunt's comments. Just a simple observation.

One can easily seperate the posters by who they believe....has nothing to do with emotion, and as usual the good DrS writes something before he has thought through what he read....thankfully he ain't my Dr. :)

And no. It isn't a consipiracy theory. Bill Hunt made a business decision. A business decision is NOT a consiracy theory. Hopefully the Dr. and the guy who went yep yep will get that ;)

Is there anyone here that doesn't "feel the format war has been driving prices down"? I don't think it's a matter of feelings. It's hard to argue otherwise. It's hard to argue that if there were single format, prices would have moved toward mass adoption levels as quickly as they have. In fact, even with a single HD format, you could argue that prices might never reach mass adoption levels (sufficient to compete with regular DVD), relegating HD optical to a niche market forever. We can speculate one way or the other all we want, but that's all it is: speculation. None of these things are foregone conclusions.

As for the business model and profitability argument, what indication is there that this won't workself out (sooner rather than later) as long as the market demand for HD movie titles continues to grow? The format war and HD-DVD in particular has certainly accelerated the price drops in hardware, albeit a bit "prematurely" in the minds of some people. However, those price drops have to happen anyway in order for mass adoption to take place. I don't think it will be very long before HD players can be sold at $299 (or less) while still making a profit, especially if the volume is in the millions of units per year.

I'm no expert or industy insider, but that's how I see it. Chances are that neither HD-DVD or BD is going away for quite some time. My suggestion is that we devote our collective energies to sending the studios a single, unified, and consistent message: publish in both formats in order to reach the largest audience possible. Don't punish the consumer for choosing one format over the other.

Well said. One need simply look at the recent Toshiba promotion to verify the fact that price matters most! Just a few short weeks into their rebate promotion in the US, Toshiba sold 50,000 players -- 50% of its total from the previous year! And this massive increase in sales actually caused Bill Hunt concern, as he made a last-ditch plea to Universal to go neutral and end the fomat war just before the price drop. Why is the crusader for HD adoption so fearful of Toshiba selling more players and making HD a viable format? Why has he been so anti-HDDVD when the format is easily the most cost-efficient model for success?

If anything, HD-DVD has followed the DVD adoption model closer than that of Blu-Ray. A slow, gradual increase in sales, jumping sharply after initial price cuts. No early support form Fox and Disney (no surprise there) with an aggressive slate of titles from Universal and Warner. And stand-alone players being the integral component of the format -- not hoping to bolster a new format on the shoulders of a videogame!

B Leslie,

I don't understand why VOD or downloadable content in 10 years is such an unfathomable concept for people, let alone why anyone would make the stretch that MS is pulling support for HD DVD.


The question is not VOD or downloads, it is the assertion that disc based formats will be gone in 10 years.


Blu-ray and/or HD DVD will be old news by then. Look at the volume of online users 10 years ago - it's nowhere in the ballpark what it is today. In 10 years, I wouldn't be surprised if 90% or more customers in developed countries were online.

This is where the argument falls down, and why downloads and the absence of discs wont happen in 10 years. It will take a generation, and it has nothing to do with technology, but rather economics and culture.

Let us take The Blands typical Walmart customer - poor and dumb as a brick. Right now, they can take their $100 tv and $25 DVD player, and $5 bargin bin DVD and watch a movie. It works, it is easy and at this point in time, almost idiot proof.

Now imagine this person trying to set up a "media center" and manage a computer.

then there are the economics. What company is going to run fios or any sort of high speed option to poor areas or even worse, rural areas such as Appalachia or West Texas or North Dakota.

Furthermore, prices need to come waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay down. Can you imagine TheBlands Walmart family paying $30/month for a high speed internet access, which just allows the privelege of downloading a movie, which they still have to pay for.

Until things get really cheap, and truly Universal, then it wont happen.

Even if you 90% of the population online, with downloads only, you have just disenfranchised 10% of the population.

dakota,

Because I don't want HD disc based media to fail.

I dont either, but if it does, so be it. Nature and business is filled with failed ventures, and if the consumer decides they dont like the current situation then it should fail.


Personally, I think it would force the CE industry and studios to go back and work something out.

The studios need the revenue stream, and the CE companies need to sell stuff. So if the option is either nothing or something less than they wanted, in the end I think they would compromise.

I could be wrong.

Great to see this widely read and discussed here. Microsoft's true motivation and purpose for participating so vehemently on one side of this format war is really the "elephant" in the AV living room so to speak.

Microsoft's eventual movie strategy will closely resemble their xbox live strategy. Get ready for lots of "microtransactions".

You'll get 720p VC-1 + DD.

Want commentary? Pay more!

Want better audio? Pay more!

Want an extended version? Pay more!

Want to burn a hard copy? Pay more!

Want a making-of docu? Pay more!

Their vision is truly death by a thousand cuts! :(

And it is really bad news for those of us that frequent this forum: people who care about things like lossless audio, or very high bitrate 1080p transparent video.

If MS gets their way BOTH formats will fail, and studios will produce dumbed down versions of new films that are easier to download in a reasonable amount of time.

It's a good thing Sony doesn't have an online strategy too, with the PS3. Because I'm pretty sure they're never going to sell movies over it....

Great to see this widely read and discussed here. Microsoft's true motivation and purpose for participating so vehemently on one side of this format war is really the "elephant" in the AV living room so to speak.

Microsoft's eventual movie strategy will closely resemble their xbox live strategy. Get ready for lots of "microtransactions".

You'll get 720p VC-1 + DD.

Want commentary? Pay more!

Want better audio? Pay more!

Want an extended version? Pay more!

Want to burn a hard copy? Pay more!

Want a making-of docu? Pay more!

Their vision is truly death by a thousand cuts! :(

And it is really bad news for those of us that frequent this forum: people who care about things like lossless audio, or very high bitrate 1080p transparent video.

If MS gets their way BOTH formats will fail, and studios will produce dumbed down versions of new films that are easier to download in a reasonable amount of time.


Jesus Christ give it a break with your doom and gloom BS.

Jesus Christ give it a break with your doom and gloom BS.

I agree with this.

Great to see this widely read and discussed here. Microsoft's true motivation and purpose for participating so vehemently on one side of this format war is really the "elephant" in the AV living room so to speak.

Microsoft's eventual movie strategy will closely resemble their xbox live strategy. Get ready for lots of "microtransactions".

You'll get 720p VC-1 + DD.

Want commentary? Pay more!

Want better audio? Pay more!

Want an extended version? Pay more!

Want to burn a hard copy? Pay more!

Want a making-of docu? Pay more!

Their vision is truly death by a thousand cuts! :(

And it is really bad news for those of us that frequent this forum: people who care about things like lossless audio, or very high bitrate 1080p transparent video.

If MS gets their way BOTH formats will fail, and studios will produce dumbed down versions of new films that are easier to download in a reasonable amount of time.

The only problem with your statement is that it's the industry that is moving in that direction, not just MS. That would include Sony too btw, if you don't think they have a similar plan for downloads through the PS3 you are sadly mistaken.

The only problem with your statement is that it's the industry that is moving in that direction, not just MS. That would include Sony too btw, if you don't think they have a similar plan for downloads through the PS3 you are sadly mistaken.


There is a huge difference though! Sony puts a Blu-ray player in every PS3, that is a huge commitment to the format.

On the other hand it is VERY telling that Microsoft refused to put a HD DVD drive in the Xbox 360.


Microsoft only wants to involve itself enough to sabotage the success of both formats, which is bad news for all AVSers. :(

There is a huge difference though! Sony puts a Blu-ray player in every PS3, that is a huge commitment to the format.

On the other hand it is VERY telling that Microsoft refused to put a HD DVD drive in the Xbox 360.


Microsoft only wants to involve itself enough to sabotage the success of both formats, which is bad news for all AVSers. :(

Now you are wildly speculating and drawing totally unsubstantiated conclusions and, frankly, trying to create a "panic".

MS has clearly said that they didn't want to put an HD drive in every 360 because they would rather give their customers the choice of whether or not they want to pay for HD playback on the game console.

Sony made the choice for their customers and might have sabotaged the PS3s success in the process. But somehow they are angels.

Right. :rolleyes:

There is a huge difference though! Sony puts a Blu-ray player in every PS3, that is a huge commitment to the format.

On the other hand it is VERY telling that Microsoft refused to put a HD DVD drive in the Xbox 360.


Microsoft only wants to involve itself enough to sabotage the success of both formats, which is bad news for all AVSers. :(

I was very disappointed as well as many others to find they wouldn't even include a HD-DVD drive in the so called Elite, also to mention they aren't offering a choice matching HD-DVD add-on.

120GB HDD, you certainly don't need that kind of space for game memory saves.

I was very disappointed as well as many others to find they wouldn't even include a HD-DVD drive in the so called Elite, also to mention they aren't offering a matching HD-DVD add-on.

120GB HDD, you certainly don't need that kind of space for game memory saves.

But the PS3 does need the 60GB for "game saves" and they had to kill the 20GB version?

Be careful, your fanboy is showing.

Krinkle, usually I don't agree with you, but your recent post is very interesting. In fact, for movie distribution I do see two primary distribution methods - optical disk and downloads. While the optical will be the premium product, the download will offer flexibility - sort of like buying a base car and adding the options, or getting one fully loaded. I believe there is a market for both and the way to maximize your customer base is to serve all market segments. Toyota makes the cheap Yaris and the Lexus 430. It is possible to offer a product that meets the optimal price-quality mix for more than just one group of customers....if you don't care about extras don't pay for it, if you want TruHD or LPCM over DD+, pay for it....flexibility is good!

OTOH if you want it all - get the premium optical disk version.

Bottomline is that these distribution methods are complementary. Both have their markets and uses. Choice is good. That is what the market system is all about. Why does the BDA have to sound like a socialist/comunist system? 'One format and we the BDA will tell you what you want and competition is wasteful'......makes no sense. Let the people decide!

There is a huge difference though! Sony puts a Blu-ray player in every PS3, that is a huge commitment to the format.

On the other hand it is VERY telling that Microsoft refused to put a HD DVD drive in the Xbox 360.


Microsoft only wants to involve itself enough to sabotage the success of both formats, which is bad news for all AVSers. :(

Maybe, JUST MAYBE it is because they know HD-DVD can succeed without it being in the 360? Maybe they didn't want to tank the sales of the 360 by making it more expensive?

Maybe MS knows HD-DVD doesn't need to be held up on the shoulders of a game system to become a winner.

Sony did this because it is the only way they can force your crappy format of choice down some consumers throats. Now it is costing them big $$$ and rightfully so.

You're last statement was as idiotic as the previous. No surprise here.

But the PS3 does need the 60GB for "game saves" and they had to kill the 20GB version?

Be careful, your fanboy is showing.

Funny, I didn't even mention the PS3 in my post. Typical MS apologist response.

edit: in discussion of your Red Herring though, I've always thought killing off the 20GB was a stupid move and a disservice to gamers and HT enthusiasts. Kind of funny considering I have the 20GB but wanted the 60GB version (wasn't available).

MS has clearly said that they didn't want to put an HD drive in every 360 because they would rather give their customers the choice of whether or not they want to pay for HD playback on the game console.

:rolleyes:

If you believe everything Microsoft says then ..... :(

Just look at the way that Microsoft has always dealt with their competitors, Linux, Netscape, Apple etc. etc.


MS is probably the most viciously competive corporation in the world these last 20 years.

They have definitely been charged with anti-trust violations in the USA and abroad more than any other conglomerate.

http://lxer.com/module/newswire/view/57261/index.html (an article regarding outright lies Microsoft has perpetrated about Linux)

http://www.neoseeker.com/news/story/6790/ (A new anti-trust suit brought in just the last week)

Why is it so hard to understand that they are playing the same vicous hardball here in an attempt to undermine the creation of a new optical media standard?

There is a huge difference though! Sony puts a Blu-ray player in every PS3, that is a huge commitment to the format.

On the other hand it is VERY telling that Microsoft refused to put a HD DVD drive in the Xbox 360.


Microsoft only wants to involve itself enough to sabotage the success of both formats, which is bad news for all AVSers. :(

This has been refuted countless tims with facts and solid arguments that it borders at insanity to keep up these kind of conspiracy theories.

Yes, you hate MS, and will distort anything MS/HD-DVD related to try to "get that point across".

I find it hilarious that you guys will rail against MS ("the man") and yet give Sony a free pass on all the anti-consumer BS they have pulled.

Are you on the Sony payroll? Why so much loyalty to a large corporation just trying to milk you for dollars?

Microsoft only wants to involve itself enough to sabotage the success of both formats, which is bad news for all AVSers. :(That is some great speculation! Kudos to you Krinkle! :p .

Of course, we might also speculate that you are a "Project Hydra" kind of poster...See how easy speculation becomes? You don't need a shred of facts, or truth, but the accusation kind of...clings to you... :rolleyes:

If you believe everything Microsoft says then ..... :(

Just look at the way that Microsoft has always dealt with their competitors, Linux, Netscape, Apple etc. etc.


MS is probably the most viciously competive corporation in the world these last 20 years.

They have definitely been charged with anti-trust violations in the USA and abroad more than any other conglomerate.

http://lxer.com/module/newswire/view/57261/index.html (an article regarding outright lies Microsoft has perpetrated about Linux)

http://www.neoseeker.com/news/story/6790/ (A new anti-trust suit brought in just the last week)

Why is it so hard to understand that they are playing the same vicous hardball here in an attempt to undermine the creation of a new optical media standard?

So you rather support the other viciously competive corporation in the world these last 20 years? :rolleyes:

I can smell the panic on you Krinkle

Funny, I didn't even mention the PS3 in my post. Typical MS apologist response.



So if MS includes a big hard drive in their console it's because they are "out to make us all download movies" but if Sony, a movie company puts a large hard drive in their console (up to 80GB in Korea now and soon the US) they are just your friendly pals?

Your fanboy is showing again Brian, better zip it up.

Great to see this widely read and discussed here. Microsoft's true motivation and purpose for participating so vehemently on one side of this format war is really the "elephant" in the AV living room so to speak.

Microsoft's eventual movie strategy will closely resemble their xbox live strategy. Get ready for lots of "microtransactions".

You'll get 720p VC-1 + DD.

Want commentary? Pay more!

Want better audio? Pay more!

Want an extended version? Pay more!

Want to burn a hard copy? Pay more!

Want a making-of docu? Pay more!

Their vision is truly death by a thousand cuts! :(

And it is really bad news for those of us that frequent this forum: people who care about things like lossless audio, or very high bitrate 1080p transparent video.

If MS gets their way BOTH formats will fail, and studios will produce dumbed down versions of new films that are easier to download in a reasonable amount of time.

Why do people like you and Bill Hunt keep speculating about and claiming to have discovered or revealed Microsoft's "true motivation"? Unless you're an insider at MS, you cannot know what their true motivation is. Beyond that, what does it matter? Who cares?

Even when/if downloadable movies become the norm some day, how do you base your assumption that they are only going to be 720p and DD+? If there is a cafeteria style approach to pricing, why wouldn't there be an option to pay a little more for the 1080p/TrueHD version? You really think none of the geeks (and I mean that in the best way possible) at Microsoft don't care about video and audio quality? Do you think VC-1 is being tuned or optimized for 720p?

Frankly, I like the pay as you go approach, something that isn't really possible with optical media. Assuming the pricing is reasonable, I am happy to download JUST the movie, no extras. With optical, the people who don't want all the extras in effect have to subsidize the cost of them for other people. I'm not crying or whining about this, just stating the obvious.

Man. So much fear, so little time.

Bradley

So, what is the problem with 120gb hard drive again?

So you rather support the other viciously competive corporation in the world these last 20 years? :rolleyes:

I can smell the panic on you Krinkle

Microsoft has been repeatedly sued by governments all over the world that are trying to protect their citizens and businesses.

This is just a fact.

The EU is still after MS today as are many other countries (including at one time the USA).

I would MUCH rather see HD DVD win than BOTH formats fail!

I would MUCH rather see HD DVD win than BOTH formats fail!

Finally something we can agree on! ;) In fact, I'd rather see BD win than both formats fail. Where many of us disagree is that one format has to squash the other one, or else they are both doomed. I could be wrong, but I don't see any compelling evidence it has to be like that.

Bradley

Microsoft has been repeatedly sued by governments all over the world that are trying to protect their citizens and businesses.

This is just a fact.

The EU is still after MS today as are many other countries (including at one time the USA).

I would MUCH rather see HD DVD win than BOTH formats fail!

Protect citizens? what, from a bad O/S? :D

Krinkle, you have lost it, everybody can see your panic and anger. It's ok dude, its just movies.

Krinkle,

Have you finally gone off the deep end, or did the BDA give you a raise :rolleyes:

Seriously though - you berate people for "believing everything MS says" and yet you sound like a walking advertisement for the BDA - BD is great, and perfect in all ways and can do no wrong.

I am not an MS apologist, and MS has undoubtably done some questionable things. But as to the issue of MS being sued, so what. Sony has been sued countless times, most recently for the whole CD / rootkit episode, but you seem to have "forgotten" that.

Microsoft has been repeatedly sued by governments all over the world that are trying to protect their citizens and businesses.

This is just a fact.

The EU is still after MS today as are many other countries (including at one time the USA).

I would MUCH rather see HD DVD win than BOTH formats fail!

Ironically, they're being sued because of the fear of a single, unified OS. Sued, in other words, on anti-competitive grounds. And here some are kvetching that there are two formats that, by some counts, have done wonders to make prices drop and titles flow (as little as they're flowing now, it's better, hypothetically, than it could have been).

btw, I read Jhanke's article - except for the editorializing at the end by the increasingly precocious BillH, it basically mirrors my feelings... and this from someone who BOUGHT two players... Get em while they're hot, boys, they're not going to be around for long....

B Leslie,
The question is not VOD or downloads, it is the assertion that disc based formats will be gone in 10 years.

This is where the argument falls down, and why downloads and the absence of discs wont happen in 10 years. It will take a generation, and it has nothing to do with technology, but rather economics and culture.

Let us take The Blands typical Walmart customer - poor and dumb as a brick. Right now, they can take their $100 tv and $25 DVD player, and $5 bargin bin DVD and watch a movie. It works, it is easy and at this point in time, almost idiot proof.

Now imagine this person trying to set up a "media center" and manage a computer.

then there are the economics. What company is going to run fios or any sort of high speed option to poor areas or even worse, rural areas such as Appalachia or West Texas or North Dakota.

Furthermore, prices need to come waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay down. Can you imagine TheBlands Walmart family paying $30/month for a high speed internet access, which just allows the privelege of downloading a movie, which they still have to pay for.

Until things get really cheap, and truly Universal, then it wont happen.

Even if you 90% of the population online, with downloads only, you have just disenfranchised 10% of the population.

All good points.

I don't think anyone at MS thinks discs will be gone in 10 years, they're just predicting D/L's will start to supplement or replace them. DVDs won't suddenly disappear overnight, no different than CD's/cassette or DVD/VHS. There's a gradual transition.

I can't see feeding D/L content through PCs to the masses either. They would have to be idiot-proof STBs like today's cable or satellite boxes.

You're right about connectivity. More robust infrastructure and lower prices would really be needed for it to really be commonplace.

Seriously though - you berate people for "believing everything MS says" and yet you sound like a walking advertisement for the BDA - BD is great, and perfect in all ways and can do no wrong.Krinkle is a walking BDA advertisement. Have you seen the thread he has in the Blu-Ray software forum?

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=798272

Outdated graphs, sales estimates, and propaganda? I can't believe that AVS allows it to be a sticky. They should at least make him edit or update some of the crap in that post. It makes Blu-Ray look bad. They have the lead, so there is really no reason to creatively stretch the numbers and advertise falsely. The thread would be better served by just telling the truth.

All good points.

I don't think anyone at MS thinks discs will be gone in 10 years, they're just predicting D/L's will start to supplement or replace them. DVDs won't suddenly disappear overnight, no different than CD's/cassette or DVD/VHS. There's a gradual transition.

I can't see feeding D/L content through PCs to the masses either. They would have to be idiot-proof STBs like today's cable or satellite boxes.

You're right about connectivity. More robust infrastructure and lower prices would really be needed for it to really be commonplace.

Exactly.

These same people who call consumers "idiots". The people that think the "idiot" consumers won't know how to choose between BD and HD-DVD because of "confusion" if all studio's were to go neutral. The same people crying bloody murder about MS.

These same people think those same "confused idiots" can create a home network and download, load and connect their media center PC to the TV via HDMI to watch HDM. All these "confused idiots" can overthrow their precious optical media??

Sorry, but if they are too stupid to chose what format is best for themselves. They can't be smart enough to know how to use a computer well enough to DL movies. So then both HD optical and down loads are doomed to niche status.

Even if it were in the form of a STB you could buy from Apple or MS. These people are just too "stupid" and "confused" to be able to connect it to the internet and their TV. Let alone get a movie to play. They would be way too "confused".



Sorry, can't have your cake and eat it to.

Originally Posted by krinkle
Great to see this widely read and discussed here. Microsoft's true motivation and purpose for participating so vehemently on one side of this format war is really the "elephant" in the AV living room so to speak.

Microsoft's eventual movie strategy will closely resemble their xbox live strategy. Get ready for lots of "microtransactions".

You'll get 720p VC-1 + DD.

Want commentary? Pay more!

Want better audio? Pay more!

Want an extended version? Pay more!

Want to burn a hard copy? Pay more!

Want a making-of docu? Pay more!

Their vision is truly death by a thousand cuts!

Any Goodfellas fans read this using Ray Liotta's voice in describing Paulie? :D

Just remember HD DVD folks, ignorance is bliss when it comes to Microsoft's goals in this format war.

Or the ridiculous suggestion that all studios should release in both formats. The public and RETAILERS would never support that. Especially when you get crippled BD versions from Warner because the video HAS to fit 30GB. Or Paramount's 2 disc sets. I was watching a scene from Flags of Our Fathers and wanted to watch one of the documentaries on the effects after one of the scenes. Then I remembered I would have to frikkin' switch discs.

Note it's only HD DVD supporters who think this is a good idea. BD folks have absolutely nothing to gain from this. If the format is so great, why want more? Seems BD owners are much more content.

Or the ridiculous suggestion that all studios should release in both formats. The public and RETAILERS would never support that.


You mean like they haven't supported Widescreen and Fullscreen???? DVD and VHS and UMD etc.???? or back in the day....VHS/DVD/LD ???? bummer :rolleyes:



Especially when you get crippled BD versions from Warner because the video HAS to fit 30GB. Or Paramount's 2 disc sets. I was watching a scene from Flags of Our Fathers and wanted to watch one of the documentaries on the effects after one of the scenes. Then I remembered I would have to frikkin' switch discs.

You mean like we've done with DVD for 10 years??? consumers don't seem to take that with much hatred. Or what about LD's that you had to flip over and sometimes flip over and flip discs? Damn those 2 disc sets. What about Pirates 1 and 2?? Those are 2 disc sets and aren't from Paramount. The list goes on and on. If you really don't like the 2 disc sets then don't buy them. If these are the types of problems that T you off your problems in life are pretty small.

Any Goodfellas fans read this using Ray Liotta's voice in describing Paulie? :D

Just remember HD DVD folks, ignorance is bliss when it comes to Microsoft's goals in this format war.

Or the ridiculous suggestion that all studios should release in both formats. The public and RETAILERS would never support that. Especially when you get crippled BD versions from Warner because the video HAS to fit 30GB. Or Paramount's 2 disc sets. I was watching a scene from Flags of Our Fathers and wanted to watch one of the documentaries on the effects after one of the scenes. Then I remembered I would have to frikkin' switch discs.

Note it's only HD DVD supporters who think this is a good idea. BD folks have absolutely nothing to gain from this. If the format is so great, why want more? Seems BD owners are much more content.

No way. A discs switch? Oh the horror. You must hate the two Pirates releases on those cool 50gb discs.

No way. A discs switch? Oh the horror. You must hate the two Pirates releases on those cool 50gb discs.


Oh the humanity!! I have to get off my ass yet again! :mad: Why can't these movies load themselves???!!! :D

Why would I bet on something that I don't want to happen?
Because it's going to happen.

Note it's only HD DVD supporters who think this is a good idea. BD folks have absolutely nothing to gain from this. If the format is so great, why want more? Seems BD owners are much more content.

Well said.

Well said.

Yeah, right.

Because options are such a terrible thing. Suuurrreee they are.

Microsoft stated that the disc requires a FIRMWARE upgrade to the HD-DVD Addon, and they are afraid of bricking the drive by doing it online. Rightfully so, since theres thousands of people with bricked xbox 360s after each and every new update on the system it seems. So you are saying its A-OK to have movies that DONT play on a 100% fully supported hardware? Wow, your rational of whats acceptable seems somewhat soft, compared to lets say, if the same situation was for blu-ray. You'd probably write to the euro union to investigate the matter and look into banning blu-ray from circuit city. Get real. The guy has a major problem, he has a disc he PAID for and it doesnt work on the drive he PAID for that was ADVERTISED as a 100% supported device. Belittling him doesnt help.

Just to put things into context a little more.

This whole debate is conjecture at this point.

WHAT IS REAL is existing discs not working on existing hardware which is purportedly FULLY supported by MICROSOFT, to which I take an exception after being advised for 2 months that it would work after the last update which was already late. WHICH IT STILL DOESN'T.

If anyone wants HD DVD to take off more, make releases work. Satisfaction leads to referrals and more purchases.

My A2(s) keeps getting sold, ok! Yes, we are the ONLY HD DVD retailer in Fiji, apart from one other overpriced (ala PS3) one which can't sell a player for dingbats.
How can I honestly recommend the add-on to customers KNOWING some discs don't and will NOT work even after updating?

And I am a (fully updated) gamer, red lights and all (never been bricked), with NO (Microsoft) SUPPORT in Fiji, other than online (LIVE).

When we receive (Toshiba) newsletters about the ease of the internet and importing...it's a slap in the face to get ignored for something one paid for and it doesn't work as advertised.

You think it's hard trying to push HD in the US, try it in a marketplace with 98% piracy.
More than happy to do it as a movie and tech buff, but as both a consumer and retailer, one must keep pushing for fair support.

Richard? Amir?

A music lover who didn't mind paying $1,500 for a Universal audio player, which is now unused.

Yeah, right.

Because options are such a terrible thing. Suuurrreee they are.

Of course, HD DVD owners including prominent members such as certain retailers here, indicated back in April of 06 that Blu-ray shouldn't even launch after the rousing success of HD DVD.

Many never wanted that "option" to exist.

Obviously you are confused and implying I said things that I never said, this goes right along with your posting history. I thought you had evolved beyond that but proven wrong yet again :o

Keep up the fight and false accussations, one day you might make it out of the cave.
So can you please tell us what you were implying with MS's move to 120GB HD?

And then tell us what the 60GB HD in the PS3 is for if not for downloads?

As I have both the way I see it both of the larger HD's are for downloads only.

Of course, HD DVD owners including prominent members such as certain retailers here, indicated back in April of 06 that Blu-ray shouldn't even launch after the rousing success of HD DVD.

Many never wanted that "option" to exist.

HD DVD owners include all kinds of people, including many people who are neutral and simply want all the content they can get or those who would rather spend $299 on an HD player instead of spending $499.

If you want to convince people to "boycott" HD DVD then you should probably make a more convincing plea.

If you want to convince people to "boycott" HD DVD then you should probably make a more convincing plea.

Point out where I said people should boycott it. If you can't find that statement, then retract yours. Debate and discussion is not the process of putting words in other peoples mouths, no matter how often it seems to happen here lately.

Of course, HD DVD owners including prominent members such as certain retailers here, indicated back in April of 06 that Blu-ray shouldn't even launch after the rousing success of HD DVD.

Many never wanted that "option" to exist.

Sure, they could have ended the war before it even started. But lets blame MS for it instead!!!


I don't recall ever implying or saying anytime ever that BD should have never been launched. Now that it has, I hope consumers choose my proffered format of choice. If not, oh well. I'll buy into BD.

Especially when you get crippled BD versions from Warner because the video HAS to fit 30GB.

Here we go again. :rolleyes: There is nothing crippled here at all. The video quality offered by either format is entirely equivilent, regardless of any extra space that BR might afford it. Thus far, there is nothing to support the "superiority" of the additional bandwidth offered by BR, and to date the "space advantage" of BR has largely been wasted on bloated video codecs and PCM sound (as opposed to TrueHD - lossless is lossless). I would be willing to bet that, in a double-blind test, the same movie transferred in the best way for either format, would result in a 50/50 split for both picture and audio (statistically a coin toss). Please don't try to convince us that the best BR has to offer (PotC?) could not be achieved on HD-DVD...

They couldn't even get the extra's and movie on one disc like they *claim* is BD's ultimate feature. All this space! Yet it's dual disc set. But no one wants that extra content! But here it is... On 2 BD discs.

Point out where I said people should boycott it. If you can't find that statement, then retract yours. Debate and discussion is not the process of putting words in other peoples mouths, no matter how often it seems to happen here lately.

Notice the "quotations" around boycott? Your entire recent posting history has been an HD-DVD bash fest (you proudly proclaim that your HDA1 is overpriced and you haven't turned it on in months, etc). If that's not trying to steer people away from the people or an effort to "boycott" it I don't know what is.

Sure, they could have ended the war before it even started. But lets blame MS for it instead!!!


I don't recall ever implying or saying anytime ever that BD should have never been launched. Now that it has, I hope consumers choose my proffered format of choice. If not, oh well. I'll buy into BD.

You may not recall it, but it was there. It even showed up in print in the New York Times I believe when **************** chief that posts here said that the war was over before blu-ray had even launched with how the HD DVD launch went. That was echoed repeatedly by many at the time.

Then again, not everyone was really paying attention at the time like they are now. Every last word was analyzed by folks but it was a far smaller group at the time compared to these days.

Notice the "quotations" around boycott? Your entire recent posting history has been an HD-DVD bash fest (you proudly proclaim that your HDA1 is overpriced and you haven't turned it on in months, etc). If that's not trying to steer people away from the people or an effort to "boycott" it I don't know what is.

My posting history is actually a fair bit more expansive than this, as before I had my account here canceled in January it was around 1300. Not much over the three years or so I had posted before.

And if you had actually looked at my entire recent posting history, then you may have seen a link to my review of the Freedom HD DVD where I essentially give it some glowing praise. Hardly the thing someone would do if they were trying to steer people away from it, yes?

Dang those pesky facts and opinions.

Kindly show me where I'm bashing the format. Saying I think the player is overpriced because I've watched maybe 4 HD DVDs on it in a year isn't bashing it, it's a simple reality for me. It has not returned its value with viewed content. For my needs, that's a fact.

As it's not an effort to steer people away from it or an effort to boycott it, please refrain from calling it that since you "don't know what [it] is".

They couldn't even get the extra's and movie on one disc like they *claim* is BD's ultimate feature. All this space! Yet it's dual disc set. But no one wants that extra content! But here it is... On 2 BD discs.


I wouldn't get into the, "This is the format's biggest feature and it's nonexistent," line of argument. One could easily argue that HD DVD promised to have cheaper disc prices than the competition, but wound up equal or more expensive than the BD equivalents.

HD DVD protested that it's usage of the VC1 codec would ensure it had superior video quality over BD, but in truth BD has surpassed it already, less than a year later. Imagine what will happen as encoders continue to mature on both sides. HD DVD will have less headroom, but those Microsoft magicians may be able to squeeze blood from a stone.

HD DVD made a big to-do about its TrueHD "lossless" audio, but it was the BDA that brought "lossless" audio to a larger percentage of its discs. Hell, even WB's in on it now. Paramount's rumored to start soon.

HD DVD made a big to-do about its price-performance ratio on its player, but it was Sony that brought out the PS3 that can do everything Toshiba's high end XA2 could do plus play Playstation games and play SACD's. All at natural 1080p without downconversion, re-upconversion. Not that it makes any difference, but it's worth noting. Now a few got in at the original A1's pricepoint of $500, but most paid only $100 more than the A1 (or original price on an A2 back in January) to get the extra features and promised support for at least the next 3 years. How long do you think the A1 will continue to be supported? Six months?

Indeed, that $500 was the A2's pricepoint, too, until HD DVD started getting stepped all over on disc sales and pricedrops were Toshiba's only recourse. BD's success gave you a pricedrop. Don't forget to thank Sony for that. ;) Meanwhile, the PS3 was always coming out at $600 and the Samsung was always destined to look like suck next to that, so it was destined for a pricecut, Toshiba or no Toshiba. And the PS3's pricepoint was announced well in advance of what the HD-A1 was coming out at as, even if it is unlikely that Sony would even consider the A1 or A2/XA2 while pricing out the PS3.

Now I'd say that Microsoft's moves toward the HD DVD format give away their reasons for what they do. I do think they want the two HD formats dead within the next 5-10 years. They said as much. Why all this noise about how Microsoft didnt' say they explicitly would kill them? Do you really expect Microsoft to tell you how they're going to stall the HD disc market long enough to ensure that neither succeeds? They told you they want discs to be off the market as soon as 5 years or as late as 10. What more do they have to tell you to make you hear what they're saying? Do they literally have to say, "Yeah, we've invested OUR money and OUR R&D to make a VC1 encoder for HD DVD only for six months leadtime to make HD DVD look better than BD with its premature launch and early encoders for AVC and VC1 that made them use mpeg2. Yeah, we've invested OUR money and OUR R&D to make HDi a simpler, easier to implement language for HD DVD just to ensure that it got off the ground. Yeah, if we had not done these things on our own dime, to make back a pittance of what we invested, HD DVD would have never even gotten off the ground."

Do you really expect them to say it plain and simple for you that they are doing things that are completely out of character for Microsoft for a technically inferior disc protocol? Is it enough that it's Sony and Microsoft's a Sony hater? Is it enough that anything that hurts the PS3's featureset helps Microsoft's Xbox? I don't think so. I think it's a combination.

Microsoft sees this as the proverbial 2 birds with one stone. Hurting BD adoption hurts the PS3 and increases the chance that the format war will stall, killing or niche-ifying both formats to the point of irrelevance. Which would increase the value of Xbox Live and PS3's online. Here, Xbox has an advantage due to leadtime, but not as much as Microsoft would have you believe given Sony Online's experiences with MMORPG and microtransactions.

Microsoft will never tell you ahead of time what they are planning/plotting for years down the road. It is clear in hindsight. Look at Internet Explorer. Developed on their own dime, given away for free, gave them virtual control of the market, crushed the competitors of the day, and then they let it languish for years because the browser wars didn't matter anymore. Or Windows Media (upon which VC1 is based). Given away for free (encoders) and rapidly developed again on their own dime until we come to a day where its competitors from the day (mostly RealMedia) are more or less extinct.

Microsoft has a habit of taking on projects on their own dime in order to enact a larger scheme. More recently, they invested heavily in the Xbox knowing it would never succeed or beat the Playstation 2. They bring the Xbox 360 out, which is arguably closer to the point of the whole endeavor. To put a Microsoft frontend on every user's TV and control the downloadable content you buy. They built you the codec, they built you the browser, they build the servers, they build the hardware device you put on your TV (WebTV was an earlier attempt), hell they even want to put it on your phones and PDA's. They encode it. But all this is threatened by two high def disc formats that could stall their high def download profits for years if either gets off the ground.

So they look at the market and find two frontrunners. One has the entire industry behind it. The other has Toshiba and Universal (still anti-Sony for a lawsuit that would have killed home theater as we know it if Universal HAD won). Microsoft comes on board, does a very impressive encoder in no time flat and gives them a spec for HDi based on simplicity. WB comes on board, then goes neutral when Paramount does the same.

Personally, I do blame Microsoft for the format war. The BDA (not just Sony) had already announced what it intended to do long before Microsoft meddled in the war itself. If Microsoft had remained neutral, BD would been the better spec from the get-go. Since Microsoft's involvement, HD DVD was "more efficieint" (an argument I see from time to time even now) at the beginning. It isn't any longer, but hey... whatever floats your boat. I'd say more efficient is the disc offering greater size and options at the same (or less) cost. And no, I don't think having more discs with "advanced features" is better than having more discs with "lossless" audio. Sorry.

Rather than portray Sony as instigating the format war by even releasing BD, I'd say that if you want to blame Sony for releasing BD after HD DVD had released, you should blame the entire BDA including WB and Paramount for supporting it. Or you can blame Toshiba for releasing HD DVD when it knew it was inferior technically. Sure, it came out looking better, but it's barely changed over the last year. Meanwhile, BD has steadily improved, sometimes by leaps and bounds.

Some say the format war saves them money. If you paid $500 for an HD-XA2 and $600 for a PS3 to get all movies, then how did you save money? Hell, even if you pay $200 for an A2 (perhaps by the end of the year?) and $400 for a Bd player, how have you saved money over a single $600 PS3 LAST YEAR?

Fact is the format war has made the consumer pay more to get the same number of movies than we would have if there were no format war. And competition against DVD would have kept the disc prices from being out of control, format war or not. Especially since unlike DVHS, one of these formats is meant to replace DVD.

So there you are. Toshiba launched HD DVD despite the fact most of the industry did not agree with them. Microsoft supported HD DVD for reasons other than the good of the movie industry's last optical hope. Whether that was to hit the PS3 where it was weakest or kill discs in favor of a download-future, or both, that is what they did. And Universal has a grudge against Sony for a lawsuit that no one in their right mind (not even the most hardened HD DVD fanatic) would fault Sony for.

There's the format war. Oh, and everyone's after royalties. That, too. ;)

Well, movie studio's and content providers will benefit the most when networked media distribution becomes the norm in a mainstream market.

if you have nothing to add, please move on

several posts deleted

Well, downloading content from amazon in my case is expensive and slow.

About $26 for 30G with an average speed of 18kbs.

However I do get a free disc as a back up. :)

I wouldn't get into the, "This is the format's biggest feature and it's nonexistent," line of argument. One could easily argue that HD DVD promised to have cheaper disc prices than the competition, but wound up equal or more expensive than the BD equivalents.

HD DVD protested that it's usage of the VC1 codec would ensure it had superior video quality over BD, but in truth BD has surpassed it already, less than a year later. Imagine what will happen as encoders continue to mature on both sides. HD DVD will have less headroom, but those Microsoft magicians may be able to squeeze blood from a stone.

HD DVD made a big to-do about its TrueHD "lossless" audio, but it was the BDA that brought "lossless" audio to a larger percentage of its discs. Hell, even WB's in on it now. Paramount's rumored to start soon.

HD DVD made a big to-do about its price-performance ratio on its player, but it was Sony that brought out the PS3 that can do everything Toshiba's high end XA2 could do plus play Playstation games and play SACD's. All at natural 1080p without downconversion, re-upconversion. Not that it makes any difference, but it's worth noting. Now a few got in at the original A1's pricepoint of $500, but most paid only $100 more than the A1 (or original price on an A2 back in January) to get the extra features and promised support for at least the next 3 years. How long do you think the A1 will continue to be supported? Six months?

Indeed, that $500 was the A2's pricepoint, too, until HD DVD started getting stepped all over on disc sales and pricedrops were Toshiba's only recourse. BD's success gave you a pricedrop. Don't forget to thank Sony for that. ;) Meanwhile, the PS3 was always coming out at $600 and the Samsung was always destined to look like suck next to that, so it was destined for a pricecut, Toshiba or no Toshiba. And the PS3's pricepoint was announced well in advance of what the HD-A1 was coming out at as, even if it is unlikely that Sony would even consider the A1 or A2/XA2 while pricing out the PS3.

Now I'd say that Microsoft's moves toward the HD DVD format give away their reasons for what they do. I do think they want the two HD formats dead within the next 5-10 years. They said as much. Why all this noise about how Microsoft didnt' say they explicitly would kill them? Do you really expect Microsoft to tell you how they're going to stall the HD disc market long enough to ensure that neither succeeds? They told you they want discs to be off the market as soon as 5 years or as late as 10. What more do they have to tell you to make you hear what they're saying? Do they literally have to say, "Yeah, we've invested OUR money and OUR R&D to make a VC1 encoder for HD DVD only for six months leadtime to make HD DVD look better than BD with its premature launch and early encoders for AVC and VC1 that made them use mpeg2. Yeah, we've invested OUR money and OUR R&D to make HDi a simpler, easier to implement language for HD DVD just to ensure that it got off the ground. Yeah, if we had not done these things on our own dime, to make back a pittance of what we invested, HD DVD would have never even gotten off the ground."

Do you really expect them to say it plain and simple for you that they are doing things that are completely out of character for Microsoft for a technically inferior disc protocol? Is it enough that it's Sony and Microsoft's a Sony hater? Is it enough that anything that hurts the PS3's featureset helps Microsoft's Xbox? I don't think so. I think it's a combination.

Microsoft sees this as the proverbial 2 birds with one stone. Hurting BD adoption hurts the PS3 and increases the chance that the format war will stall, killing or niche-ifying both formats to the point of irrelevance. Which would increase the value of Xbox Live and PS3's online. Here, Xbox has an advantage due to leadtime, but not as much as Microsoft would have you believe given Sony Online's experiences with MMORPG and microtransactions.

Microsoft will never tell you ahead of time what they are planning/plotting for years down the road. It is clear in hindsight. Look at Internet Explorer. Developed on their own dime, given away for free, gave them virtual control of the market, crushed the competitors of the day, and then they let it languish for years because the browser wars didn't matter anymore. Or Windows Media (upon which VC1 is based). Given away for free (encoders) and rapidly developed again on their own dime until we come to a day where its competitors from the day (mostly RealMedia) are more or less extinct.

Microsoft has a habit of taking on projects on their own dime in order to enact a larger scheme. More recently, they invested heavily in the Xbox knowing it would never succeed or beat the Playstation 2. They bring the Xbox 360 out, which is arguably closer to the point of the whole endeavor. To put a Microsoft frontend on every user's TV and control the downloadable content you buy. They built you the codec, they built you the browser, they build the servers, they build the hardware device you put on your TV (WebTV was an earlier attempt), hell they even want to put it on your phones and PDA's. They encode it. But all this is threatened by two high def disc formats that could stall their high def download profits for years if either gets off the ground.

So they look at the market and find two frontrunners. One has the entire industry behind it. The other has Toshiba and Universal (still anti-Sony for a lawsuit that would have killed home theater as we know it if Universal HAD won). Microsoft comes on board, does a very impressive encoder in no time flat and gives them a spec for HDi based on simplicity. WB comes on board, then goes neutral when Paramount does the same.

Personally, I do blame Microsoft for the format war. The BDA (not just Sony) had already announced what it intended to do long before Microsoft meddled in the war itself. If Microsoft had remained neutral, BD would been the better spec from the get-go. Since Microsoft's involvement, HD DVD was "more efficieint" (an argument I see from time to time even now) at the beginning. It isn't any longer, but hey... whatever floats your boat. I'd say more efficient is the disc offering greater size and options at the same (or less) cost. And no, I don't think having more discs with "advanced features" is better than having more discs with "lossless" audio. Sorry.

Rather than portray Sony as instigating the format war by even releasing BD, I'd say that if you want to blame Sony for releasing BD after HD DVD had released, you should blame the entire BDA including WB and Paramount for supporting it. Or you can blame Toshiba for releasing HD DVD when it knew it was inferior technically. Sure, it came out looking better, but it's barely changed over the last year. Meanwhile, BD has steadily improved, sometimes by leaps and bounds.

Some say the format war saves them money. If you paid $500 for an HD-XA2 and $600 for a PS3 to get all movies, then how did you save money? Hell, even if you pay $200 for an A2 (perhaps by the end of the year?) and $400 for a Bd player, how have you saved money over a single $600 PS3 LAST YEAR?

Fact is the format war has made the consumer pay more to get the same number of movies than we would have if there were no format war. And competition against DVD would have kept the disc prices from being out of control, format war or not. Especially since unlike DVHS, one of these formats is meant to replace DVD.

So there you are. Toshiba launched HD DVD despite the fact most of the industry did not agree with them. Microsoft supported HD DVD for reasons other than the good of the movie industry's last optical hope. Whether that was to hit the PS3 where it was weakest or kill discs in favor of a download-future, or both, that is what they did. And Universal has a grudge against Sony for a lawsuit that no one in their right mind (not even the most hardened HD DVD fanatic) would fault Sony for.

There's the format war. Oh, and everyone's after royalties. That, too. ;)

It appears you are confused about a few things, so let me clarify them:

1. Efficiency is NOT measured by short term pricing. Anyone can subsidize a product to drive out competition, even the more efficient competition. It happens in many industries. So by using retail pricing to prove which format is more efficient, you are totally wrong!

2. Efficiency IS measured by the cost of delivering a product with the same features. In the case of HD DVD and BD, HD DVD is using simpler replication techologies - since current DVD lines can produce HD DVD disks, while they cannot do the same for BD, HD DVD also uses a simpler blue laser implementation since the data isn't written as close to the surface, as far as the disk itself, HD DVD uses a simpler technology since the data isn't written as close to the surface hence not requiring an extra protective coating. So, simple logic would say the given the less complicated manufacturing of disks, hardware and the fact that existing infrastructure can be more easily employed towards its production, HD DVD would be and IS the low cost option (here I am not even considering MSFT tools for VC-1 and HDi that makes it much easier to encode the movies themselves, after all software tools are also a component of overall efficiency - and here too HD DVD has the edge). So that leads to the next part of the equation. Given that HD DVD is the lower cost technology, what does a consumer have to give up in terms of the movie experience.

3. If anything, the 200 or so movies that are available on both formats and in particular Paramounts releases show that both formats offer equivalent performance when it comes to PQ and AQ. While a couple of BDA supporters on AVS maybe make a big deal about it, but it is more than apparent that with the newer encoders the dimishing returns from higher bit rates are much lower than HD DVD limits. This I am sure is a huge disappointment to the BDA supporters and their superior specs, since a lot of what they are touting is useless when it comes to applicability in a HT environment.

4. So, what do we make of the bigger specs of BD v. HD DVD? The proof of the pudding is in the tasting, not the recipe. So far I have seen movies with IME on HD DVD, loss less sound and even 3-D. These were all on 30GB disks with no compromise in PQ or AQ or interactive features compared to anything that would have been on BD. I am not sure there even is a 3D movie available on BD yet :confused:

5. The fact is that HD DVD offers the same or better overall performance (all things considered) in a much more efficient package. Given that retail prices are the same for both formats implies that the current margins on HD DVD are much higher than BD. For the BDA the greatest problem is that they thought they would win the format war on the backs of a highly subsidized and successful PS3 - without relying on set top players. However, that is not how things have panned out! People are seeing that HD DVD offers the same or better performance (the whole 1080i v. 1080p FUD campaign is losing it's lustre quickly) with cheaper and better hardware. Not only that, but the average HT owner is not going to use a game controller or option blutooth remote to control their AV equipment - at least not for several years.

6. As the market evolves towards mainstream buyers, the edge right now is with HD DVD, hence the need for Sony to release a mass market BD player. For all teh bluster, looks like it will be Sony v. Toshiba when it comes to hardware. The rest of the BDA are in effect MIA - Panny with their discounted player and the Sammy are too overpriced at this point to matter.

All that any of us can do right now is speculate as to MS motives. I am comfortable with MS having an optical disc delivery plan (HD-DVD) as well as plans for expanded download of movies to the Xbox 360 and future set-top boxes.

I think that so many people pointing the finger at MS has more to do with frustration out of HD DVD being such a "spoiler" with their hanging on to market share a year out.

Honestly, I wish the BD folks would "calm down" about the whole thing. As BD proponents continually point out, BD has virtually every advantage possible in this format war;

1. Better specs.

2. More CEs.

3. More studios.

4. More retail support.

Honestly, if BD can't "succeed" in becoming the dominant player with these advantages, then it does not deserve our sympathy.

Sisko,

In some respects a very well thought out post. The problem is, that you are speculating about MS motives, which I guess you are free to do.

OTOH, when a HD DVD supporter speculates about Sony's motives, the typical BD supporter response is that they are a Sony Hater/Basher, troll etc.

There's the format war. Oh, and everyone's after royalties. That, too. ;)

Excellent spin piece, with a few specious arguments sprinkled in. Can you now present the OTHER point of view? Or at least acknowledge that there is another, valid point of view? There are, after all, two sides to every story.

I've said it before and I'll say it again: Sony is no more pure or benevolent or honest than Microsoft is. They're all out to beat the competition and make money. Nothing wrong with that. Why do so many people sit around, speculate and infer Microsoft's motives, and then fix the blame squarely on Microsoft for the format war? What is the usefulness, relevance, or point of that? To me, it's exactly the same as calling Sony evil, diabolical, or greedy for having a long history of trying to push its many proprietary technologies onto consumers, sneakily distributing root kits, allegedly disregarding patents other companies hold related to Blu-Ray, etc.

Sure, I'll thank Sony for helping drive down the prices of HD-DVD players. I hope the BD crowd will likewise thank Toshiba for making BD better than it would be otherwise. Competition is a good thing. I don't blame or begrudge anyone for trying to succeed in the marketplace with their product.

Bradley

Just wait. Once downloading becomes the norm, that will all change. It's only a matter of time.

Do you think it will be within our lifetime?

Excellent spin piece, with a few specious arguments sprinkled in. Can you now present the OTHER point of view? Or at least acknowledge that there is another, valid point of view? There are, after all, two sides to every story.

I've said it before and I'll say it again: Sony is no more pure or benevolent or honest than Microsoft is. They're all out to beat the competition and make money. Nothing wrong with that. Why do so many people sit around, speculate and infer Microsoft's motives, and then fix the blame squarely on Microsoft for the format war? What is the usefulness, relevance, or point of that? To me, it's exactly the same as calling Sony evil, diabolical, or greedy for having a long history of trying to push its many proprietary technologies onto consumers, sneakily distributing root kits, allegedly disregarding patents other companies hold related to Blu-Ray, etc.

Sure, I'll thank Sony for helping drive down the prices of HD-DVD players. I hope the BD crowd will likewise thank Toshiba for making BD better than it would be otherwise. Competition is a good thing. I don't blame or begrudge anyone for trying to succeed in the marketplace with their product.

Bradley

The BDA =/ Sony. Phillips, Sony, Panasonic, Pioneer and more make up the BDA. When there are secret BDA meetings on a leaky boat in shanghai, its not just sony reps.

People are pointing at Microsoft, since they: a) Are NOT a CE Company (The addon is a re-badged toshiba drive), b) do NOT make any content (bill himself has said he NEVER wants microsoft to get into movies, music, etc when it comes to the creation of it), and c) the VC-1 patent pool gives them a small slice of a small pie, they probably make as much if H.264 is used which they have patents in as well. So really, WHAT is the motive for them to push hd-dvd and keep it living and breathing?

I wouldn't get into the, "This is the format's biggest feature and it's nonexistent," line of argument. One could easily argue that HD DVD promised to have cheaper disc prices than the competition, but wound up equal or more expensive than the BD equivalents.

HD DVD protested that it's usage of the VC1 codec would ensure it had superior video quality over BD, but in truth BD has surpassed it already, less than a year later. Imagine what will happen as encoders continue to mature on both sides. HD DVD will have less headroom, but those Microsoft magicians may be able to squeeze blood from a stone.

HD DVD made a big to-do about its TrueHD "lossless" audio, but it was the BDA that brought "lossless" audio to a larger percentage of its discs. Hell, even WB's in on it now. Paramount's rumored to start soon.

HD DVD made a big to-do about its price-performance ratio on its player, but it was Sony that brought out the PS3 that can do everything Toshiba's high end XA2 could do plus play Playstation games and play SACD's. All at natural 1080p without downconversion, re-upconversion. Not that it makes any difference, but it's worth noting. Now a few got in at the original A1's pricepoint of $500, but most paid only $100 more than the A1 (or original price on an A2 back in January) to get the extra features and promised support for at least the next 3 years. How long do you think the A1 will continue to be supported? Six months?

Indeed, that $500 was the A2's pricepoint, too, until HD DVD started getting stepped all over on disc sales and pricedrops were Toshiba's only recourse. BD's success gave you a pricedrop. Don't forget to thank Sony for that. ;) Meanwhile, the PS3 was always coming out at $600 and the Samsung was always destined to look like suck next to that, so it was destined for a pricecut, Toshiba or no Toshiba. And the PS3's pricepoint was announced well in advance of what the HD-A1 was coming out at as, even if it is unlikely that Sony would even consider the A1 or A2/XA2 while pricing out the PS3.

Now I'd say that Microsoft's moves toward the HD DVD format give away their reasons for what they do. I do think they want the two HD formats dead within the next 5-10 years. They said as much. Why all this noise about how Microsoft didnt' say they explicitly would kill them? Do you really expect Microsoft to tell you how they're going to stall the HD disc market long enough to ensure that neither succeeds? They told you they want discs to be off the market as soon as 5 years or as late as 10. What more do they have to tell you to make you hear what they're saying? Do they literally have to say, "Yeah, we've invested OUR money and OUR R&D to make a VC1 encoder for HD DVD only for six months leadtime to make HD DVD look better than BD with its premature launch and early encoders for AVC and VC1 that made them use mpeg2. Yeah, we've invested OUR money and OUR R&D to make HDi a simpler, easier to implement language for HD DVD just to ensure that it got off the ground. Yeah, if we had not done these things on our own dime, to make back a pittance of what we invested, HD DVD would have never even gotten off the ground."

Do you really expect them to say it plain and simple for you that they are doing things that are completely out of character for Microsoft for a technically inferior disc protocol? Is it enough that it's Sony and Microsoft's a Sony hater? Is it enough that anything that hurts the PS3's featureset helps Microsoft's Xbox? I don't think so. I think it's a combination.

Microsoft sees this as the proverbial 2 birds with one stone. Hurting BD adoption hurts the PS3 and increases the chance that the format war will stall, killing or niche-ifying both formats to the point of irrelevance. Which would increase the value of Xbox Live and PS3's online. Here, Xbox has an advantage due to leadtime, but not as much as Microsoft would have you believe given Sony Online's experiences with MMORPG and microtransactions.

Microsoft will never tell you ahead of time what they are planning/plotting for years down the road. It is clear in hindsight. Look at Internet Explorer. Developed on their own dime, given away for free, gave them virtual control of the market, crushed the competitors of the day, and then they let it languish for years because the browser wars didn't matter anymore. Or Windows Media (upon which VC1 is based). Given away for free (encoders) and rapidly developed again on their own dime until we come to a day where its competitors from the day (mostly RealMedia) are more or less extinct.

Microsoft has a habit of taking on projects on their own dime in order to enact a larger scheme. More recently, they invested heavily in the Xbox knowing it would never succeed or beat the Playstation 2. They bring the Xbox 360 out, which is arguably closer to the point of the whole endeavor. To put a Microsoft frontend on every user's TV and control the downloadable content you buy. They built you the codec, they built you the browser, they build the servers, they build the hardware device you put on your TV (WebTV was an earlier attempt), hell they even want to put it on your phones and PDA's. They encode it. But all this is threatened by two high def disc formats that could stall their high def download profits for years if either gets off the ground.

So they look at the market and find two frontrunners. One has the entire industry behind it. The other has Toshiba and Universal (still anti-Sony for a lawsuit that would have killed home theater as we know it if Universal HAD won). Microsoft comes on board, does a very impressive encoder in no time flat and gives them a spec for HDi based on simplicity. WB comes on board, then goes neutral when Paramount does the same.

Personally, I do blame Microsoft for the format war. The BDA (not just Sony) had already announced what it intended to do long before Microsoft meddled in the war itself. If Microsoft had remained neutral, BD would been the better spec from the get-go. Since Microsoft's involvement, HD DVD was "more efficieint" (an argument I see from time to time even now) at the beginning. It isn't any longer, but hey... whatever floats your boat. I'd say more efficient is the disc offering greater size and options at the same (or less) cost. And no, I don't think having more discs with "advanced features" is better than having more discs with "lossless" audio. Sorry.

Rather than portray Sony as instigating the format war by even releasing BD, I'd say that if you want to blame Sony for releasing BD after HD DVD had released, you should blame the entire BDA including WB and Paramount for supporting it. Or you can blame Toshiba for releasing HD DVD when it knew it was inferior technically. Sure, it came out looking better, but it's barely changed over the last year. Meanwhile, BD has steadily improved, sometimes by leaps and bounds.

Some say the format war saves them money. If you paid $500 for an HD-XA2 and $600 for a PS3 to get all movies, then how did you save money? Hell, even if you pay $200 for an A2 (perhaps by the end of the year?) and $400 for a Bd player, how have you saved money over a single $600 PS3 LAST YEAR?

Fact is the format war has made the consumer pay more to get the same number of movies than we would have if there were no format war. And competition against DVD would have kept the disc prices from being out of control, format war or not. Especially since unlike DVHS, one of these formats is meant to replace DVD.

So there you are. Toshiba launched HD DVD despite the fact most of the industry did not agree with them. Microsoft supported HD DVD for reasons other than the good of the movie industry's last optical hope. Whether that was to hit the PS3 where it was weakest or kill discs in favor of a download-future, or both, that is what they did. And Universal has a grudge against Sony for a lawsuit that no one in their right mind (not even the most hardened HD DVD fanatic) would fault Sony for.

There's the format war. Oh, and everyone's after royalties. That, too. ;)

Excellent summary post.

Excellent summary post.

Verbosity doesn't equal "excellent summary". There is only one word for Blu Ray success:PS3. It begins and ends there. Without the PS3 Blu Ray would still be eating the dust from HD DVD.

Verbosity doesn't equal "excellent summary". There is only one word for Blu Ray success:PS3. It begins and ends there. Without the PS3 Blu Ray would still be eating the dust from HD DVD.

I have no problems with an excellent blu-ray player such as the PS3 leading to the success of blu-ray. PS3 is an incredible value :D

"As consumers we want the most value for our dollar."

Good point and explains why blu-ray has more movies and players sold ;)

Who is "our"? You mean the 10 or so outspoken hd-dvd guys on avs, half of which are microsoft employees under fake names? Is that who you refer to?

"our" refers to the public at large. As consumers we want the most value for our dollar. If BD can deliver that, then they deserve to win this. If they cannot deliver that then they don't deserve "our" (means PUBLIC) sympathy.

Where were the outpourings of sympathy for Chrysler when they got sold off because they coouldn't compete? No there were not. What special pass does BD get to deserve our sympathy if they can't beat HD DVD on their many merits?

There are far more than 10 HD DVD supporters here at AVS, they all just aren't interested in debating people like yourself who engage in "Drive bys" in which you bash the poster rather than challenging the facts.

Verbosity doesn't equal "excellent summary". There is only one word for Blu Ray success:PS3. It begins and ends there. Without the PS3 Blu Ray would still be eating the dust from HD DVD.

And without Microsoft, HD DVD wouldn't have even made it out of the gate. I fail to see what your point with this post is. Both sides needs a boost and got it. The PS3 worked as a better boost than Microsoft support for HD DVD (according to sales data since inception).

Where their outpourings of sympathy for Chrysler when they got sold off because they coouldn't compete? No there were not. What special pass does BD get to deserve our sympathy if they can't beat HD DVD on their many merits?

Bad example. That was at least the second time Chrysler found itself in financial trouble it couldn't repair. The first time (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chrysler#Government_bailout) they did receive an outpouring of sympathy.

Its like the old saying goes: "Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me."

And without Microsoft, HD DVD wouldn't have even made it out of the gate. I fail to see what your point with this post is. Both sides needs a boost and got it. The PS3 worked as a better boost than Microsoft support for HD DVD (according to sales data since inception).

This is pure conjecture. How do you know where HD DVD would be if it wasn't for MS?

Do you really think Tosh was ready to pack it up and deep six HD DVD if MS hadn't gotten behind it?

There are MANY things that Toshiba could have done to keep HD DVD a viable format if MS had gone neutral.

Why don't you lash out against Warner and Universal while you are at it and spread some of your vitriol to them? I'm sure you feel they are responsible too.

And without Microsoft, HD DVD wouldn't have even made it out of the gate. I fail to see what your point with this post is. Both sides needs a boost and got it. The PS3 worked as a better boost than Microsoft support for HD DVD (according to sales data since inception).

Without MS, HD-DVD and VC-1. Wouldn't BD just be a mpeg2 format? Or did they decide to use other codecs on their own?

Honestly wondering this as I do not know. I just know, at the inception is was supposed to be used for 2 hours of mpeg2 recording.

And without Microsoft, HD DVD wouldn't have even made it out of the gate. I fail to see what your point with this post is. Both sides needs a boost and got it. The PS3 worked as a better boost than Microsoft support for HD DVD (according to sales data since inception).

The point speaks for itself. Blu Ray would have been floundering around well behind HD DVD. The PS3 made Blu Ray viable. Simple as that.

Without MS and VC-1 wouldn't BD just be a mpeg2 format? Or did they decide to use other codecs on their own?

Honestly wondering this as I do not know. I just know, at the inception is was supposed to be used for 2 hours of mpeg2 recording.

Before either format launched, BDA approved the use of MPEG-2, AVC, and VC-1 for use on Blu-ray encoded movies.

The BDA =/ Sony. Phillips, Sony, Panasonic, Pioneer and more make up the BDA. When there are secret BDA meetings on a leaky boat in shanghai, its not just sony reps.

That's pretty funny... "leaky boat in Shanghai". :) I'm glad you haven't lost your sense of humor or vivid imagination, however I have no idea what point you are trying to make here. If I meant to say BDA, I would have said BDA. But thanks anyway.

People are pointing at Microsoft, since they: a) Are NOT a CE Company (The addon is a re-badged toshiba drive), b) do NOT make any content (bill himself has said he NEVER wants microsoft to get into movies, music, etc when it comes to the creation of it), and c) the VC-1 patent pool gives them a small slice of a small pie, they probably make as much if H.264 is used which they have patents in as well. So really, WHAT is the motive for them to push hd-dvd and keep it living and breathing?

Again, what's your point? Because Microsoft isn't a CE company and doesn't make movies (content) they can't or shouldn't be involved in any way or endorse a particular optical format? I don't pretend to KNOW all of their motives, but even if their motives are simply to spit in the eye of Sony and the PS3 and use HD-DVD as a vehicle for VC-1 and HDi, I don't really care. That's called doing business and I don't see it as destroying (or otherwise doing grave damange to) the industry or dooming HD optical media to a niche market or extinction. To suggest Microsoft's goal is to kill off both formats buy supporting the weaker of the two just to benefit Xbox Live (or whatever other form of downloadable movies they may offer in the future) is a very specious argument.

Keeping it living and breathing? You're kidding, right? There are many people who have suggested that Microsoft is doing a rather piss poor job of supporting HD-DVD. VC-1 is readily available for BD and everyone else to use, after all. They didn't put a HD-DVD drive in the Xbox Elite. Many people are complaining about the lack of support (discs like "Relentless Enemies" that still won't play) for the Xbox HD-DVD add-on drive. Need I go on? I hope you can see that there are two sides to the coin.

I don't understand why some of you guys get so worked up about Microsoft, unless you just need a "boogie man" to blame for the so-called format war.

Bradley

Edit: Fixed a typo.

Bad example. That was at least the second time Chrysler found itself in financial trouble it couldn't repair. The first time (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chrysler#Government_bailout) they did receive an outpouring of sympathy.

Its like the old saying goes: "Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me."

Or if you are a fan of Bush: "Fool me once, shame on... shame on you.... Fool me can't be fooled again."

Chrysler was an example, as you know. Maybe it was a bad one. The point remains, companies/formats/etc fail all the time. We as consumers shouldn't feel sorrow and pain when a format fails because it can't establish itself in the marketplace.

Hey, I know, you guys should run around and start bashing the Wii because it's "robbing" PS3 sales.

Before either format launched, BDA approved the use of MPEG-2, AVC, and VC-1 for use on Blu-ray encoded movies.

That's not my question

Wasn't BD started off as a mpeg2 medium only first?

If so, what made them decide to use other codecs?

And without Microsoft, HD DVD wouldn't have even made it out of the gate. I fail to see what your point with this post is. Both sides needs a boost and got it. The PS3 worked as a better boost than Microsoft support for HD DVD (according to sales data since inception).

Correct. Some bet on the 360 negating the PS3 effect, however that simply has not been the case. Granted the 360's value for Home Theater just isn't the same considering many of us are home theater enthusiasts who want the best picture and audio (360 is crippled on this where the PS3 is top notch).

You sir are not the public or represent him in anyway, shape or form.


you sir are going too far: let's carry on a discussion without being accusatory or making inflammatory posts

(mod warning prior to further action is here)

[some post(s) deleted]

That's not my question

Wasn't BD started off as a mpeg2 medium only first?

If so, what made them decide to use other codecs?

My apologies for not understanding your question initially.

BD was launched on June 20th with MPEG-2 movies. On September 5th, Warner released the first VC-1 titles (no one knows why they went with MPEG-2 for their first wave). Those who did release using MPEG-2 did so because they believed the tools for encoding VC-1 and AVC weren't mature enough to use for their releases (at least, that is what they have said in interviews). They moved to AVC and VC-1 (to a lesser extent) once those tools matured.

MPEG-2 is still used today for certain titles, depending on space constraints.

I have no problems with an excellent blu-ray player such as the PS3 leading to the success of blu-ray. PS3 is an incredible value


Not if someone likes to play video games.

My apologies for not understanding your question initially.

BD was launched on June 20th with MPEG-2 movies. On September 5th, Warner released the first VC-1 titles (no one knows why they went with MPEG-2 for their first wave). Those who did release using MPEG-2 did so because they believed the tools for encoding VC-1 and AVC weren't mature enough to use for their releases (at least, that is what they have said in interviews). They moved to AVC and VC-1 (to a lesser extent) once those tools matured.

MPEG-2 is still used today for certain titles, depending on space constraints.

I think he meant the format spec 'battle' long before the actual formats got released.

My apologies for not understanding your question initially.

BD was launched on June 20th with MPEG-2 movies. On September 5th, Warner released the first VC-1 titles (no one knows why they went with MPEG-2 for their first wave). Those who did release using MPEG-2 did so because they believed the tools for encoding VC-1 and AVC weren't mature enough to use for their releases (at least, that is what they have said in interviews). They moved to AVC and VC-1 (to a lesser extent) once those tools matured.

MPEG-2 is still used today for certain titles, depending on space constraints.


But, when were those codecs added to the spec? Was it before or after HD-DVD had already adopted them to their final spec?

But, when were those codecs added to the spec? Was it before or after HD-DVD had already adopted them to their final spec?

BDA added VC-1 and AVC support in September of 2004 (link (http://www.pcworld.com/article/id,117681-page,1/article.html))

I can't find anything quickly with regard to when HD DVD adopted those formats.

Edit: HD DVD adopted AVC in June 2004 (link (http://www.apple.com/pr/library/2004/jun/23quicktime.html))

Not if someone likes to play video games.

Even more so if somebody (like myself) likes to play video games :D

Even more so if somebody likes to play video games :D

I'd rather have a 360 and Wii. The only PS3 exclusive game left which I am interested in is MGS4, and given the history of the MGS series iI'll clearly wait until it comes to the 360, or until the price of the PS3 drops to a price which is worth the purchase.

That's not my question

Wasn't BD started off as a mpeg2 medium only first?

If so, what made them decide to use other codecs?

The same thing that made HDDVD more than a 720p red laser format. We're way past that point, though.

BD50 with 1080P MPEG2 and PCM sounds much better to me than DVD9 or 18 with 720p VC1 and TrueHD.

BDA added VC-1 and AVC support in September of 2004 (link (http://www.pcworld.com/article/id,117681-page,1/article.html))

I can't find anything quickly with regard to when HD DVD adopted those formats.

Edit: HD DVD adopted AVC in June 2004 (link (http://www.apple.com/pr/library/2004/jun/23quicktime.html))


Cool. Thanks :)

The same thing that made HDDVD more than a 720p red laser format. We're way past that point, though.

BD50 with 1080P MPEG2 and PCM sounds much better to me than DVD9 or 18 with 720p VC1 and TrueHD.

TrueHD is bit for bit identical to PCM... the entire "sounds better than" argument is severely dated

The same thing that made HDDVD more than a 720p red laser format. We're way past that point, though.

BD50 with 1080P MPEG2 and PCM sounds much better to me than DVD9 or 18 with 720p VC1 and TrueHD.

That wasn't my question. But I can play this game also... :)

You mean the same thing that turned BD from a cartridge into a optical disc?

Optical discs due to HD-DVD sounds much better than a cartridge.

I'd rather have a 360 and Wii. The only PS3 exclusive game left which I am interested in is MGS4, and given the history of the MGS series iI'll clearly wait until it comes to the 360, or until the price of the PS3 drops to a price which is worth the purchase.

Everybody is different no doubt. I'd rather have a PS3 and 360 for my first two, but still want a Wii eventually. Unfortunately my 360 fried on its 13 month. I've never been big on MGS or Splinter cell. Resistance, GRAW2, Motorstorm, Tekken, Drake, Lost Planet, Haze, Bioshock, Time Crisis, Zelda(got the cube TP), Mario, hockey, soccer, those are some of the games I'm into.

Plenty of games on all three that I want in the future as well, just not much now on the Wii.

Verbosity doesn't equal "excellent summary". There is only one word for Blu Ray success:PS3. It begins and ends there. Without the PS3 Blu Ray would still be eating the dust from HD DVD.

Without the PS3, Toshiba would have priced their players at 799 and 999 respectively. The only reason they launched at the low price was because of the PS3.

Without the PS3, Toshiba would have priced their players at 799 and 999 respectively. The only reason they launched at the low price was because of the PS3.

Isn't competition (and cheap Chinese labor) a beautiful thing? ;)

Bradley

Isn't competition (and cheap Chinese labor) a beautiful thing? ;)

Bradley

Not if it persists too long for your comfort !! ;)

Honestly, if BD can't "succeed" in becoming the dominant player with these advantages, then it does not deserve our sympathy.
So currently the sympathy is dished out to Toshiba and Microsoft? Or does sympathy needs to be dished out at all?

---
The plot so far (Excluding the main Groups): Toshiba, LG, Microsoft, Universal, Warner, Paramount
vs.
Paramount, Warner, Lionsgate, MGM, Fox, SPHE, Disney, Sony consumer electronics, Samsung, Pioneer, Panasonic, LG, Sony Computer Entertainment

And coming later this year, more CEs.
---

From this, I surmise this point and it's an OLD point: It takes a LOT more time and effort to convince the BD side to go the HD-DVD way, instead of the other way around, Microsoft notwithstanding.

So if you love the HD optical format and you want your movies to come in HD rapidly, don't be a format fanboy. Support BD and help end the format war as soon as possible.


fuad

So currently the sympathy is dished out to Toshiba and Microsoft? Or does sympathy needs to be dished out at all?

---
The plot so far (Excluding the main Groups): Toshiba, LG, Microsoft, Universal, Warner, Paramount
vs.
Paramount, Warner, Lionsgate, MGM, Fox, SPHE, Disney, Sony consumer electronics, Samsung, Pioneer, Panasonic, LG, Sony Computer Entertainment

And coming later this year, more CEs.
---

From this, I surmise this point and it's an OLD point: It takes a LOT more time and effort to convince the BD side to go the HD-DVD way, instead of the other way around, Microsoft notwithstanding.

So if you love the HD optical format and you want your movies to come in HD rapidly, don't be a format fanboy. Support BD and help end the format war as soon as possible.


fuad

In other words, "Agreeing with the stubborn is easier than arguing with".

So currently the sympathy is dished out to Toshiba and Microsoft? Or does sympathy needs to be dished out at all?

---
The plot so far (Excluding the main Groups): Toshiba, LG, Microsoft, Universal, Warner, Paramount
vs.
Paramount, Warner, Lionsgate, MGM, Fox, SPHE, Disney, Sony consumer electronics, Samsung, Pioneer, Panasonic, LG, Sony Computer Entertainment

And coming later this year, more CEs.
---

From this, I surmise this point and it's an OLD point: It takes a LOT more time and effort to convince the BD side to go the HD-DVD way, instead of the other way around, Microsoft notwithstanding.

So if you love the HD optical format and you want your movies to come in HD rapidly, don't be a format fanboy. Support BD and help end the format war as soon as possible.


fuad

Or let the consumers choose what is best for themselves.

But thats only an option when you get the results you want.

Or let the consumers choose what is best for themselves.

But thats only an option when you get the results you want.

When would you propose gauging consumer choice? Today?

Or let the consumers choose what is best for themselves.

But thats only an option when you get the results you want.

Did the numbers come out today yet? As of the last report it was pretty clear that more consumers see blu-ray as the best for themselves by voting with their wallet.

More are choosing blu-ray at this point.. of course that can change. Did the numbers come out today yet?

Correct. Right now they are. But I'm not worried. If HD-DVD loses, I will gladly convert. Until then... :D

Your math may not be off, but your english is.

Winning does not equal won. So no, you haven't beat anything.


As for yourself, look in the mirror. You so called "supporters" are only trying to point blame at companies other than your own for why your format has't WON the war yet.

Like a bunch of MS bashing BOTS. It's quite comical watching your silly notion's get torn to shreds by logical replies that you cannot respond to. Instead you quote each other and say 'excellent post' like a bunch of sheep. Emphasis mine.

Here's what Mr. Mark Rubin said about JackBee's post right here. (http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?p=10796832&&#post10796832)

you sir are going too far: let's carry on a discussion without being accusatory or making inflammatory posts Again, emphasis mine. :cool:


fuad

Call me paranoid, but that's why MS wants a format war. It weakens both in the market place.

We don't want a format war, we really don't want low quality downloadable HD video and audio, or the DRM plan that will be attached to said format. MS is on the HD-DVD side and HD-lite PPV side... so I'm on the Blu-ray side (of course, having better bandwidth and capacity is a big plus).

If you're going to pick sides on the basis of sending a message, then I'd go Blu. IMHO, of course.

Dan

Call me paranoid, but that's why MS wants a format war. It weakens both in the market place.

We don't want a format war, we really don't want low quality downloadable HD video and audio, or the DRM plan that will be attached to said format. MS is on the HD-DVD side and HD-lite PPV side... so I'm on the Blu-ray side (of course, having better bandwidth and capacity is a big plus).

If you're going to pick sides on the basis of sending a message, then I'd go Blu. IMHO, of course.

Dan

Yup, just do enough to almost try to balance it (HD-DVD add-on), but not enough to guarantee a victory (HD-DVD in every 360 a year ahead of the PS3 would have been huge).

Emphasis mine.

Here's what Mr. Mark Rubin said about JackBee's post right here. (http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?p=10796832&&#post10796832)

Again, emphasis mine. :cool:


fuad

If you don't have an argument. Fine with me :cool:

Call me paranoid, but that's why MS wants a format war. It weakens both in the market place.

We don't want a format war, we really don't want low quality downloadable HD video and audio, or the DRM plan that will be attached to said format. MS is on the HD-DVD side and HD-lite PPV side... so I'm on the Blu-ray side (of course, having better bandwidth and capacity is a big plus).

If you're going to pick sides on the basis of sending a message, then I'd go Blu. IMHO, of course.

Dan

And you're probably not drawing this conclusion based on PQ, AQ and features on current HD DVD and BD titles that are out there. Looks like you've bought into the great BD FUD machine :eek:

Correct. Right now they are. But I'm not worried. If HD-DVD loses, I will gladly convert. Until then... :D So you're betting against the odds. Your prerogative.

I assume that you have a nice HD-DVD collection right now. If, and it's a big if, BD wins the format war, you'd have amassed yourself a bigger HD-DVD collection than what you have right now. Essentially if HD-DVD loses, you're ready to be a bigger


fuad

So currently the sympathy is dished out to Toshiba and Microsoft? Or does sympathy needs to be dished out at all?

---
The plot so far (Excluding the main Groups): Toshiba, LG, Microsoft, Universal, Warner, Paramount
vs.
Paramount, Warner, Lionsgate, MGM, Fox, SPHE, Disney, Sony consumer electronics, Samsung, Pioneer, Panasonic, LG, Sony Computer Entertainment

And coming later this year, more CEs.
---

From this, I surmise this point and it's an OLD point: It takes a LOT more time and effort to convince the BD side to go the HD-DVD way, instead of the other way around, Microsoft notwithstanding.

So if you love the HD optical format and you want your movies to come in HD rapidly, don't be a format fanboy. Support BD and help end the format war as soon as possible.


fuad

Ok you add Lionsgate for BD but leave off Weinstein for HD (they are about the same IMO). You list Sony 4 times, Samsung has effectively gone neutral as they have a dual format player, you list Fox although they have released a whopping 1 disc in 6 months, you mention that more CEs coming later this year for BD but list none for HDDVD (although Onkyo has announced a player).
This list doesn't really inspire me to believe that if I go BD only (although I have both) that BD automatically wins. This would be a more accurate list IMO

HD DVD - Toshiba, Microsoft, Universal, Weinstein, Warner, Paramount

BD - Sony, Panasonic, Pioneer, Disney, Fox, Lionsgate, Warner, Paramount

I also find it funny that the fact that Universal and Warner hold probably 60-70% of the entire movie backcatalog with Paramount probably adding another 15-20% on that means that both sides for the most part do have a ton of flicks. Sure there are some greats missing from those 3 (Aliens is my favorite movie of all time) but saying buy only BD cause they have more is a little shortsighted

And you're probably not drawing this conclusion based on PQ, AQ and features on current HD DVD and BD titles that are out there. Looks like you've bought into the great BD FUD machine :eek:

Or you have bought into the great HD FUD machine :eek: x2

So you're betting against the odds. Your prerogative.

I assume that you have a nice HD-DVD collection right now. If, and it's a big if, BD wins the format war, you'd have amassed yourself a bigger HD-DVD collection than what you have right now. Essentially if HD-DVD loses, you're ready to be a bigger


fuad

News flash faud. BD wasn't always winning and hasn't yet won.

With waiting, I don't have to spend a minimum of $500 right now just to buy more movies on another format that may or may not be mainstream in the future.

If BD wins in the future. Well, I will be able to buy in cheap, just as I did with HD-DVD.

If I were to buy into BD and amass a nice little collection, then watch BD lose. I would as you stated, "be a bigger..."


As with many things in life. Nothing is for sure except death and taxes. I'm more than willing to accept the loss of my meager investment and call it a day at the tracks. Your movies will always play just as much as mine will:)

Apparently.



My point was, DVD took off because once Divx died, ALL of the Hollywood studios moved to support it. That happened just as prices for the hardware became mass-market reasonable, and the rest is history. We'll be lucky if the high-def disc market reaches laserdisc size at this rate.

With all due respect, without this format war that you apparently attempted to prevent single-handedly (sorry, I thought that was a funny line in your postings), the HD market would be at and remain at laserdisc size, and probably die off. Without these two formats competing, you wouldn't be able to find an HD media player for as low as $200 right now. And for your beloved Blu-ray, you STILL can't find a player under $500, which means for someone like me with a family and bills to pay, I can't afford a Blu-ray player for a good while. And so unless Fox and Disney decide to put out HD DVD's, they get no money from me.

And I find the whole DVD vs. Divx comparison to this current "war" very off-the-mark. Divx didn't just die, it never really lived. It had no chance from the start, and it went nowhere. It was sold at one store, and it's business model was more geared at the rental market than anything. And Divx did absolutely nothing to lower DVD player prices. HD DVD vs. Blu-ray is a wholly different fight.

This would be a more accurate list IMO

HD DVD - Toshiba, Microsoft, Universal, Weinstein, Warner, Paramount

BD - Sony, Panasonic, Pioneer, Disney, Fox, Lionsgate, Warner, Paramount



May be accurate for HD-DVD but not for BD. The BDA has 180 member companies. The board consists of:

Apple Computer, Inc.
Dell Inc.
Hewlett Packard Company
Hitachi, Ltd.
LG Electronics Inc.
Matsushita Electric Industrial Co., Ltd.
Mitsubishi Electric Corporation
Pioneer Corporation
Royal Philips Electronics
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.
Sharp Corporation
Sony Corporation
Sun Microsystems, Inc.
TDK Corporation
Thomson Multimedia
Twentieth Century Fox
Walt Disney Pictures
Warner Bros. Entertainment

And you're probably not drawing this conclusion based on PQ, AQ and features on current HD DVD and BD titles that are out there. Looks like you've bought into the great BD FUD machine :eek: Really? Hmmm. :cool:


Primeval
VQ 4.5
AQ 4.5

Bruce Almighty
VQ 3
AQ 3

Bridge To Terabithia
VQ 4
AQ 4.5

Music and Lyrics (both formats)
VQ 4.5
AQ 3

Black Christmas
VQ 4
AQ 4

Living Landscapes: The World's Most Beautiful Places (Both formats)
VQ 4.5
AQ 3

Seven Years in Tibet
VQ 4
AQ 3

Breach
VQ 4
AQ 4

Ghost Rider
VQ 4.5
AQ 5

Harsh Times
VQ 3
AQ 3.5

The Cowboys (Both formats)
VQ 4
AQ 3

These are current titles at HighDefDigest. Or are you not drawing your conclusion from this site? Want to use another site?


fuad

Call me paranoid, but that's why MS wants a format war. It weakens both in the market place.

We don't want a format war, we really don't want low quality downloadable HD video and audio, or the DRM plan that will be attached to said format. MS is on the HD-DVD side and HD-lite PPV side... so I'm on the Blu-ray side (of course, having better bandwidth and capacity is a big plus).

If you're going to pick sides on the basis of sending a message, then I'd go Blu. IMHO, of course.

Dan

Out of curiosity since the Xbox 360 keeps being brought up (which I think is interesting considering 1) It keeps outselling the PS3, and 2) if it had an internal HD DVD player it probably wouldn't be outselling the PS3 because of the price)...........

.........when did 720p become "HD Lite"?? Did 720p all of a sudden get dropped from the official resolution list of HDTV? I mean, I have a 1080i HDTV, I'm hoping 1080i is still considered HD.

I'm just checking because most of the TV's I see advertised for sale these days are 720p. I just wanted to be sure I didn't sleep though some meeting.

May be accurate for HD-DVD but not for BD. The BDA has 180 member companies. The board consists of:

Apple Computer, Inc.
Dell Inc.
Hewlett Packard Company
Hitachi, Ltd.
LG Electronics Inc.
Matsushita Electric Industrial Co., Ltd.
Mitsubishi Electric Corporation
Pioneer Corporation
Royal Philips Electronics
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.
Sharp Corporation
Sony Corporation
Sun Microsystems, Inc.
TDK Corporation
Thomson Multimedia
Twentieth Century Fox
Walt Disney Pictures
Warner Bros. Entertainment

Nice spin but not even close.

HD-DVD has 132 companies behind it. If you want to wipe some egg blu off your face you can edit your post and list them also.

Ok you add Lionsgate for BD but leave off Weinstein for HD (they are about the same IMO). Sorry about that. I don't usually follow the HD-DVD stuff.

You list Sony 4 times, Three times. They are however separate entities with Sony consumer electronic being the biggest. Sony Computer Entertainment is a subset of that and Sony Pictures Home Entertainment is a separate department. :cool:

Samsung has effectively gone neutral as they have a dual format player,Forgot about that too. How many of the dedicated BD player did Samsung sell as compared to the dual-format player? Do you have the figure?

you list Fox although they have released a whopping 1 disc in 6 months, Fox is paranoid about copy protection as is their right. AACS was cracked and on HD-DVD, that's the only copy protection method available. You think that make Fox wants to go neutral? Hmmm. :cool:

you mention that more CEs coming later this year for BD but list none for HDDVD (although Onkyo has announced a player). Actually, I meant that for both formats. I guess I wasn't being clear.

This list doesn't really inspire me to believe that if I go BD only (although I have both) that BD automatically wins. This would be a more accurate list IMO

HD DVD - Toshiba, Microsoft, Universal, Weinstein, Warner, Paramount

BD - Sony, Panasonic, Pioneer, Disney, Fox, Lionsgate, Warner, Paramount
Uhm... Why'd you take out LG and Samsung but not take out Warner and Paramount? If Universal sells its movie catalog and Toshiba sells players, Microsoft's only contribution is the optional add-on drive? There's gotta be MORE that Microsoft contributed, surely. :rolleyes:

I also find it funny that the fact that Universal and Warner hold probably 60-70% of the entire movie backcatalog with Paramountprobably adding another 15-20% on that means that both sides for the most part do have a ton of flicks. FACT and PROBABLY do not mix.

You can't compare catalogs of format neutral studios. Compare the cumulative catalogs of the BD exclusive studios with Universal. That's how you should do it.

Sure there are some greats missing from those 3 (Aliens is my favorite movie of all time) but saying buy only BD cause they have more is a little shortsighted Universal's catalog vs Sony's, Disney's, Fox's, Lionsgate's (good indie stuff) and MGM's? In this case it's about quality AND quantity.


fuad

May be accurate for HD-DVD but not for BD. The BDA has 180 member companies. The board consists of:

Apple Computer, Inc.
Dell Inc.
Hewlett Packard Company
Hitachi, Ltd.
LG Electronics Inc.
Matsushita Electric Industrial Co., Ltd.
Mitsubishi Electric Corporation
Pioneer Corporation
Royal Philips Electronics
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.
Sharp Corporation
Sony Corporation
Sun Microsystems, Inc.
TDK Corporation
Thomson Multimedia
Twentieth Century Fox
Walt Disney Pictures
Warner Bros. Entertainment

Apple Computer, Inc. Also support HDDVD in their software..Hs neither in Hardware
Dell Inc. Has neither Hardware nor software
Hewlett Packard Company Supports Both and has hardware for both
Hitachi, Ltd. Does what exactly?
LG Electronics Inc. Has a Dual format player
Matsushita Electric Industrial Co., Ltd. Does what exactly?
Mitsubishi Electric Corporation Does what exactly?
Pioneer Corporation Has 2 Players both well over $1000
Royal Philips Electronics Has a rebadged Panasonic player out I believe?
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. Has a Dual Format Player Out in less than a month
Sharp Corporation Does what exactly?
Sony Corporation Duh..
Sun Microsystems, Inc. Does what exactly? (With the exceptions of being "a super secret uber annuncement at CES where it was announced that they were still a member of the board and that they STILL hadn't gotten BD-J working after 3 years)
TDK Corporation Does what exactly?
Thomson Multimedia Does what exactly?
Twentieth Century Fox Does what exactly? I mean besides cancel releases?
Walt Disney Pictures For the format war this is actually a nice add for the BDA
Warner Bros. Entertainment Releases actually more content for HDDVD (see Sun)

For the people I put "does what exactly" means just that. What exactly are they doing for the BDA to help them win the war.

I didn't list these people or other companies "on the board" for the same reason that The DVD forum is backing HD DVD as it's defacto standard (which by the way Sony/Disney/Fox are members) and I didn't list all the companies that are members of the DVD Forum as "backers" of HD DVD although by your logic they are

Out of curiosity since the Xbox 360 keeps being brought up (which I think is interesting considering 1) It keeps outselling the PS3, and 2) if it had an internal HD DVD player it probably wouldn't be outselling the PS3 because of the price)...........

.........when did 720p become "HD Lite"?? Did 720p all of a sudden get dropped from the official resolution list of HDTV? I mean, I have a 1080i HDTV, I'm hoping 1080i is still considered HD.

I'm just checking because most of the TV's I see advertised for sale these days are 720p. I just wanted to be sure I didn't sleep though some meeting.

You might find this interesting then. Of course anything can happen long term, just look at the cube numbers!

"First for months"
http://kotaku.com/assets/resources/2007/04/Firstfour-thumb.JPG

720 has always been HD light compared to 1080, thats a litte more than twice the resolution.

I'm just checking because most of the TV's I see advertised for sale these days are 720p. I just wanted to be sure I didn't sleep though some meeting.

not sure about this: 1080p LCD displays seem to be quite popular these days

(not sure 1080p displays are that much better, but they seem to be what everyone wants)

News flash faud. It's fuad. Thankyouverymuch.

BD wasn't always winning and hasn't yet won. I never said BD was always winning and I didn't say that it has won. Newsflash right back atcha.

With waiting, I don't have to spend a minimum of $500 right now just to buy more movies on another format that may or may not be mainstream in the future.

If BD wins in the future. Well, I will be able to buy in cheap, just as I did with HD-DVD.

If I were to buy into BD and amass a nice little collection, then watch BD lose. I would as you stated, "be a bigger..." But do you agree that currently you are betting against the odds?

Basically you are saying that you don't mind spending US$500 on HD-DVD discs but not on a BD player. You're not even hedging your bets.

As with many things in life. Nothing is for sure except death and taxes. I'm more than willing to accept the loss of my meager investment and call it a day at the tracks. Your movies will always play just as much as mine will:) Until the player is broken and you have to scour for parts from obsolete players. This applies to any format that will be the losing one, by the way.


fuad

So if the PS4 does not have a disk drive....it would play BD disks using what? an add on?

Do you think Sony Pictures would not support downloadable content?

And why should PS4 play BD? 5-8 yrs from now, you'd think that BD players would be < $25, and selling in walmart. Why should I need a PS4 to play BD? That the PS3 makes a great BD player is primarily because that's the roadmap sony chose :
PSOne - CD-rom (CD-audio for free)
PS2 - DVD-rom (DVD-Video for free)
PS3 - BD-rom (BD-Video for free)
PS4 - ? who knows?

If I get gigabit internet in 10 yrs, games should arrive from downloads. But I see movies on optical media with better collectibility compared to just downloaded bytes. That's won't change in 8 yrs.

This entire thread has degenerated into a drunken bar room brawl. Is it even serving a purpose?

Every attempt at factual debate that is not based on a conspiracy theory is getting shouted down by hooligan type behavior.

Mods should lock this one before things get worse.

Sorry about that. I don't usually follow the HD-DVD stuff.

Three times. They are however separate entities with Sony consumer electronic being the biggest. Sony Computer Entertainment is a subset of that and Sony Pictures Home Entertainment is a separate department. :cool:

Forgot about that too. How many of the dedicated BD player did Samsung sell as compared to the dual-format player? Do you have the figure?

Fox is paranoid about copy protection as is their right. AACS was cracked and on HD-DVD, that's the only copy protection method available. You think that make Fox wants to go neutral? Hmmm. :cool:

Actually, I meant that for both formats. I guess I wasn't being clear.

Uhm... Why'd you take out LG and Samsung but not take out Warner and Paramount? If Universal sells its movie catalog and Toshiba sells players, Microsoft's only contribution is the optional add-on drive? There's gotta be MORE that Microsoft contributed, surely. :rolleyes:

FACT and PROBABLY do not mix.

You can't compare catalogs of format neutral studios. Compare the cumulative catalogs of the BD exclusive studios with Universal. That's how you should do it.

Universal's catalog vs Sony's, Disney's, Fox's, Lionsgate's (good indie stuff) and MGM's? In this case it's about quality AND quantity.


fuad

MGM/SPHE/SCEntertainment/SCElectronics make 4. Subsets or not they are all Sony

I realize that fact and probably don't mix it was more of a "I don't know the exact #s but the FACT remains that those 2 companies hold well over 50% of the content available (the probably was the actual percentages) . I would also hold that Universals total catalog is more than likely larger than Sony/Fox/Disney/Lionsgate combined for sheer numbers and there are a few little Gems in there :)

I took out LG because they have only ever released a combo player and to be honest I just missed Samsung (and I don't think their Combo player has actually been released yet although it is supposed to be this month I believe)

Fox is paranoid. That means that nobody gets their movies in any HD format.. I think that sucks honestly. Anyone who believes that any copy protection put out wont be hacked is living in fairy land

Forgot about that too. How many of the dedicated BD player did Samsung sell as compared to the dual-format player? Do you have the figure?


Does it matter in the context that they were brought up? They either support both or they don't. Sales #'s has nothing to do with this part of the argument :cool:

Fox is paranoid about copy protection as is their right. AACS was cracked and on HD-DVD, that's the only copy protection method available. You think that make Fox wants to go neutral? Hmmm. :cool:

Not releasing titles is as good as being neutral, they aren't hurting HD-DVD and they aren't helping BD. :eek: :cool:



You can't compare catalogs of format neutral studios. Compare the cumulative catalogs of the BD exclusive studios with Universal. That's how you should do it.

Universal's catalog vs Sony's, Disney's, Fox's, Lionsgate's (good indie stuff) and MGM's? In this case it's about quality AND quantity.


fuad

There's is no way to measure quality as that is subjective. So therefor, quantity is the only tool that can be used as a measurement:cool:

by your logic

Do I have to use logic in this thread? :eek:

This entire thread has degenerated into a drunken bar room brawl. Is it even serving a purpose?

Every attempt at factual debate that is not based on a conspiracy theory is getting shouted down by hooligan type behavior.

Mods should lock this one before things get worse.

Intelligent, reasoned discussion could keep this thread going

anything less is unacceptable

With all due respect, without this format war that you apparently attempted to prevent single-handedly (sorry, I thought that was a funny line in your postings), the HD market would be at and remain at laserdisc size, and probably die off. Without these two formats competing, you wouldn't be able to find an HD media player for as low as $200 right now. And for your beloved Blu-ray, you STILL can't find a player under $500, which means for someone like me with a family and bills to pay, I can't afford a Blu-ray player for a good while. And so unless Fox and Disney decide to put out HD DVD's, they get no money from me.This format war should not have been your war.

The DVPS1000, a DVD player, by Sony had an MSRP of US$1000. I don't even know how much the early CD players costs, or laser printers (monochrome or color), or 42" HDTV plasma or even the first color TV (PAL/NTSC). This is the nature of early adopters's market. It's costly.

Again, this format war should not have been your war. It's an early adopters' market and as such should have remained at a premium. But it didn't, because Toshiba thought that by lowering its prices, the player sales would have convinced the studios to be neutral. It hadn't. Because of this, people with lower disposable income were enticed by lower prices but without knowing the full weight of the issues behind the format war.

As far as "the HD market would be at and remain at laserdisc size", I think laserdisc owners were more than current HD-DVD owners.

And I find the whole DVD vs. Divx comparison to this current "war" very off-the-mark. Divx didn't just die, it never really lived. It had no chance from the start, and it went nowhere. It was sold at one store, and it's business model was more geared at the rental market than anything. And Divx did absolutely nothing to lower DVD player prices. HD DVD vs. Blu-ray is a wholly different fight. DIVX didn't live because BHunt tested it and the video quality was apalling.

It had no chance because sites like BHunt's actively campaigned against it. And I believe the demos were not convincing people to give up VHS either; this is even before DVD went mainstream.

DIVX didn't lower DVD player prices because the DVD Group and the studios supporting DVD know that it's not a viable format. Hmmm. I sense deja vu (only available on BD).


Out of curiosity since the Xbox 360 keeps being brought up (which I think is interesting considering 1) It keeps outselling the PS3, and 2) if it had an internal HD DVD player it probably wouldn't be outselling the PS3 because of the price)........... 1) It couldn't be because it is cheaper than the PS3 and it launched one year earlier, could it?

2) If it had an internal HD-DVD drive... Well that was the conundrum of the X-Box 360 Elite. If it had a built-in HD-DVD drive, it'd have cost at least US$100 more (the drive retails at US$199). Even if that was the case, it still can't match what the PS3 can do.

.........when did 720p become "HD Lite"?? Did 720p all of a sudden get dropped from the official resolution list of HDTV? I mean, I have a 1080i HDTV, I'm hoping 1080i is still considered HD. I believe since stations opted to broadcast in 720p. It's still HD but not HD enough. And really what's the point of 720p broadcast anyway with the exception of sports?


fuad

This format war should not have been your war.

The DVPS1000, a DVD player, by Sony had an MSRP of US$1000. I don't even know how much the early CD players costs, or laser printers (monochrome or color), or 42" HDTV plasma or even the first color TV (PAL/NTSC). This is the nature of early adopters's market. It's costly.

Again, this format war should not have been your war. It's an early adopters' market and as such should have remained at a premium. But it didn't, because Toshiba thought that by lowering its prices, the player sales would have convinced the studios to be neutral. It hadn't. Because of this, people with lower disposable income were enticed by lower prices but without knowing the full weight of the issues behind the format war.


That's a totally unfair charecterization. I (and my wife, she's a dentist and I'm an engineer) have a very large disposable income. I did plenty of research on both formats before buying my HD player.

Home theater is not just for people with "high" disposable incomes. If anything, your comments probably show insight into the problem that a lot of BD supporters have with HD DVD, that a bunch of "low income people" are ruining it for the people who are comfortable throwing thousands at their favorite hobby, home theater.

If you want to look at it from that angle then I would argue that HD DVD did BD a favor. If BD followed the normal five year cycle that it takes for a new technology to get adopted (I believe that DVD was not declared to have vanquished VHS until six years into its lifespan) then it's entirely possible that it might have been relegated to a high end niche status and that downloads, SD-DVD, etc, might have been what "most people" bought.

This entire thread has degenerated into a drunken bar room brawl. Is it even serving a purpose?

Every attempt at factual debate that is not based on a conspiracy theory is getting shouted down by hooligan type behavior. I thought I was presenting a factual, reasoned debate. Hmmm.

MGM/SPHE/SCEntertainment/SCElectronics make 4. Subsets or not they are all Sony Actually MGM's catalog is split. Some go to SPHE and some go to Fox. But it is different and should be treated as such.

Does it matter in the context that they were brought up? They either support both or they don't. Sales #'s has nothing to do with this part of the argument :cool: It does when it comes to price. I have a feeling that if Samsung presents the figures, the dedicated BD player is selling more than the dual-format player. That means that the lower price is a factor and that some may see HD-DVD as a non-factor.

Not releasing titles is as good as being neutral, they aren't hurting HD-DVD and they aren't helping BD. :eek: :cool: That's not logical. If they are neutral, you could get X-Men 3 on HD-DVD. But you can't as it's available only on BD. So Fox is not neutral, no matter how much you want to think outside of your box.

There's is no way to measure quality as that is subjective. So therefor, quantity is the only tool that can be used as a measurement:cool: Some research scientists and statisticians beg to differ.


fuad

"or 42" HDTV plasma "

I do know that the first Plasma set our store (the Good Guys) sold in 97 or 98 was a 27" non HD set and I imagine the PQ sucks compared to todays bargain 42" Plasmas ($799 at costco). Price of the 27" non HD Plasma $15,000.00!

That's a totally unfair charecterization. I (and my wife, she's a dentist and I'm an engineer) have a very large disposable income. I did plenty of research on both formats before buying my HD player. Firstly, don't make it personal. Otherwise the thread will "degenerated into a drunken bar room brawl."

Home theater is not just for people with "high" disposable incomes. Where in my post did I say or imply that home theater is for people with "high" disposable incomes?

If you have a 29" TV with a Dolby Surround sound (5.1 speakers of course) then you have a home theater. This was the minimum Laserdisc standard, by the way. Add a DVD player, then it's even better.


If anything, your comments probably show insight into the problem that a lot of BD supporters have with HD DVD, that a bunch of "low income people" are ruining it for the people who are comfortable throwing thousands at their favorite hobby, home theater. I did not use "low income people" in my post. Don't put words in my post. :cool: And don't compare my posts with other people, including BD supporters/fanboys. We're all different.

If you want to look at it from that angle then I would argue that HD DVD did BD a favor. If BD followed the normal five year cycle that it takes for a new technology to get adopted (I believe that DVD was not declared to have vanquished VHS until six years into its lifespan) then it's entirely possible that it might have been relegated to a high end niche status and that downloads, SD-DVD, etc, might have been what "most people" bought. SD downloads is what "some" people are doing now via iTunes. HD video content is different. Broadband speed that is needed to download HD is not prevalent nor cheap. The components to make HD downloads (PCs, DVRs, HDDs) are not cheap either.

If there is no HD-DVD, the price of players won't fall so rapidly. However the key to BD adoption in that scenario is that there will be a) no consumer confusion and b) SD broadcast is mandated to end soon (2009?) which will lead to more consumers buying HDTVs and getting HD broadcast and HD content on BDs.


fuad

I thought I was presenting a factual, reasoned debate. Hmmm.


You thought wrong?

It does when it comes to price. I have a feeling that if Samsung presents the figures, the dedicated BD player is selling more than the dual-format player. That means that the lower price is a factor and that some may see HD-DVD as a non-factor.

No faud, it doesn't.

Samsung makes a dual format player. HD-DVD and BD. It's black and white. No matter how much you want to think outside your box. But it sure is cute how you try to throw a shade of grey in to spin your view.

That's not logical. If they are neutral, you could get X-Men 3 on HD-DVD. But you can't as it's available only on BD. So Fox is not neutral, no matter how much you want to think outside of your box.

Agreed.

Let's say FOX is a non-issue until they start releasing. Because at this point, they aren't helping anyone.

Some research scientists and statisticians beg to differ.


fuad

Some may. But not in the context of our current discussion.

not sure about this: 1080p LCD displays seem to be quite popular these days

(not sure 1080p displays are that much better, but they seem to be what everyone wants)

I dunno Mark, look through the Best Buy catalog and see the ratio of 720p to 1080p displays they advertise. It's still a big margin.


This format war should not have been your war.

The DVPS1000, a DVD player, by Sony had an MSRP of US$1000. I don't even know how much the early CD players costs, or laser printers (monochrome or color), or 42" HDTV plasma or even the first color TV (PAL/NTSC). This is the nature of early adopters's market. It's costly.

Again, this format war should not have been your war. It's an early adopters' market and as such should have remained at a premium. But it didn't, because Toshiba thought that by lowering its prices, the player sales would have convinced the studios to be neutral. It hadn't. Because of this, people with lower disposable income were enticed by lower prices but without knowing the full weight of the issues behind the format war.

As far as "the HD market would be at and remain at laserdisc size", I think laserdisc owners were more than current HD-DVD owners.


Except that the price is exactly why I was able to get in the middle of this "war" in the first place. Early adoption or not, the reason I can watch HD DVD's right instead of sitting back and seeing other people enjoy it is precisely because it was affordable, and right now Blu-ray simply isn't.

I would imagine if it were the other way around and the Blu-ray players were that cheap (and I would have one of course), then we wouldn't hear how this shouldn't be my war. It's ALWAYS the mainstream market's war. It HAS to be. Otherwise this is just going to flounder on in the niche market while something like downloadable content sneaks in the back door and becomes the real winner.

Laserdiscs BTW never got past early adoption, in either of it's two iterations (remember the first laserdiscs?). Even by the time I was able to get LD's at $19.99 apiece from Saturday Matinee, it was because they were clearance prices.


DIVX didn't live because BHunt tested it and the video quality was apalling.

It had no chance because sites like BHunt's actively campaigned against it. And I believe the demos were not convincing people to give up VHS either; this is even before DVD went mainstream.

DIVX didn't lower DVD player prices because the DVD Group and the studios supporting DVD know that it's not a viable format. Hmmm. I sense deja vu (only available on BD).

I'm sorry, but I didn't even know Bill Hunt back then. So he had absolutely no influence in why I didn't touch Divx with a 10 foot cattle prod. I don't think he was nearly as influencial as you make him out to be. There were many of us, who were DVD owners at the time no less, that knew Divx was wrong.

If anything, I equate Divx to Microsoft Windows ME. Two things that should have NEVER been created.


1) It couldn't be because it is cheaper than the PS3 and it launched one year earlier, could it?

2) If it had an internal HD-DVD drive... Well that was the conundrum of the X-Box 360 Elite. If it had a built-in HD-DVD drive, it'd have cost at least US$100 more (the drive retails at US$199). Even if that was the case, it still can't match what the PS3 can do.

1) That is half of exactly my point. It's cheaper than the PS3 because it doesn't have an internal HD DVD drive. And as for being out first, well the Dreamcast came out first, and was cheaper than the PS2, and that meant nothing. So it can work both ways. The Xbox 360 launched right in the middle of a total owning of the video game world by Sony. Not exactly a cakewalk for Microsoft to launch their second console in.

Of course, perhaps the other reason is that they have some high quality titles that people want to play. Little games like Gears of War and Dead Rising.

2) Right now, developers who continue to decide to make their games exclusive to the Xbox 360 would disagree with you that it can't match what the PS3 can do. And even at that, unless you are talking about a media solution, which in and of itself is debatable, that isn't totally true. On the gaming front, it absolutely is not true.


I believe since stations opted to broadcast in 720p. It's still HD but not HD enough. And really what's the point of 720p broadcast anyway with the exception of sports?

Wait, so now we're measuring actual HD broadcasts as "HD enough"? Well, apparently it's "HD ENOUGH" for major broadcasters who do provide more than just sports. It's also apparently HD enough for many TV manufacturers who make 720p HDTV's to sell.

It's one thing to talk about HD Lite as the abomination DirecTV has become (and I have switched from them to Comcast because of it). It's another to take an official HDTV resolution and all of a sudden proclaim it's simply "not enough". That sounds almost like an attempt to justify a position.

"or 42" HDTV plasma "

I do know that the first Plasma set our store (the Good Guys) sold in 97 or 98 was a 27" non HD set and I imagine the PQ sucks compared to todays bargain 42" Plasmas ($799 at costco). Price of the 27" non HD Plasma $15,000.00! Well slap my monkey! US$15,000 for 27"? :eek: :eek:

Well at least OLED screens that Sony intends to market starting later this year won't be that pricey. The display would be small though, as small as that, I think.


fuad

b) SD broadcast is mandated to end soon (2009?) which will lead to more consumers buying HDTVs and getting HD broadcast and HD content on BDs.


fuad
Incorrect. All broadcasts must be digital by a certain date, not HD.

Brian, sorry dude that is just plain dumb. As you BD folk put it, its all about the current numbers. Why on earth should we care about the first four months? Amazing!! your looking for a silver lining. PS3 is selling like poop and you know it.

Go here for the numbers Brian does not want you to seehttp://www.vgchartz.com/
Current numbers is X-Box 360 is 10 million and PS3 is at 3.42.

Let me correct myself. The X-Box 360 sold 10 million in 18 months since it launched, during which time it also had one (I believe) price cut. So that's roughly 555,555 units per month.

The PS3 sold 3.42 million in 6 months with no price cuts and a higher price than X-Box 360 too. That's roughly 570,000 units per month.

The silver lining is a matter of perspective, I think. :cool:


fuad

Incorrect. All broadcasts must be digital by a certain date, not HD.

He didn't say it HAD to be HD.

<snip>
Let me correct myself. The X-Box 360 sold 10 million in 18 months since it launched, during which time it also had one (I believe) price cut. <snip>

Again, incorrect. The XBOX 360 still has the same MSRP(s) from launch - $299 for the Core, $399 for the Premium.

Current numbers is X-Box 360 is 10 million and PS3 is at 3.42.

Let me correct myself. The X-Box 360 sold 10 million in 18 months since it launched, during which time it also had one (I believe) price cut. So that's roughly 555,555 units per month.

The PS3 sold 3.42 million in 6 months with no price cuts and a higher price than X-Box 360 too. That's roughly 570,000 units per month.

The silver lining is a matter of perspective, I think. :cool:


fuad


No price cut for the 360.

Plus, many were waiting for the PS3 to come out. Since, according to Sony, next gen games didn't start until then.

But many have found the wait and hype to be without cause. As sales of the PS3 show. Silver lining indeed.

Brian, sorry dude that is just plain dumb. As you BD folk put it, its all about the current numbers. Why on earth should we care about the first four months? Amazing!! your looking for a silver lining. PS3 is selling like poop and you know it.

Go here for the numbers Brian does not want you to seehttp://www.vgchartz.com/

Video game sales are a COMPLETELY different animal then movie sales. And it is absolutely true that you shouldn't even consider the ps3 out of the game, by a long shot. Sony has more games being made for the PS3 under their own studios then ANY other company in the world. And they have some major exclusives, like the God Of War series, Ratchet And Clank, Killzone, SOCOM and much more. Anyone counting out the PS3 is just ridiculous at this point. It is not moving the Big #s right now, but the PS2 is STILL outselling the xbox 360. The Gamecube and Xbox arent even on the radar. Sony makes money on the PS2, loses money on the PS3, so really, it evens out pretty well for the time being. Summer sucks for gaming, year after year, and everyone is gearing up for the big holiday season.

Ugh, i just realized i veered off topic. Anyway, thats how it is.

He didn't say it HAD to be HD.
No, he said that SD broadcasts were mandated to end soon, which is incorrect. Analog broadcasts are being phased out, not SD. Big difference. And really, if SD was going away, what would be left besides HD?

HDTVs are not necessary for digital broadcasts - a set-top box is all that's required to make all existing TVs compatible.

Brian, sorry dude that is just plain dumb. As you BD folk put it, its all about the current numbers. Why on earth should we care about the first four months? Amazing!! your looking for a silver lining. PS3 is selling like poop and you know it.

Go here for the numbers Brian does not want you to seeURL=http://www.vgchartz.com/]http://www.vgchartz.com/[/URL]

It's only dumb if you don't understand the context in which I brought it up. I do agree the PS3 isn't selling well though.

In the future it would help your credibilty to not make baseless accusations on things you know absolutely nothing about.

Current numbers is X-Box 360 is 10 million and PS3 is at 3.42.

Let me correct myself. The X-Box 360 sold 10 million in 18 months since it launched, during which time it also had one (I believe) price cut. So that's roughly 555,555 units per month.

The PS3 sold 3.42 million in 6 months with no price cuts and a higher price than X-Box 360 too. That's roughly 570,000 units per month.

The silver lining is a matter of perspective, I think. :cool:


fuad

Or we could look at numbers as they come in on a monthly basis

March
360 199,000
PS3 130,000

April
360 174,000
PS3 82,000

May
360 155,000
PS3 81,000

Current numbers is X-Box 360 is 10 million and PS3 is at 3.42.

Let me correct myself. The X-Box 360 sold 10 million in 18 months since it launched, during which time it also had one (I believe) price cut. So that's roughly 555,555 units per month.

The PS3 sold 3.42 million in 6 months with no price cuts and a higher price than X-Box 360 too. That's roughly 570,000 units per month.

The silver lining is a matter of perspective, I think. :cool:


fuad

No official MS price cut yet but some stores have been discounting them and/or offering package deals. Microcenter had $150 gift card, Toysrus has $100 gift card as well other deals.

edit: I was referring to the U.S., not other regions. You may be correct for Japan and or other regions but no 100% sure.

You thought wrong? Occasionally but not in this thread.

No faud, it doesn't. It's fuad. Second warning.

Samsung makes a dual format player. HD-DVD and BD. It's black and white. No matter how much you want to think outside your box. But it sure is cute how you try to throw a shade of grey in to spin your view. I never denied (just forgot) that Samsung makes a dual format player. But they don't make a HD-DVD only player and they DO make a BD player.

My point was simply that I have a feeling if you compare the sales number of the dual-format player and the BD player, the latter would achieve higher sales.

Let's say FOX is a non-issue until they start releasing. Because at this point, they aren't helping anyone. Disagree. The fact that they are not releasing new titles on BD doesn't negate the fact that they DO have BD titles out there on sale. Those titles count in terms of the Nielsen ratings and they also count at alerting potential adopters about the advantages of BD.


fuad

No, he said that SD broadcasts were mandated to end soon, which is incorrect. Analog broadcasts are being phased out, not SD. Big difference. And really, if SD was going away, what would be left besides HD?

HDTVs are not necessary for digital broadcasts - a set-top box is all that's required to make all existing TVs compatible.

I believe we ALL know this, including Fuad. He obviously meant that analog transmission were mandated to end soon, not SD. Do you really think that he believes that ALL tv shows/broadcasts will magically appear in HD in a year and a half?

Current numbers is X-Box 360 is 10 million and PS3 is at 3.42.

Let me correct myself. The X-Box 360 sold 10 million in 18 months since it launched, during which time it also had one (I believe) price cut. So that's roughly 555,555 units per month.

The PS3 sold 3.42 million in 6 months with no price cuts and a higher price than X-Box 360 too. That's roughly 570,000 units per month.

The silver lining is a matter of perspective, I think. :cool:


fuad
(1) I don't remember a price cut on the 360, but maybe I wasn't paying attention.
(2) You are comparing apples to oranges when you average out a system that had one holiday season per 12 month period with one that had one holiday season over 6 months. IOW, the next 4 months will bring the PS3 average down.
(3) Didn't the PS3 sell worse last month than any single month of the 360 ever? I may be mistaken, but I believe the most recent numbers show that the PS3 currently holds the record for the worst sells of any month on any next gen platform. Hard to see a silver lining there.


Edit: But it should be noted, for the purposes of BD movies, it's selling just fine. Only as a game console is it somewhat underperforming.

It's only dumb if you don't understand the context in which I brought it up. I do agree the PS3 isn't selling well though.

In the future it would help your credibilty to not make baseless accusations on things you know absolutely nothing about.

Actually I know more about this than you think. YOURE the one that put the chart up, not I. So speaking of credibility!

Why is it when HDDVD folk talk of attach rate and so on, BD folk say "Its the total numbers who cares" Then when I mention total 360 numbers I get a million excuses from Sony Boys

"Oh just wait games are coming"

"Look at the four month trend"

blah blah

If your a gamer, you should own a 360 right? its about content I thought? or does that only apply to HD media?

Boggles the mind.

I believe we ALL know this, including Fuad. He obviously meant that analog transmission were mandated to end soon, not SD. Do you really think that he believes that ALL tv shows/broadcasts will magically appear in HD in a year and a half?
Dude - he said it, not me. Read his comment again:
SD broadcast is mandated to end soon (2009?) which will lead to more consumers buying HDTVs and getting HD broadcast and HD content on BDs.

Why would consumers buy HDTVs instead of just getting a box that would make their existing TV work just fine? Why would the switch to digital lead to more consumers "getting HD content and HD content on BDs?" I don't think it's obvious at all that he knew what was really happening. His post shows that he believed that SD broadcasts were ending, not analog.

Why not take the person who was incorrect to task, rather than the one pointing out the inaccuracy? I'm really not sure why you're jumping to his defense - he posted an incorrect statement and it was corrected. The issue was closed until you decided to speak up for him.

Incorrect. All broadcasts must be digital by a certain date, not HD. Really? Urgh, that's WAY bad. Bad decision. The FCC could have mandated that the set-top box adopter downconverted the HD signal to 480p LBX.

No price cut for the 360. Really? Well, the numbers still hold.


fuad

Dude - he said it, not me. Read his comment again:

Why would consumers buy HDTVs instead of just getting a box that would make their existing TV work just fine? Why would the switch to digital lead to more consumers "getting HD content and HD content on BDs?" I don't think it's obvious at all that he knew what was really happening. His post shows that he believed that SD broadcasts were ending, not analog.

Why not take the person who was incorrect to task, rather than the one pointing out the inaccuracy? I'm really not sure why you're jumping to his defense - he posted an incorrect statement and it was corrected. The issue was closed until you decided to speak up for him.

I stand corrected!

:eek: ;)

I stand corrected!

:eek: ;)
No problem. Sorry about the short-fused reply. I get like that sometimes. :o

No problem. Sorry about the short-fused reply. I get like that sometimes. :o

Such is life in the middle of this stupid format "war"!

I believe we ALL know this, including Fuad. He obviously meant that analog transmission were mandated to end soon, not SD. Do you really think that he believes that ALL tv shows/broadcasts will magically appear in HD in a year and a half? I believed that all analog SD terrestrial transmission to end soon. I believed wrong, with horror. Not so much that I was wrong but at the decision making! :eek: Which of course is a different topic. :cool: Thanks Rob!

This VGChartz link is to the Console Sales aligned by launch dates and per weekly sales. (http://www.vgchartz.com/hwcomps.php?cons1=Wii&reg1=All&cons2=PS3&reg2=All&cons3=X360&reg3=All&align=1&weekly=1)


fuad

I believed that all analog SD terrestrial transmission to end soon. I believed wrong, with horror. Not so much that I was wrong but at the decision making! :eek: Which of course is a different topic. :cool: Thanks Rob!


fuad

Just for clarification: there will be an end to ANALOG transmission. Those wavelengths are going to go back to the govt, and all TV stations must transmit DIGITALLY. Well, you could say that DirecTv transmits digitally, but as we all know, that doesn't mean all their programming is in HD. In fact, far from it!

Gaming talk belongs in gaming area. Stop the fighting and personal attacks.

Where in my post did I say or imply that home theater is for people with "high" disposable incomes?


I don't know maybe I was confused by this comment which I also quoted in my original reply.

Because of this, people with lower disposable income were enticed by lower prices but without knowing the full weight of the issues behind the format war.


That's not an implication? Come on now! :rolleyes:

I have seen this slip repeatedly into debates about BD vs. HD DVD. The argument seems to go like this;

If it wasn't for those damn cheap players (and the cheap people who buy them) this war would be over already.

Of course noone comes right out and CALLS the people buying HD-DVD cheap, but the implication is definitely there in numerous posts.

As I've said before, the entire idea that this is all MS fault is laughable. Might as well blame all the other neutral companies AND neutral consumers who are either producing HD DVD hardware and software or buying it.

If BD can't win this thing with their numerous advantages, then they don't deserve to.

In the end it won't matter what format snobs think of this whole thing. If the guy with a median income won't plunk down for HD then the war is lost for both companies, whether there was a war or not.

I believe we ALL know this, including Fuad. He obviously meant that analog transmission were mandated to end soon, not SD. Do you really think that he believes that ALL tv shows/broadcasts will magically appear in HD in a year and a half?
Rob, what he said and what he meant are 2 different things. Fuad hasn't responded to these corrections yet he still makes posts.

As for the whole BD vs HD DVD, there is no indication right now as to which format is the underdog. Sales to early adopters don't count. It is when the mass consumers get into the fray will there be an indication as to who the underdog is.

As for game systems, we have to look at all of them as the PS3 and 360 are still competing against Wii, Gamecube, PS2 and others. And since as Jackbee mentioned, the PS3 is competing against the PS2 and losing. What does that tell us of the gaming community? The best selling right now is the Wii. What does that tell us of next gen movies in game consoles?

Fuad, a factual, reasonable debate is made when you use facts and from those facts come to a logical conclusion to add to the debate. When speculations are presented then it no longer is a factual, reasonable debate because anybody can speculate as to future sales based on their bias, not facts.
You made a comment based on 720P sets not being enough. For whom are you making this statement? This is not a factual statement but a bias towards 1080P. As far as I know most households in this country and others don't have huge rooms with huge TV's to take advantage of 1080P. If you actually sit a 42" 720P set and a 42" 1080P set would you actually be able to see the difference if both are fed a 1080P signal? I hate to say this but 720P is a standard here in America and still needs to be considered as there are more people watching broadcast TV than watching HD DVD or Blu Ray movies.
Also, what was your point in saying that the war should not have been somebody's war? You implied (I assume) that since it is new technology it should come at a premium and that HD DVD screwed that up. However, to me, it brought in to the war many who, if left to the BD, would have loved to keep them out. However, HD DVD brought them in, so right now it's a war for those that can afford a lower price point.

If I remember correctly this thread should have stayed on topic of MS and downloading than a pissing match of the 2 formats again.

And Brianmonkey, how come you haven't responded to my previous post asking what you implied concerning MS's 120GB HD and PS3's 60GB HD?

Edit, after posting I apologize to Rob as he posted a reply to Fuad (who also apologized).

Really? Urgh, that's WAY bad. Bad decision. The FCC could have mandated that the set-top box adopter downconverted the HD signal to 480p LBX.

Who cares about HD ? What matters is that they get a lot of bandwidth to be auctioned off.

Anyway % of families dependant on OTA in the US is very small - and is usually in the lower economic strata. So, IMO, the switch over means zilch to HiDef DVD.

Rob, what he said and what he meant are 2 different things. Fuad hasn't responded to these corrections yet he still makes posts.



Actually he did respond Paul. You must have missed it.

TrueHD is bit for bit identical to PCM... the entire "sounds better than" argument is severely dated

I'm going to remember that next time someone says VC-1 is better than AVC or MPEG-2.

I'm going to remember that next time someone says VC-1 is better than AVC or MPEG-2.

The problem there is that VC-1 is not the same bit for bit with AVC or Mpeg-2 (or any combinaton of any of those). I would be more upset if they said VC-1 was bit for bit the same as the master (or if MPEG-2 or AVC for that matter). I don't give a crap what codec it is as long as it is done well. I think it has been seen that any of the 3 can be pretty darn good but that they all have limitations and some are better than others at certain things. I own BDs in VC1, AVC and MPEG-2 and I won HD DVDs in VC-1 and AVC. Some look good...Others could be better

Actually he did respond Paul. You must have missed it.
Sorry Rob, I did edit my post.

The problem there is that VC-1 is not the same bit for bit with AVC or Mpeg-2 (or any combinaton of any of those). I would be more upset if they said VC-1 was bit for bit the same as the master (or if MPEG-2 or AVC for that matter). I don't give a crap what codec it is as long as it is done well. I think it has been seen that any of the 3 can be pretty darn good but that they all have limitations and some are better than others at certain things.
I agree as I just viewed Ghost Rider and thought it looked fine using AVC (I did see banding during the end credits though).

I'm going to remember that next time someone says VC-1 is better than AVC or MPEG-2.


Go ahead. I don't recall anyone calling any 3 of them LOSSLESS codec's.

This format war should not have been your war.

The DVPS1000, a DVD player, by Sony had an MSRP of US$1000. I don't even know how much the early CD players costs, or laser printers (monochrome or color), or 42" HDTV plasma or even the first color TV (PAL/NTSC). This is the nature of early adopters's market. It's costly.

Again, this format war should not have been your war. It's an early adopters' market and as such should have remained at a premium. But it didn't, because Toshiba thought that by lowering its prices, the player sales would have convinced the studios to be neutral. It hadn't. Because of this, people with lower disposable income were enticed by lower prices but without knowing the full weight of the issues behind the format war.

With all due respect, I don't think it is your place (or mine) to tell him what he should or "should not" do, such as buying a HD-DVD player and therefore (in your words) becoming part of this "war". I understand that you didn't mean to LITERALLY tell him what he should and should not do, however I think your entire argument is flawed on more than one level. There is no right or wrong time for a consumer to decide that a product is both a good value and affordable for himself or herself.

Yes, it is an early adopters' market right now but why on earth would you or anyone say prices "should have remained at a premium"? That makes no sense at all to me, even if you are suggesting player prices somehow should remain at a premium until the so-called format war is over and/or there are more movie titles available. Obviously it will remain an early adopters' market until prices come down, which they just so happen to be doing now thanks to fierce competition and format war. That's just the reality of the situation.

As far as "the HD market would be at and remain at laserdisc size", I think laserdisc owners were more than current HD-DVD owners.

I have no idea what the numbers of LD players and LD disc sales reached at their peak, but I imagine someone here on AVS might have that data. Wikipedia says "there are more than 1 million players in home use in the U.S." but doesn't cite a source or even a date for that figure. If that's indeed the case, one could argue we're already past that point thanks to the PS3 and will likely hit 1 million standalone HD optical players by the year's end. I'm pretty sure player prices are already much lower than LD ever was as I paid significantly less for my HD-A2 than I did for my last VCR, a S-VHS machine back in 1997. (Oh, man, talk about a waste of money!) Unfortunately, we haven't gotten very far yet with available titles. There's a "Laserdisc Database" web site that has over 40000 titles in its catalog, which is actually a heck of a lot more than I imagined there would be.

Anyway, it's possible that HD optical will not hit mass adoption levels comparable to DVD for a long time or ever. LD went largely unchalleged as far as video quality goes for many years but, in this day and age, things are moving much faster and there is already stiff competition from regular DVD and ever increasing downloadable content. If HD optical doesn't ever hit the big time, I seriously doubt it will be because of HD-DVD holding BD back. Just my opinion, of course.

Fuad, I've just finished reading all of your posts in this thread and a few of your posts from other threads. I could be mistaken, but you seem to be a very staunch supporter of BD and Sony. In the interest of full disclosure, may I ask if you work for Sony or are affiliated in any way with Sony or any company directly affiliated with Sony or the BDA? For some odd reason, I have this image of someone, a manager perhaps, working in a factory in Malaysia that cranks out DVD players for Sony. ;) No offense intended. To be fair, I do not work for or have any affiliation with Sony, BDA, Toshiba, Microsoft or any company even remotely related to the HD optical format war.

Bradley

I have no idea what the numbers of LD players and LD disc sales reached at their peak, but I imagine someone here on AVS might have that data. Wikipedia says "there are more than 1 million players in home use in the U.S." but doesn't cite a source or even a date for that figure. If that's indeed the case, one could argue we're already past that point thanks to the PS3 and will likely hit 1 million standalone HD optical players by the year's end. I'm pretty sure player prices are already much lower than LD ever was as I paid significantly less for my HD-A2 than I did for my last VCR, a S-VHS machine back in 1997. (Oh, man, talk about a waste of money!) Unfortunately, we haven't gotten very far yet with available titles. There's a "Laserdisc Database" web site that has over 40000 titles in its catalog, which is actually a heck of a lot more than I imagined there would be.
Bradley


Yep I still own more LDs right now than there are BD/HDDVD discs currently available (even if you add the two sides together and include imports) And that was after I sold a bunch off years ago.

I don't know maybe I was confused by this comment which I also quoted in my original reply.

That's not an implication? Come on now! :rolleyes: :rolleyes: You should be able to grasp this explanation. People with high incomes can have a low disposable income due to many things - taxes, insurance, mortgage, credit card bills and alimony. However, their disposable income is not at the same level as people who are in the low income category.

Single, young people with Job A can have a higher disposable income than their married, older counterparts with the same job. And that's just on disposable income.

Early adopter demographic is a step above that - or at least it's been that way throughout the history of new consumer electronic products. They are the ones who want the latest toy. Most are genuine enthusiasts and a few are just show-offs. They generally accept the risk that while their units are expensive, subsequent models would be cheaper. Because they accept this risk, they are more likely to have higher DISPOSABLE income.

I have seen this slip repeatedly into debates about BD vs. HD DVD. The argument seems to go like this;

If it wasn't for those damn cheap players (and the cheap people who buy them) this war would be over already.

Of course noone comes right out and CALLS the people buying HD-DVD cheap, but the implication is definitely there in numerous posts. Here's a genuine newsflash: a person can be CHEAP and have a high disposable income.

I really don't blame the people who have lower disposable income (who just happen to have HDTVs unlike those who have low income) who have bought HD-DVD players. Like I said before, they do so without knowing the full weight of the issues behind the format war.

I blame Toshiba and Microsoft.

As I've said before, the entire idea that this is all MS fault is laughable.
I don't think it's laughable at all. I just think it's insidious and ultimately doesn't even benefit Toshiba.

In the end it won't matter what format snobs think of this whole thing. If the guy with a median income won't plunk down for HD then the war is lost for both companies, whether there was a war or not. To reiterate, median income doesn't mean lower or higher disposable income.


fuad

With all due respect, I don't think it is your place (or mine) to tell him what he should or "should not" do, such as buying a HD-DVD player and therefore (in your words) becoming part of this "war". Of course you know I'm not telling him what to do in that post.

I did say in another post what they can do if they really love movies and want to watch them in HD. I stand by that.

There is no right or wrong time for a consumer to decide that a product is both a good value and affordable for himself or herself. I believe the exception to that is where there's a format war (and not competition). But you can dissent.

Yes, it is an early adopters' market right now but why on earth would you or anyone say prices "should have remained at a premium"? That makes no sense at all to me, even if you are suggesting player prices somehow should remain at a premium until the so-called format war is over and/or there are more movie titles available. Obviously it will remain an early adopters' market until prices come down, which they just so happen to be doing now thanks to fierce competition and format war. That's just the reality of the situation.

If there was no format war, the early adopters would be presented with the products at a premium price. This is true for Laserdisc, CD, DVD and VHS players. It is also true with PCs, laser printers, TVs and many other consumer electronic products (relative to their functionality). This price premium is true at least for the first 12 months of the products' lives. Eventually, the price premium drops as more players are made and the products are bought by the not-so-early adopters. It drops further when it gets to the J6P market. So you know this (I assume).

So why did I say it should remain at a premium? Let's hark back to the format war between Betamax and VHS. I don't believe that in the first 24 months of that war the prices of players gone down to US$200 (or its inflation equivalent) with free movies to boot.

Then there was that format "skirmish" between MiniDisc and DCC which vied for a recordable digital media. While ultimately the skirmish ended with DCC gone down the tubes and MiniDisc achieved limited success worldwide, the prices of players at launch were similar. The prices were reduced because the formats did not get adopted as Sony and Philips had hoped for. It simply had too much competition with CDs.

So that's why I say it should remain at a premium.

With that historical context, why did Toshiba drastically reduced the price of its players in the first 12 months? It can't be because of Microsoft, can it?

I have no idea what the numbers of LD players and LD disc sales reached at their peak, but I imagine someone here on AVS might have that data. Wikipedia says "there are more than 1 million players in home use in the U.S." but doesn't cite a source or even a date for that figure. If that's indeed the case, one could argue we're already past that point thanks to the PS3 and will likely hit 1 million standalone HD optical players by the year's end. Well if we count the PS3 as a BD player, we're way past 1 million. At 10% of BD usage, PS3's numbers would be 300K as of this post. So 300K PS3s plus BD standalones won't yield 1 million worldwide. Of course, we could go round and round the PS3 figures, so I won't go there much.

Anyway, it's possible that HD optical will not hit mass adoption levels comparable to DVD for a long time or ever. Maybe not at US$99 players. But kjack have vaguely hinted that things will change later this year. Who is kjack? Well...

Fuad, I've just finished reading all of your posts in this thread and a few of your posts from other threads. I could be mistaken, but you seem to be a very staunch supporter of BD and Sony. In the interest of full disclosure, may I ask if you work for Sony or are affiliated in any way with Sony or any company directly affiliated with Sony or the BDA? For some odd reason, I have this image of someone, a manager perhaps, working in a factory in Malaysia that cranks out DVD players for Sony. ;) No offense intended. To be fair, I do not work for or have any affiliation with Sony, BDA, Toshiba, Microsoft or any company even remotely related to the HD optical format war.My first WTF moment this year at AVSF.

Why is it that anyone who can debate the merits of BD without sounding like a fanboy is suspected to be working with the BDA, the BD promotion group or its individual companies? I find it offensive. The witch hunt of TalkStr8t, Penton-Man, PeterTHX and others come to mind.

I've said in past posts in the BD forum and perhaps other forums that I'm not a BD insider in the last 24 months. This fact hasn't changed as of this date.


fuad

COMPLETELY OFF TOPIC. Don't hate me. I'm not even the messenger; just a poster.

http://www.tsurugi.co.uk/misc/20th-c-fox_blu-ray.jpg

http://img517.imageshack.us/img517/9619/disneynv5.jpg

And no, I don't work for the advertising agencies that created those ads.


fuad

My first WTF moment this year at AVSF.


It must have been one fantastic year so far already.

time