The three profiles of BD

1.0

This is the basic profile that all current Blu-ray players (as of April 2007) are based on. Players based on this profile are only required to have 64 KB of application data area storage, which is typically used for bookmarks and other preference storage

1.1 (mandatory November 2007)

capability of supporting a minimum of 256 MB of local storage (for storing audio/video and title updates).

2.0 (BD-Live)

Profile 2, also known as BD-Live, adds network connectivity to the list of mandatory functions and increases mandatory local storage capability to 1 GB.

----------------------------------------------------------------

Notice that the amount of Local Storage keeps going up. It starts at 64KB, then moves to 256 MB, then all the way to 1GB.

Prices are down to $499 MSRP.Next year when the 1.1 players come out - they will also have to be 2.0 compliant at the same time.

So all the BD players will have to add Ethernet Connection and 1 GB of Local Storage . . . .

And the MSRP is going down.

Yes, I've never heard of technology improving while prices fall.

i do not believe players HAVE to be 2.0 it is a option.
It is just that if you claim 2.0 live you have to meet these minimum standards.

I have NO reason to buy a 2.0 player as i will never connect it to the internet.

It seems it only has to provide a slot for storage. Not the storage itself, .

So all the BD players will have to add Ethernet Connection and 1 GB of Local Storage . . . .
I'd guess that's *maybe* $2 worth of parts to these companies? Retail end user price for desktop components are $5 for a nic, $35 for 1gb ddr2. :rolleyes:

Isn't similar hardware already standard in HD DVD players? Don't people claim that Toshiba sells the current crop of HD DVD players for a profit? Are you saying that Toshiba (one of the smaller CEs) somehow knows a secret to include similar hardware for a substantially cheaper price?

Did you even bother to see how much SD flash cards even cost? You can buy a 1GB PNY retail package from newegg $11.99, and thats not even the cheapest one you can buy.

This is related to the question in this thread. Kjack has mentioned elsewhere talking to Chinese companies that are very interested in making Blu-ray players. I am wondering how much price difference there would be at retail if 2 Chinese companies that were basically equivalent each built a player (one an HD DVD player and one a Blu-ray player) and sold them for the same percentage markup. Are people under the impression that the Blu-ray player would be way more expensive (like more than $50) at retail if both were coming from similar companies with the same incentives (not like Toshiba who has a lot to lose in this war and so has a big incentive to push prices low even if there is zero profit in the players)? If people do think the Blu-ray player would be way more expensive than the HD DVD player this way, I am wondering why they think that. If Toshiba's entry level price hadn't been any lower than the lowest standalone Blu-ray player the war might be over now, so I don't consider them doing what they had to do (pricing much lower) to even be in this game to be proof that HD DVD players are significantly cheaper to make if the same company is making them in the same spot.

I think there is a very good chance that if Chinese companies can bring HD DVD players to the market for $199 and make money that Chinese companies would be able to bring Blu-ray players to market for $249 and make money, although it might be a few months later if the Microsoft and Broadcom integrated solution got a jump on things for HD DVD.
Prices are down to $499 MSRP.Next year when the 1.1 players come out - they will also have to be 2.0 compliant at the same time.I haven't seen anything to indicate that 2.0 compliance will ever be a requirement for players. Just a requirement to get the BD-Live logo.

--Darin

Yes, I've never heard of technology improving while prices fall.

It hapens all the time. For example the Sony Ruby front projector took the technology a step further with a price that shook the industry.

Cheers,

Grant

As others mentioned, I have seen no indication that 2.0 will be mandatory. As for the memory requirement, I'm not entirely sure whether this is RAM or persistant (Flash) memory? If it is "just" flash, as Wreckshop mentioned, retail prices today are down to about $10. Manufacturers would pay less obviously.

It hapens all the time. For example the Sony Ruby front projector took the technology a step further with a price that shook the industry.

Cheers,

Grant
I'm pretty sure mrseder was being sarcastic above. :)

As others mentioned, I have seen no indication that 2.0 will be mandatory. As for the memory requirement, I'm not entirely sure whether this is RAM or persistant (Flash) memory? If it is "just" flash, as Wreckshop mentioned, retail prices today are down to about $10. Manufacturers would pay less obviously.
Per the BD 2.0 (BD-Live) specs, it requires 1 GB of persistent storage. Flash memory should be acceptable under this description, particularly as it is disambiguated from RAM since there's also a requirement for 256MB of RAM.

Sarcasm doesn't belong in such an obviously technical thread.

Sarcasm doesn't belong in such an obviously technical thread.
It's not a very technical thread when the OP isn't using the proper technical terms to describe the topic, IMO.

It's not a very technical thread when the OP isn't using the proper technical terms to describe the topic, IMO.

The terms are a cut/paste from Wiki. Local Storage is just another name for Persistent Storage. According to a few PDF's on the subject it uses RAM memory

The terms are a cut/paste from Wiki. Local Storage is just another name for Persistent Storage. According to a few PDF's on the subject it uses RAM memory
From a quick perusal of the available information, the storage is being used for temporary caching of downloadable content. In this respect, I suppose it matters little how that goal is achieved. RAM is faster, but not strictly necessary in that circumstance, though a CE manufacturer may opt for RAM over flash memory specifically for the performance improvement.

In any case, there are no stipulations about BD-Live being required on any player at this time. Considering how few people would actually bother to permanently connect their home theater system to the Internet, I don't foresee it ever becoming a mandatory part of the specification.

Is the persistant storage a standard flash storage, or is it a specialized part that requires encryption components and software.

I was under the impression the latter is the case with HD DVD players and will likely be moreso with Blu Ray players considering the focus on security.

That increases the integration costs considerably...

Is the persistant storage a standard flash storage, or is it a specialized part that requires encryption components and software.

I was under the impression the latter is the case with HD DVD players and will likely be moreso with Blu Ray players considering the focus on security.

That increases the integration costs considerably...

Does this help to determine if what you are suggesting is true?

http://www.bigsnow.org/persistent/

Per the BD 2.0 (BD-Live) specs, it requires 1 GB of persistent storage. Flash memory should be acceptable under this description, particularly as it is disambiguated from RAM since there's also a requirement for 256MB of RAM.

Of course it's flash memory. Regular ol DDR is not persistant. Once you turn the power off all contents in memory are purged.

I expect we'll see 1.0 players discontinued and 1.1 players replace them at equivalent and lower price points, I expect the Sony's to be mid $300 by the fall, before the holidays, with the costco/sams model(s) dipping slightly under.

I expect most 2.0's to be about $500-700 depending on make, though high end types like Denon will remain in their traditional price points ($1000-4000).

I expect a lot of consumers to be rather upset when they buy a BR disc and find that many features do not work on their $500 player. It will be even worse when they buy the 1.1 version only to have it replaced with 2.0.

Sadly there are uninformed consumers who will be in for a shock.

I expect we'll see 1.0 players discontinued and 1.1 players replace them at equivalent and lower price points, I expect the Sony's to be mid $300 by the fall, before the holidays, with the costco/sams model(s) dipping slightly under.

I expect most 2.0's to be about $500-700 depending on make, though high end types like Denon will remain in their traditional price points ($1000-4000).

And when are these 1.1 compliant players supposed to arrive?

And when are these 1.1 compliant players supposed to arrive?

All player manufactured after 31 OCT are supposed to be 1.1 compliant, are they not?

I expect a lot of consumers to be rather upset when they buy a BR disc and find that many features do not work on their $500 player. It will be even worse when they buy the 1.1 version only to have it replaced with 2.0."Many"? More HD DVD fearmongering. It's all of 3 out of over 10 on "300". But the discs will still play, which is more than we can expect out of those TL51 discs and G1 & G2 HD DVD players.

All player manufactured after 31 OCT are supposed to be 1.1 compliant, are they not?

No - all new players "introduced" after 10/31 have to be 1.1 compliant - not manufactured/sold - I already made that definition mistake and was properly corrected.

Only announced 1.1 BD player is the Denon

And you can almost certainly count on Sony, Panasonic, and Pioneer to also introduce new players, as well. It's what they do. Whether Sony will let the BDP-S300 linger around at an even lower price point is an interesting tool they have in the bag, though.

Say... BDPS300 (1.0) $199, BDPS500 (1.1) $299, BDPS1100 (2.0) $799 along with a 2.0 PS3 at $499 & $599 could be a powerful weapon...

And you can almost certainly count on Sony, Panasonic, and Pioneer to also introduce new players, as well. It's what they do. Whether Sony will let the BDP-S300 linger around at an even lower price point is an interesting tool they have in the bag, though.

Say... BDPS300 (1.0) $199, BDPS500 (1.1) $299, BDPS1100 (2.0) $799 along with a 2.0 PS3 at $499 & $599 could be a powerful weapon...

Can you give me a link to information on the BDP-S500 and BDP-S1100?

He'll be required to do that when HD DVD supporters are required to give links to information on announced $199 or Chinese HD DVD player. Sounds fair to me.

He'll be required to do that when HD DVD supporters are required to give links to information on announced $199 or Chinese HD DVD player. Sounds fair to me.

But he is saying that the BDP-S500 will be 1.1 compliant and the BDP-S1100 will be 2.0 compliant. I would like to see any info with a link that shows that. We can provide plenty of links that show information on Chinese HD DVD players.

Here is a picture of one:


http://i181.photobucket.com/albums/x66/LeeAStewart/02.jpg

Blu ray needs more Denon 3800's in the news and that will make $499 seem like a deal.

We can provide plenty of links that show information on Chinese HD DVD players.

Here is a picture of oneWas the word "announced" somehow unclear? If I wanted to play like that, I'll use the Onkyo dual-format player, or the LG BD-only, or Fuh Yuan and the Chinese manufacturers that kjack is working with for BD-only.

Was the word "announced" somehow unclear? If I wanted to play like that, I'll use the Onkyo dual-format player, or the LG BD-only, or Fuh Yuan and the Chinese manufacturers that kjack is working with for BD-only.

I gave some form of proof; a picture from the CeBit show held in 3/07 - now how about something on those Sony players I mentioned. Any link that is not a forum post. Like a news article.

Your post:

He'll be required to do that when HD DVD supporters are required to give links to information on announced $199 or Chinese HD DVD player. Sounds fair to me.

This is not a "format war" my format is better than yours issue. This is a request for information . . . nothing more. If Sony has 2 new players coming out Q4 it should be easy to provide solid information - only 2 to 3 months away.

I gave some form of proof; a picture from the CeBit show held in 3/07And again, that wasn't announced. By your rationale, I could put up pictures of discs like "Sin City" and "Kill Bill" on Blu-ray and call that official.
This is not a "format war" my format is better than yours issue. This is a request for information . . . nothing more. If Sony has 2 new players coming out Q4 it should be easy to provide solid information - only 2 to 3 months away.And if Chinese players are coming Q4, it should be just as easy.

And again, that wasn't announced. By your rationale, I could put up pictures of discs like "Sin City" and "Kill Bill" on Blu-ray and call that official.
And if Chinese players are coming Q4, it should be just as easy.

I believe there were MANY articles on the issue of Chinese Players. One right from an Annual Report. Big thread on it too. Just like all the articles on the Wal-Mart Chinese HD DVD player deal.

So if I understand you properly . . .the S500 and S1100 don't exist. No announcement according to you.

So where did he get the Profile Compliance numbers from?

Originally Posted by UxiSXRD
And you can almost certainly count on Sony, Panasonic, and Pioneer to also introduce new players, as well. It's what they do. Whether Sony will let the BDP-S300 linger around at an even lower price point is an interesting tool they have in the bag, though.

Say... BDPS300 (1.0) $199, BDPS500 (1.1) $299, BDPS1100 (2.0) $799 along with a 2.0 PS3 at $499 & $599 could be a powerful weapon...

Did he just make them up?

Making up is OK from that side

It's called an example. Nowhere did he state it as fact, but rather said that it was a way that could proceed.

And I still continue to wonder why a BD player thread resides in the main forum instead of in the BD Hardware forum where it belongs...

When everyone involved PMs me and agrees to stop the bickering, I'll reopen this thread.