Seems like the majority of these threads are fanboy-style posts in favor of their preferred HD format winning the "war." Why are so few people talking about the co-existence of HD-DVD and BR for the forseeable future?

There are plenty of at least reasonably comparable examples of non-compatible formats that have competed and co-existed for years if not decades: Mac vs. PC, Playstation vs. everything else, even those old Polaroid "instant" cameras. The professional video market has several non-compatible formats (Sony's DVCAM, etc.).

That there is both HD-DVD and BR is probably something that never should have happened, but the fact remains there are BILLIONS invested in each format by Fortune 50 companies who seem willing to fight to the end for "their" format.

Personally, I see a long and bloody battle that is not decided any time soon, if at all.

"dogs and cats...living together....it'll be total anarchy!"

There can only be one!!!!

Many people HAVE talked about the two formats coexisting. I have, thats for sure. That isn't *exciting* or *dramatic* though. People want one format to win becasue its a "war".

And if thats what it takes, long live HD-DVD. :) Seriously I think that both formats will coexist forever now after the paramount move unless someone else abandons Blu-Ray, in which case HD-DVD might just win. I don't have a problem with the idea of dual-format players. I just have a problem with their price (which I'm sure will eventually go down).

While I have my doubts both will coexist in the longterm I certainly wouldn't have a problem with that happening at all. I know the gaming world doesn't have a problem with this so I believe coexistence is a possibility. And really, I think the industry should have to share the success of both formats for not coming to a one format compromise prior to each format's launch. Neither side deserves all the money IMO.

Mass hysteria!

YEs, I think it's obvious that both formats are here to stay. Some folks on the BD side never wanted to accept this as they wanted a "kill" of HD DVD.

No question they will both have to coexist, but also that HD DVD is better positioned to thrive over the next 12 months. Getting to the mass market will ensure an HD DVD win.

But for now? Yup, coexisting is fine...

Both formats are co-existing.

Both formats are co-existing.

You mean like VHS and Beta co-existed for almost 10 years?

From me it is a simple common sense choice as to why I want one format, BD to win.

In one machine I have a PC, gaming and movie capability without extras or add ons, namely the PS3. I don't want to have to spend more money on a second player. I don't want to have a second player taking up more space. I want to go to a store or rental and pick from ANY available movies and NOT have to choose by studio just to see certain films.

I have both an HD DVD player and a BD player, and I'm happy with that situation. However, there are a large group of people who feel it is necessary for me to throw my HD DVD player in the trash in order for them to be happy.

They have this theory that it is impossible for the world to have multiple formats of a product at the same time. It's like matter and anti-matter to them. There will be explosions, famines, and our babies will have genetic mutations if we allow this situation to carry on. For my own good they are trying to kill my HD DVD player.

The fact that we already have multiple formats in computers (macs and pc's), rear screen displays (SXRD DLP) flat panels (LCD Plasma) viewing formats (widescreen fullscreen) fuel (unleaded diesel), video game consoles, etc. and just about every other product under the sun doesn't seem to phase them. Or maybe they believe this is the cause of the resurgence of syphilis and mad cow disease, and if we didn't have Diesel engines, gasoline powered cars would actually sell much better. Who knows. But I do know that everytime I hear a stirring downstairs in my living room, I suspect it's a BD fan trying to do me a favor by destroying my HD DVD player.

Sorry, but there are no comparable examples of mass-media distribution formats co-existing for a long period of time for reason; unlike computer OSes, or console gaming, or recordable media, consumer media distribution requires very high volumes of low-margin software.

The large amount of money made on video games means you can sell a lot less and make good money; the fact that computer hardware itself is very profitable (and its margins cosntantly renew with each generation of newer computer harware) makes it dramatically different than the media distribution also.

To make money on media distribution like music, movies, etc, you not only need lost of people to buy (or rent) them, you need peoply to purchase lots of different titles. This means retail space, and a price that is in the impulse-buy range. This is why new formats either succeed (by replacing the previous format) or they remain small an unimportant. If you want to be able to buy your favorite niche film or video in high definition, you must have 1 format.

Relevant Examples:

CDs vs Cassette tapes - there was a fairly prolonged replacement time for tapes and CDs. During that time many music stores carried both, but a smaller selection than before or after the transition. As CDs hit a critical mass, they uderstandably started to embrace that format (which had higher margins and also encourage the re-purchasing of titles) even though many people enjoyed tapes for years to come. Now, of course, you can purchase anything on CD, including mass-distribution of independent bands (but see mp3s below). Also notice that CD standardized itself as the next gen audio format while players and media were still very expensive.

CDs vs minidisk - Despite being a very versitile format, Minidisk failed to catch on, and so retailers never expanded their offers. There are not many titles you can buy on minidisk, although of course minidisk owners can record music from other formats onto their media.

DVD-A vs SACD - The classic example of media distribution formats that never caught on. It's possible niether would have fully caught on even without the competition, but the format war they were in ensured both formats would never reach mass adoption. SACD appears to be entrenching itself in the kind of upscale niche market that vinyl is still sold in (and internet mail order companies help ease the availability when retail outlets won't carry such niche formats). We do NOT want HDM to end up like this.

CDs vs MP3 - despite the fact that CDs and MP3s are more complimentary than normal competing media (and mp3s aren't even physical media) their sales are clearly eating into the CD market. Furthermore, more and more shelf space is being dedicated to mp3 players and their supporting gadgets these days, often at the expense of CD selections. Many ndependent bands now choose to release their music on MP3 and skip making CDs. This trend will likely continue over the next decade, with CD sales dwindling until only specialy stores carry them. Note that Ipods and other early MP3 players were quite expensive (many of the still are) when sales took off.

VHS vs Beta - The other classic example of a format battle; One format won and continued on to have essentailly all video projects distributed on it (VHS) while the other eventually died. This was a long hard battle, and true niche products (Jazzercizing to the Oldies!) did not become common until their was a winning format.

DVD vs Divx - It's easy to write this one off since it was a short-lived format battle, but that's exactly why DVD became the most rapidly adopted consumer media format. And don't forget that there was (initially) a lot of split studio and retail support. Rapid resolution to the format war allowed DVD to become entrenched in the public mind as "the next gen" video format, even though it took years to actually eclipse VHS sales. Note that DVD "won" while player prices were still very high and sales volumes were low.

Conclusion: Lots of things effect media distribution format adoption, including percieved quality, price, availability, etc. But every succesful next-gen format that I'm aware of standardized itself via public perception while it was still quite pricy. That drives up consumer interest early while margins are high, and lets sales accelerate as prices come down. Notice thatt here is no such thing as competing formats co-existing and also reaching mass adoption. The closest thing you have to that is when one format is replacing another (e.g. CD vs tapes, VHS vs DVD). Retail space and consumer uncertainty make it uneconomical to produce the huge variety of titles we see on DVD as long as there are two HDM formats. One has to die, or we all lose.

I love low prices as much as anyone (that's the only reason I bought my A1), but depreciating the cost of an item before there is a "winner" jeopordizes the build up of consumer interest. Ipods sell very well at $200-$450 a pop (even to teenagers) because everyone wants one, while sub $100 minidisk players languish. SACD is not even a feature most people would recognize, let alone pay extra for these days. If player prices bottom out before consumer interest is piqued (and that requires a single format) we will lose industry support (no profit margins) long before you can buy all of your favorite movies and TV specials on HDM. History is clear: low prices drive sales when consumer interst is high; price alone is NOT the barrier we have to worry about.

This format war is a disaster; the sooner it ends the better.

From me it is a simple common sense choice as to why I want one format, BD to win.

In one machine I have a PC, gaming and movie capability without extras or add ons, namely the PS3. I don't want to have to spend more money on a second player. I don't want to have a second player taking up more space. I want to go to a store or rental and pick from ANY available movies and NOT have to choose by studio just to see certain films.

That's a good reason to want all studios to support BD. But it doesn't explain why you don't want HD DVD owners to have that same opportunity.

Sorry, but there are no comparable examples of mass-media distribution formats co-existing for a long period of time for reason;

Itunes/Ipod vs. MP3 players

Itunes/Ipod vs. MP3 players

Um, those ARE mp3 players. It's still all the same format. In fact, notice how the rampant proliferation of mp3 sales has largely stymied music distribution in other digital file formats...even though you can easily convert them to .wma or whatnot.

Itunes/Ipod vs. MP3 players

Wrongo, you can play MP3's just about anywhere, I believe Ipods too. This is not the same.

That's a good reason to want all studios to support BD. But it doesn't explain why you don't want HD DVD owners to have that same opportunity.


Actually, yes it does by implication. There is no all in one solution for HD DVD other than an HTPC, but that will do PC games only. For HD DVD you either have to have the stand alone plus the x box 360 for gaming and internet or the add on for the 360.

HD DVD and BD either coexist or they noexist.

HD DVD and BD either coexist or they noexist.

I suppose we can always substitute a banal platitude for facts when we don't like them. Those who forget history are condemned to repeat it...

I suppose we can always substitute a banal platitude for facts when we don't like them. Those who forget history are condemned to repeat it...
Which facts am I missing, friend?

Those who forget history are condemned to repeat it...
I agree. Like Sony and their formats that try and force on the public.

Actually, yes it does by implication. There is no all in one solution for HD DVD other than an HTPC, but that will do PC games only. For HD DVD you either have to have the stand alone plus the x box 360 for gaming and internet or the add on for the 360.

I don't understand how that relates to someone else that doesn't mind having an HD DVD player or addon.

Also, you don't address the lack of games on the PS3. I don't see the PS3 practical as a gaming console yet (and yes I have both a 360 and PS3).

IMO, if you want the best of both worlds you get both. I have the PS3, a 360 + addon and the A1 (believe it or not only one problem with the A1 with Happy Feet). I watch every HD movie I want to without hesitation.

Which facts am I missing, friend?

You could start by reading my first post, but don't take my word for it, there are lots of records of various media format wars. Or try and come up with an actual example of mass media distribution formats that coexist and produce the title variety that DVD and VHS (and CDs) did/do (just don't use irrelevant examples based on different sales models like the OP did).

There's a reason why every time someone tries to make a make an analogy for coexistence they can't use media distribution formats, and instead invoke computers, or video games, or sodas, or whatever. History does not favor the idea of coexisting video formats that reach mass adoption.

You could start by reading my first post, but don't take my word for it, there are lots of records of various media format wars. Or try and come up with an actual example of mass media distribution formats that coexist and produce the title variety that DVD and VHS (and CDs) did/do (just don't use irrelevant examples based on different sales models like the OP did).

There's a reason why every time someone tries to make a make an analogy for coexistence they can't use media distribution formats, and instead invoke computers, or video games, or sodas, or whatever. History does not favor the idea of coexisting video formats that reach mass adoption.

Who ever said that one or both formats will reach mass adoption? If we look at your "history" then this will not happen. Evolutionary products do not reach mass adoption in the video market - only revolutionary products do and HDM is an evolutionary product.

Revolutionary Products:

Color TV
VHS
DVD
HDTV

Evolutionary Products:

LD
ED-Beta
EDTV
S-VHS
Hi8
UMD

You could start by reading my first post, but don't take my word for it, there are lots of records of various media format wars. Or try and come up with an actual example of mass media distribution formats that coexist and produce the title variety that DVD and VHS (and CDs) did/do (just don't use irrelevant examples based on different sales models like the OP did).

There's a reason why every time someone tries to make a make an analogy for coexistence they can't use media distribution formats, and instead invoke computers, or video games, or sodas, or whatever. History does not favor the idea of coexisting video formats that reach mass adoption.DVD/VHS and CD/Cassette coexisted for years, and there are about 8 different video game formats around right now. However, my point was that HDM is going away right before your eyes. They only thing that will save it is hardware mans going dual, and quick.

Well lets look at the numbers.....

Per Home Media Research for the first 6 months of 2007:

Blue Ray 1.6 million units total sold
Hd-Dvd 800,000 total sold

Seems impressive it's not....

Take the recent release of 300, sold 5 million units on regular DVD
in the first week, thats more then double in a week compared to all
hi-rez discs combined for 6 months. ( Just one DVD release)

Frankly I simply have players for both formats, starting to compare it too
also having XBox 360, PS3, and Ninedo Wii,

Just remember that Hi-rez discs have not even approached 1% market
penetration, so The way I look at it just be happy if that you can finally
get discs at 1080p, and new audio formats starting to come out..

Bob

I agree. Like Sony and their formats that try and force on the public.

Absolutely, which is why I don't own any of the Sony-only formats they've championed. Luckily this time I favor the format created by a large consortium of companies and supported by the majority of CE manufacturers...Blu-ray...and not the one created by a small number of proprietary companies...HD DVD.

But regardless, if history is any guide (and it's realy the only guide we have) they will not both be mass-adopted, and the longer this format battle goes on the less chance we have of either being mass adopted.

If we look at your "history" then this will not happen. Evolutionary products do not reach mass adoption in the video market - only revolutionary products do and HDM is an evolutionary product.
I could not agree more.

I think there is a more relevant example.

Most people today have learned about DVD+R and DVD-R.

In the end, they will just see HD DVD and Blu-ray as 2 types of digital movie media.

And they will buy combo players so they can play content from different studios - the "red" kind and the "blue" kind. It will become that simple for J6P.

Both format can survive for a very long time. The same thing happened with writable computer drives. Who cares nowadays about DVD+R or DVD-R when buying media??

DVD/VHS and CD/Cassette coexisted for years, and there are about 8 different video game formats around right now. However, my point was that HDM is going away right before your eyes. They only thing that will save it is hardware mans going dual, and quick.

Video game formats do NOT use the same sales model...why is this so hard? The margins are enormous on videogame software...that's why they can lose money on the consoles!

VHS/DVD and CD/Cassette were not competing in a format war, one was replacing the other. That's the whole point; there was already a higher-quaility "newer" format that was more expensive and an older, established format that cost less. Public demand was built in because consumers wanted the "better" format, and as prices came down down sales grew, allowing retailers to expand the new format's display area and remove the old format (especialy since the margins are fatter on newer formats).

This format war is not doing thsi at ALL. It's killing margins before there is an established winner in the publics eye; this is what killed DVD/SACD, and it's what killed MiniDisc vs DCC in the 1990s.

It should work like this: establish a succesion format with better quality, let early adopters buy them at high-margin prices to recoup R&D while cooing to their friends about how great they are (plus awesome reviews in enthusiast magazines, etc) to create greater demand. THEN prices come down, unleashing pent up demand and driving adoption. At that point a bandwagon effect emerges, as consumers want to have the same gadgets their neighbors have. This dovetails with retailers wanting to expand their offerings of the new format while curtailing their offerings of the older format.

This format war must end. And yes that would be ok if HD DVD won (if my second choice), but that seems really unlikely to happen at the moment,despite what the insular population of AVS seems to think.

Video game formats do NOT use the same sales model...why is this so hard? The margins are enormous on videogame software...that's why they can lose money on the consoles!

VHS/DVD and CD/Cassette were not competing in a format war, one was replacing the other. That's the whole point; there was already a higher-quaility "newer" format that was more expensive and an older, established format that cost less. Public demand was built in because consumers wanted the "better" format, and as prices came down down sales grew, allowing retailers to expand the new format's display area and remove the old format (especialy since the margins are fatter on newer formats).

This format war is not doing thsi at ALL. It's killing margins before there is an established winner in the publics eye; this is what killed DVD/SACD, and it's what killed MiniDisc vs DCC in the 1990s.

It should work like this: establish a succesion format with better quality, let early adopters buy them at high-margin prices to recoup R&D while cooing to their friends about how great they are (plus awesome reviews in enthusiast magazines, etc) to create greater demand. THEN prices come down, unleashing pent up demand and driving adoption. At that point a bandwagon effect emerges, as consumers want to have the same gadgets their neighbors have. This dovetails with retailers wanting to expand their offerings of the new format while curtailing their offerings of the older format.

This format war must end. And yes that would be ok if HD DVD won (if my second choice), but that seems really unlikely to happen at the moment,despite what the insular population of AVS seems to think.

I see what you are missing. The format war is over and DVD won. The question is now how long do you want HDM to be around before it disappears.

Both format can survive for a very long time. The same thing happened with writable computer drives. Who cares nowadays about DVD+R or DVD-R when buying media??

Those are NOT media distribution formats, they are RECORDABLE formats. Recordable formats make a profit from each device sold, which is easy because there are no authoring costs, you just press them and sell them. Very different retail, as you don't need to have lots of space to sell different titles. That's why every office supply store, music store, and rat-shack sells blank cds and dvds...it's a small retail offering that makes money and doesn't have to be expanded. COMPLETELY DIFFERENT FROM MEDIA DISTRIBUTION.

Please, please stop invoking examples that are totally different slaes models. If you don't understand saes models, don't suggest one.

The large amount of money made on video games means you can sell a lot less and make good money; the fact that computer hardware itself is very profitable (and its margins cosntantly renew with each generation of newer computer harware) makes it dramatically different than the media distribution also.



The PS3, Xbox 360, and many other systems are black hole money sucking hardware. Sony is still losing money on the PS3 for sure. Video gaming hardware is not profitable - except for the Wii.

Relevant Examples:

CDs vs Cassette tapes -This is a format changeover, not a format war. That's like saying VHS vs DVD format war.

CDs vs minidisk - What did minidisk offer over CD, really, besides size and durability?

DVD-A vs SACD - likely DOA. It's debateable how much difference these offered over CD. Discussion of this devolves into arguments of ultrasonic noise and other voodoo science. Its merits as a mass-market format were dubious to begin with.

CDs vs MP3 - not a format war. Format changeover. CDs still sell plenty.

VHS vs Beta - OK, this one ended up with a winner. Eventually.

DVD vs Divx - Thank god that one worked out OK. Perhaps this is equivalent but it was really two different approaches to home video - it's like arguing VOD vs DVD. Different concept, same market.

You're ignoring tons of different dueling formats that both make money and stay around. Apple vs Microsoft in the computer market - two formats of software, entirely incompatible. Ditto for video game consoles. Ditto for DVD+R vs DVD-R. Etc.

Both formats are likely here to stay for the forseeable future. If there is a 'winner' it's years down the road. Sometimes wars result in a winner. Sometimes they result in both staying around (ala DVD+/-R combo drives). IMO this one looks like another DVD+R/DVD-R war to me.

And then there is the digital download model creeping around in the shadows the holy grail for studios. And all parties are courting this one including Sony and MS. I believe both will coexist for some time before being replaced by the download model. Its only a matter of time....

The PS3, Xbox 360, and many other systems are black hole money sucking hardware. Sony is still losing money on the PS3 for sure. Video gaming hardware is not profitable - except for the Wii.

Relevant Examples:

CDs vs Cassette tapes -This is a format changeover, not a format war. That's like saying VHS vs DVD format war.

CDs vs minidisk - What did minidisk offer over CD, really, besides size and durability?

DVD-A vs SACD - likely DOA. It's debateable how much difference these offered over CD. Discussion of this devolves into arguments of ultrasonic noise and other voodoo science. Its merits as a mass-market format were dubious to begin with.

CDs vs MP3 - not a format war. Format changeover. CDs still sell plenty.

VHS vs Beta - OK, this one ended up with a winner. Eventually.

DVD vs Divx - Thank god that one worked out OK. Perhaps this is equivalent but it was really two different approaches to home video - it's like arguing VOD vs DVD. Different concept, same market.

You're ignoring tons of different dueling formats that both make money and stay around. Apple vs Microsoft in the computer market - two formats of software, entirely incompatible. Ditto for video game consoles. Ditto for DVD+R vs DVD-R. Etc.

Both formats are likely here to stay for the forseeable future. If there is a 'winner' it's years down the road.
Dammitall!
Why does everyont forget DAT and DCC?
The fact is that the average person sees no benefit in HDM and isn't going to rebuy their perfectly good catalog titles (Disney) anyway.

You're ignoring tons of different dueling formats that both make money and stay around. Apple vs Microsoft in the computer market - two formats of software, entirely incompatible. Ditto for video game consoles. Ditto for DVD+R vs DVD-R. Etc.

Those are utterly different sales models. Please guys, study think f this in terms of sales margins, volumes, market segments, etc, but don't just pull this stuff from where the sun doesn't shine. None of these examples use the same sales model as media distribution formats, which is why they can exist in the market while HDM cannot (while reaching mass adoption).

Both formats are likely here to stay for the forseeable future. If there is a 'winner' it's years down the road.

Unfortunately it's starting to look like you are right, which is why we may be condemned never to have mass adoption...which we COULD if this format war would end (or better, had never happened).

Those are NOT media distribution formats, they are RECORDABLE formats. Recordable formats make a profit from each device sold, which is easy because there are no authoring costs, you just press them and sell them. Very different retail, as you don't need to have lots of space to sell different titles. That's why every office supply store, music store, and rat-shack sells blank cds and dvds...it's a small retail offering that makes money and doesn't have to be expanded. COMPLETELY DIFFERENT FROM MEDIA DISTRIBUTION.

Please, please stop invoking examples that are totally different slaes models. If you don't understand saes models, don't suggest one.

Whether I understand sales models or not is not at issue here (I actually understand more than you will ever know). Non-lay people will just learn about red and blue movie disks. They will buy combo players. I will buy a combo player at some point so I don't need 2 players :)

Yes, retailers will need to stock up on different media and will not like this. Etailers will do most of the selling. Amazon won't mind it a bit...

Video game formats do NOT use the same sales model...why is this so hard? The margins are enormous on videogame software...that's why they can lose money on the consoles!

VHS/DVD and CD/Cassette were not competing in a format war, one was replacing the other. That's the whole point; there was already a higher-quaility "newer" format that was more expensive and an older, established format that cost less. Public demand was built in because consumers wanted the "better" format, and as prices came down down sales grew, allowing retailers to expand the new format's display area and remove the old format (especialy since the margins are fatter on newer formats).

This format war is not doing thsi at ALL. It's killing margins before there is an established winner in the publics eye; this is what killed DVD/SACD, and it's what killed MiniDisc vs DCC in the 1990s.

It should work like this: establish a succesion format with better quality, let early adopters buy them at high-margin prices to recoup R&D while cooing to their friends about how great they are (plus awesome reviews in enthusiast magazines, etc) to create greater demand. THEN prices come down, unleashing pent up demand and driving adoption. At that point a bandwagon effect emerges, as consumers want to have the same gadgets their neighbors have. This dovetails with retailers wanting to expand their offerings of the new format while curtailing their offerings of the older format.

This format war must end. And yes that would be ok if HD DVD won (if my second choice), but that seems really unlikely to happen at the moment,despite what the insular population of AVS seems to think.

Here are pieces of the HD DVD puzzle. You put them together and tell me what you see:

1. 360 A0 - priced below $179
2. Venturer - MSRP $199
3. Toshiba A3 - MSRP $299
4. Universal Exclusive titles
5. Paramount/Dreamworks Exclusive titles
6. WB Neutral Ttiles
7. The HD DVD Combo Disc
8. The HD DVD Twin Disc.

Now add the Q4 fact of being the highest period of CE sales.

Mix and stir - put in oven and remove 12/31/07.

Those are utterly different sales models. Please guys, study think f this in terms of sales margins, volumes, market segments, etc, but don't just pull this stuff from where the sun doesn't shine. None of these examples use the same sales model as media distribution formats, which is why they can exist in the market while HDM cannot (while reaching mass adoption).



People said the EXACT same thing about DVD+R and DVD-R, that one MUST die or no one would buy into them. It turned out to be not true. Hell most people I talk to don't know which they're using unless they look carefully at the label.

It's not like DVD media has high margins. Both are still here. The reason is, combo devices make the difference nil to J6P consumer. And that will happen with HD discs eventually too.

HDTV penetration may be increasing, but the folks watching SD CRTs still vastly outnumber the HD people. VASTLY. For that matter, many people just moved to DVD because they stopped making VHS, that covers people like my grandma, my aunt, etc.


DVD isn't being replaced. Not gonna happen, unless it is perhaps forced with some sort of hi-def combo discs. DVD is here to stay and isn't being supplanted any faster than CDs are or casettes or VHS tapes were.


This is the new laserdisc, albeit a slightly more successful laserdisc. Folks around here like to insist DVD is on its way out, but that's about as true as when they said it about laserdisc or SACD. Not happening.

I see what you are missing. The format war is over and DVD won. The question is now how long do you want HDM to be around before it disappears.

First of all, it's not a format war between HDM and DVD, it's a replacement. If one HDM format would standardize as the winner in the publics eye, there would be an orderly expansion of HDM adoption as costs come down and people want the "best" version of a movie in years to come (probably slower than DVD adoption, but as retailers dedicated more space to the more profitable HDM selection and less to DVD it WOULD happen).

But even if you're right and HDM has already failed, we will still see more diverse releases if there is only one format. So either way we all benefit from one format dying.

I think HDM is bound to be a premium movie product for a long time. Winning the war will not make a difference for either format. HDM will not replace DVD any time soon.

How can HDM ever compete with the DVD bins at Wallmart marked $4.99?? It would have to drop pricing very significantly and quickly as DVDs can be gotten cheaply (new releases are often $14.99 the first week).

The price point for the mass market is not $19.99 any more - it's $14.99 and below.

Sorry, but there are no comparable examples of mass-media distribution formats co-existing for a long period of time for reason; unlike computer OSes, or console gaming, or recordable media, consumer media distribution requires very high volumes of low-margin software.

The large amount of money made on video games means you can sell a lot less and make good money; the fact that computer hardware itself is very profitable (and its margins cosntantly renew with each generation of newer computer harware) makes it dramatically different than the media distribution also.

To make money on media distribution like music, movies, etc, you not only need lost of people to buy (or rent) them, you need peoply to purchase lots of different titles. This means retail space, and a price that is in the impulse-buy range. This is why new formats either succeed (by replacing the previous format) or they remain small an unimportant. If you want to be able to buy your favorite niche film or video in high definition, you must have 1 format.

Relevant Examples:

CDs vs Cassette tapes - there was a fairly prolonged replacement time for tapes and CDs. During that time many music stores carried both, but a smaller selection than before or after the transition. As CDs hit a critical mass, they uderstandably started to embrace that format (which had higher margins and also encourage the re-purchasing of titles) even though many people enjoyed tapes for years to come. Now, of course, you can purchase anything on CD, including mass-distribution of independent bands (but see mp3s below). Also notice that CD standardized itself as the next gen audio format while players and media were still very expensive.

CDs vs minidisk - Despite being a very versitile format, Minidisk failed to catch on, and so retailers never expanded their offers. There are not many titles you can buy on minidisk, although of course minidisk owners can record music from other formats onto their media.

DVD-A vs SACD - The classic example of media distribution formats that never caught on. It's possible niether would have fully caught on even without the competition, but the format war they were in ensured both formats would never reach mass adoption. SACD appears to be entrenching itself in the kind of upscale niche market that vinyl is still sold in (and internet mail order companies help ease the availability when retail outlets won't carry such niche formats). We do NOT want HDM to end up like this.

CDs vs MP3 - despite the fact that CDs and MP3s are more complimentary than normal competing media (and mp3s aren't even physical media) their sales are clearly eating into the CD market. Furthermore, more and more shelf space is being dedicated to mp3 players and their supporting gadgets these days, often at the expense of CD selections. Many ndependent bands now choose to release their music on MP3 and skip making CDs. This trend will likely continue over the next decade, with CD sales dwindling until only specialy stores carry them. Note that Ipods and other early MP3 players were quite expensive (many of the still are) when sales took off.

VHS vs Beta - The other classic example of a format battle; One format won and continued on to have essentailly all video projects distributed on it (VHS) while the other eventually died. This was a long hard battle, and true niche products (Jazzercizing to the Oldies!) did not become common until their was a winning format.

DVD vs Divx - It's easy to write this one off since it was a short-lived format battle, but that's exactly why DVD became the most rapidly adopted consumer media format. And don't forget that there was (initially) a lot of split studio and retail support. Rapid resolution to the format war allowed DVD to become entrenched in the public mind as "the next gen" video format, even though it took years to actually eclipse VHS sales. Note that DVD "won" while player prices were still very high and sales volumes were low.

Conclusion: Lots of things effect media distribution format adoption, including percieved quality, price, availability, etc. But every succesful next-gen format that I'm aware of standardized itself via public perception while it was still quite pricy. That drives up consumer interest early while margins are high, and lets sales accelerate as prices come down. Notice thatt here is no such thing as competing formats co-existing and also reaching mass adoption. The closest thing you have to that is when one format is replacing another (e.g. CD vs tapes, VHS vs DVD). Retail space and consumer uncertainty make it uneconomical to produce the huge variety of titles we see on DVD as long as there are two HDM formats. One has to die, or we all lose.

I love low prices as much as anyone (that's the only reason I bought my A1), but depreciating the cost of an item before there is a "winner" jeopordizes the build up of consumer interest. Ipods sell very well at $200-$450 a pop (even to teenagers) because everyone wants one, while sub $100 minidisk players languish. SACD is not even a feature most people would recognize, let alone pay extra for these days. If player prices bottom out before consumer interest is piqued (and that requires a single format) we will lose industry support (no profit margins) long before you can buy all of your favorite movies and TV specials on HDM. History is clear: low prices drive sales when consumer interst is high; price alone is NOT the barrier we have to worry about.

This format war is a disaster; the sooner it ends the better.

Wow...nice effort. You put alot of work into this but I think it's a little early to pigeon-hole this format war. Personally, I havn't seen anything quite like it and I've been on this earth for 64 years. It even has wars within wars. You have HD-DVD Vs Blu-ray and you have HDM standalone players Vs PS3 gaming machines and than you have the internet with high speed downloads just around the corner. I think it all adds up to a multitude of choices for the consumer down the road and some exciting times ahead. Enjoy!!!

People said the EXACT same thing about DVD+R and DVD-R, that one MUST die or no one would buy into them. It turned out to be not true.

Who said that? They're idiots if they did; history is full of examples of co-existing writable media. My last computer had a floppy drive, a zip drive, and a combo CD/DVD writer (both + and -). Writable media has higher margins and re-sells itself (every time you need to write more data). Completely different from media distribution, where there are a lot more people taking slices of the profit pie (e.g. all of the creative people who make movies, music, etc.) so you need to convince people to buy lots of different titles, leading to large swaths of retail space.

This is the new laserdisc, albeit a slightly more successful laserdisc.

That's the disaster I want to avoid. And it's still avoidable, although I don't know how much longer. Certainly not through next holiday season (2008).

DVD isn't being replaced.

That's the problem.

Not gonna happen, unless it is with some sort of hi-def combo discs. DVD is here to stay and isn't being supplanted any faster than CDs are or casettes or VHS tapes were.

Those statements are cosntradictory. We WANT an HDM format to replace DVD at the same rate as CDs or DVDs, that would be awesome. That doesn't mean DVDs would die right away. What we don't want is for HDM to got he way of SACD and MiniDisc, which is what we are in jeopardy of. In that case we won't have anything but a trickle of HDM releases coming out in 5-10 years, rather than in 10 years heralding how HDM sales are starting to eclipse DVD sales.

Those are utterly different sales models. Please guys, study think f this in terms of sales margins, volumes, market segments, etc, but don't just pull this stuff from where the sun doesn't shine. .


No, what is happening is that everytime an example is offered, you narrow the criterea so that you can say it's not the same thing. How about this 45's and LPs? Records also came in different speeds. Or how about MP3's and CD's? Two different formats for mass media delivery? Widescreen and fullscreen, Pal and Ntsc.

Hell, we could go so far as to say HDTV v. SDTV are both types of mass media distribution in different formats. Satelite v. Cable are different mass media distribution formats.

Single formats are the exception, not the rule in everything that is sold to consumers. That is as true for mass media distribution as anything else.

No, what is happening is that everytime an example is offered, you narrow the criterea so that you can say it's not the same thing. How about this 45's and LPs? Records also came in different speeds. Or how about MP3's and CD's? Two different formats for mass media delivery? Widescreen and fullscreen, Pal and Ntsc.

Hell, we could go so far as to say HDTV v. SDTV are both types of mass media distribution in different formats. Satelite v. Cable are different mass media distribution formats.

Single formats are the exception, not the rule in everything that is sold to consumers. That is as true for mass media distribution as anything else.

It is hard to hit Ye Olden Moving Targeteth.

Sorry, but there are no comparable examples of mass-media distribution formats co-existing for a long period of time for reason; unlike computer OSes, or console gaming, or recordable media, consumer media distribution requires very high volumes of low-margin software.

The large amount of money made on video games means you can sell a lot less and make good money; the fact that computer hardware itself is very profitable (and its margins cosntantly renew with each generation of newer computer harware) makes it dramatically different than the media distribution also.

To make money on media distribution like music, movies, etc, you not only need lost of people to buy (or rent) them, you need peoply to purchase lots of different titles. This means retail space, and a price that is in the impulse-buy range. This is why new formats either succeed (by replacing the previous format) or they remain small an unimportant. If you want to be able to buy your favorite niche film or video in high definition, you must have 1 format.

Relevant Examples:

CDs vs Cassette tapes - there was a fairly prolonged replacement time for tapes and CDs. During that time many music stores carried both, but a smaller selection than before or after the transition. As CDs hit a critical mass, they uderstandably started to embrace that format (which had higher margins and also encourage the re-purchasing of titles) even though many people enjoyed tapes for years to come. Now, of course, you can purchase anything on CD, including mass-distribution of independent bands (but see mp3s below). Also notice that CD standardized itself as the next gen audio format while players and media were still very expensive.

CDs vs minidisk - Despite being a very versitile format, Minidisk failed to catch on, and so retailers never expanded their offers. There are not many titles you can buy on minidisk, although of course minidisk owners can record music from other formats onto their media.

DVD-A vs SACD - The classic example of media distribution formats that never caught on. It's possible niether would have fully caught on even without the competition, but the format war they were in ensured both formats would never reach mass adoption. SACD appears to be entrenching itself in the kind of upscale niche market that vinyl is still sold in (and internet mail order companies help ease the availability when retail outlets won't carry such niche formats). We do NOT want HDM to end up like this.

CDs vs MP3 - despite the fact that CDs and MP3s are more complimentary than normal competing media (and mp3s aren't even physical media) their sales are clearly eating into the CD market. Furthermore, more and more shelf space is being dedicated to mp3 players and their supporting gadgets these days, often at the expense of CD selections. Many ndependent bands now choose to release their music on MP3 and skip making CDs. This trend will likely continue over the next decade, with CD sales dwindling until only specialy stores carry them. Note that Ipods and other early MP3 players were quite expensive (many of the still are) when sales took off.

VHS vs Beta - The other classic example of a format battle; One format won and continued on to have essentailly all video projects distributed on it (VHS) while the other eventually died. This was a long hard battle, and true niche products (Jazzercizing to the Oldies!) did not become common until their was a winning format.

DVD vs Divx - It's easy to write this one off since it was a short-lived format battle, but that's exactly why DVD became the most rapidly adopted consumer media format. And don't forget that there was (initially) a lot of split studio and retail support. Rapid resolution to the format war allowed DVD to become entrenched in the public mind as "the next gen" video format, even though it took years to actually eclipse VHS sales. Note that DVD "won" while player prices were still very high and sales volumes were low.

Conclusion: Lots of things effect media distribution format adoption, including percieved quality, price, availability, etc. But every succesful next-gen format that I'm aware of standardized itself via public perception while it was still quite pricy. That drives up consumer interest early while margins are high, and lets sales accelerate as prices come down. Notice thatt here is no such thing as competing formats co-existing and also reaching mass adoption. The closest thing you have to that is when one format is replacing another (e.g. CD vs tapes, VHS vs DVD). Retail space and consumer uncertainty make it uneconomical to produce the huge variety of titles we see on DVD as long as there are two HDM formats. One has to die, or we all lose.

I love low prices as much as anyone (that's the only reason I bought my A1), but depreciating the cost of an item before there is a "winner" jeopordizes the build up of consumer interest. Ipods sell very well at $200-$450 a pop (even to teenagers) because everyone wants one, while sub $100 minidisk players languish. SACD is not even a feature most people would recognize, let alone pay extra for these days. If player prices bottom out before consumer interest is piqued (and that requires a single format) we will lose industry support (no profit margins) long before you can buy all of your favorite movies and TV specials on HDM. History is clear: low prices drive sales when consumer interst is high; price alone is NOT the barrier we have to worry about.

This format war is a disaster; the sooner it ends the better.


Excellent post. I totally agree with you, but I also think that they are both here to stay for the next few years.

I am not so sure HDM wasnt heading for "niche" status anyway, but that is where it is going now.

There was never any hope of even one format supplanting DVDs. Are you guys totally out of touch with the average public? Hell I only know a handful of people with HDTVs.

http://www.tvweek.com/news/2007/04/cea_hdtv_penetration_at_28.php

HDTV penetration is at around ~28% with it projected to hit 36% by the end of 2007.

http://www.tvb.org/pdf/multiplatform/HD-Hit-36-percent-Penetration.pdf

Out of that 44% of them actually get HDTV programming (see above link). Let's say they all care about HD quality enough to buy a format. So assume that 100% of the people that have HDTV programming now (normally only an extra $10-$20/month) would buy a format and suck up the discs if there was only one format. Wow, that's a whole 16% of the public!

They're saying that worldwide HDTV penetration will triple by 2011. So by 2011 we'll have a (hopelessly high) estimate of 16% * 3? 48% of people interested? Maybe?

Not happening. Neither format was ever going to replace DVDs, unless you mean in like 2015.

[QUOTE=ottscay;11521949]

This format war is not doing thsi at ALL. It's killing margins before there is an established winner in the publics eye; this is what killed DVD/SACD, and it's what killed MiniDisc vs DCC in the 1990s.
QUOTE]

DVDA/SACD was the answer to a question that statistically no one was asking for. Nothing was going to drive adoption of that format. People literally could not see the difference. Hmmnn I guess there is a lesson to be learned here, if you can't see the difference you will not be able to make up your mind.

For 99.9% of the potential buyers in the world BD and HD DVD offer nothing but BD marketings shenanigans to differentiate them. There is much more differntiation in every other playback device in the AV chain then there is between HD DVD and BD... for all practical purposes and intents they are the same thing. They are Shick and Gillette. Dual format players at sub $100 prices is the answer. Then if Sony wants to continue to play in their propietary niche space they can pay a premium price to produce on BD for their speciality audience..

If Sony was smart they would do some firmware work on the PS3 and enable HD DVD playback on that device... the people who bought early BD stand alones are already screwed, so offer them a credit towards a cheap Sony or other brand of your choice Dual Format player from a BD CEM.

Coexistence means the utlimate death of BD, and that is why you and so many BD fanatics find it impossible to accept. Dual format player ubiquity is the end of BD and it is coming, and fast. We coexisted with the USSR for 40 years after WWII. BD and the USSR are very much alike in that they are dictatorial models without an underlying viable economic model. When the wall came down we discovered just what a hollow shell the other "Superpower" had really been. This war, unlike the cold war won't last a long time because dual format players will make peace which will kill BD. BD lives on propaganda, fear and market manipulation, dual format coexistince eliminates the BD reason for being.

Here are pieces of the HD DVD puzzle. You put them together and tell me what you see:

1. 360 A0 - priced below $179
2. Venturer - MSRP $199
3. Toshiba A3 - MSRP $299
4. Universal Exclusive titles
5. Paramount/Dreamworks Exclusive titles
6. WB Neutral Ttiles
7. The HD DVD Combo Disc
8. The HD DVD Twin Disc.

Now add the Q4 fact of being the highest period of CE sales.

Mix and stir - put in oven and remove 12/31/07.


I see this thing going on for years. That is what I see. If you don't see the same thing, you need a new puzzle.

I would make a nice BR list, but it doesnt matter, we are in for a long haul.

There was never any hope of even one format supplanting DVDs. Are you guys totally out of touch with the average public? Hell I only know a handful of people with HDTVs.

http://www.tvweek.com/news/2007/04/cea_hdtv_penetration_at_28.php

HDTV penetration is at around ~28% with it projected to hit 36% by the end of 2007.

http://www.tvb.org/pdf/multiplatform/HD-Hit-36-percent-Penetration.pdf

Out of that 44% of them actually get HDTV programming (see above link). Let's say they all care about HD quality enough to buy a format. So assume that 100% of the people that have HDTV programming now (normally only an extra $10-$20/month) would buy a format and suck up the discs if there was only one format. Wow, that's a whole 16% of the public!

They're saying that worldwide HDTV penetration will triple by 2011. So by 2011 we'll have a (hopelessly high) estimate of 16% * 3? 48% of people interested? Maybe?

Not happening. Neither format was ever going to replace DVDs, unless you mean in like 2015.

The 44% is way too high:

http://www.tvpredictions.com/comcast072607.htm

I don't understand how that relates to someone else that doesn't mind having an HD DVD player or addon.

Also, you don't address the lack of games on the PS3. I don't see the PS3 practical as a gaming console yet (and yes I have both a 360 and PS3).

IMO, if you want the best of both worlds you get both. I have the PS3, a 360 + addon and the A1 (believe it or not only one problem with the A1 with Happy Feet). I watch every HD movie I want to without hesitation.

I guess you overlooked my common sense statement.

You are focusing on media content at the moment, but not overall common sense, simplicity and the future of an all in one solution. Why would you want more controllers, more hardware taking up space, more wires, and on and on. A one machine solution is absolutely the way to go and had MS and HD DVD offered that in one solution I most likely would have bought it last year. Sony got it right and I am glad I waited. At this point only content is dividing the two.

As far as the games for the PS3, the current lie of lies still seems to be that there are no games or very little games for the PS3. This is BS at best. There are good games right now. All the sports games like racing, tennis, golf, baseball, football, basketball and hockey are excellent. Resistance, Motorstorm, Darkness, Warhawk, Heavenly Sword, Oblivion, and several more are excellent as well.

The "best of both worlds" argument is the same nonsense we all hear with this format war. I took a stand and picked IMO what was the best choice. Better sound quality, better discs with more storage( and this does matter), an all in one media machine, etc.

The reason the studios and the HD DVD hardware and software companies are saying HD DVD is better for consumers is because it is cheaper. The reality is it is cheaper for the companies and the profit margin at current maybe better. They don't give a good damn if you are getting a cheaper player other than if the average person buys cheaper players it means more profit to the co's.

They are fooling people into believing that players are cheaper and the overall quality of sound, picture and features are better, which they are not. The only thing HD DVD keeps claiming is better than BD is the final spec. This is the LEAST important and most bogus argument in this war. And why is this mantra about the final spec repeated over and over? Simple, it is the ONLY advantage HD DVD has over BD and again it is extremely over rated by the HD DVD camp. WHen it is the only advantage you have I guess one must scream it from the mountain tops to get those that might think it is important to listen.

This HD DVD is better FUD is a disgrace, really it is. Early format adopters of both formats or just HD DVD alone, if they are honest and sincere they will, and some have admitted, that BD does have slight technical advantages, just as the majority of hardware and technical analysts have said. Anyone disputing that is spreading lies and rumours.

I guess you overlooked my common sense statement.

You are focusing on media content at the moment, but not overall common sense, simplicity and the future of an all in one solution. Why would you want more controllers, more hardware taking up space, more wires, and on and on. A one machine solution is absolutely the way to go and had MS and HD DVD offered that in one solution I most likely would have bought it last year. Sony got it right and I am glad I waited. At this point only content is dividing the two.

As far as the games for the PS3, the current lie of lies still seems to be that there are no games or very little games for the PS3. This is BS at best. There are good games right now. All the sports games like racing, tennis, golf, baseball, football, basketball and hockey are excellent. Resistance, Motorstorm, Darkness, Warhawk, Heavenly Sword, Oblivion, and several more are excellent as well.

The "best of both worlds" argument is the same nonsense we all hear with this format war. I took a stand and picked IMO what was the best choice. Better sound quality, better discs with more storage( and this does matter), an all in one media machine, etc.

The reason the studios and the HD DVD hardware and software companies are saying HD DVD is better for consumers is because it is cheaper. The reality is it is cheaper for the companies and the profit margin at current maybe better. They don't give a good damn if you are getting a cheaper player other than if the average person buys cheaper players it means more profit to the co's.

They are fooling people into believing that players are cheaper and the overall quality of sound, picture and features are better, which they are not. The only thing HD DVD keeps claiming is better than BD is the final spec. This is the LEAST important and most bogus argument in this war. And why is this mantra about the final spec repeated over and over? Simple, it is the ONLY advantage HD DVD has over BD and again it is extremely over rated by the HD DVD camp. WHen it is the only advantage you have I guess one must scream it from the mountain tops to get those that might think it is important to listen.

This HD DVD is better FUD is a disgrace, really it is. Early format adopters of both formats or just HD DVD alone, if they are honest and sincere they will, and some have admitted, that BD does have slight technical advantages, just as the majority of hardware and technical analysts have said. Anyone disputing that is spreading lies and rumours.

Here's a question for you.
What was better? VHS or Beta?

I think ottscay is right.
I haven't seen any arguments from people that believe letting both formats co-exist that convince me I would let them run any kind of brand building campaign.
Both formats will take HDM to SACD/DVD-A land. That is the closest comparison that we have. Record labels selling in 2 different formats, early on different players were needed, and a requirement for more equipment to realize the difference by most consumers. If the record labels picked one, we would all be buying SACD or DVD-A only by now, instead history repeats...

However, there are a large group of people who feel it is necessary for me to throw my HD DVD player in the trash in order for them to be happy.

I've noticed on this forum that HD-DVD supporters are just as eager to bury BD players. I've seen some fantastic posts and would even venture that HD-DVD fan boys are even more venomous. You are kidding yourself if you think one side is being nice about this "war".

[QUOTE=ottscay;11521949]

This format war is not doing thsi at ALL. It's killing margins before there is an established winner in the publics eye; this is what killed DVD/SACD, and it's what killed MiniDisc vs DCC in the 1990s.
QUOTE]

DVDA/SACD was the answer to a question that statistically no one was asking for. Nothing was going to drive adoption of that format. People literally could not see the difference. Hmmnn I guess there is a lesson to be learned here, if you can't see the difference you will not be able to make up your mind.


Another interesting point is that DVD-A proponents thought features (lyrics, videos) would drive consumers to buy. Sony also thought this after the fact (again) and sought to add video with SACD 2. It never was released.

Here's a question for you.
What was better? VHS or Beta?


Unfortunately the one that eventually lost, Betamax. Consumers wanted cheaper and more available and they got it along with PQ that wasn't as good as Beta.

Unfortunately the one that eventually lost, Betamax. Consumers wanted cheaper and more available and they got it along with PQ that wasn't as good as Beta.

I would say that the one that better was the one that survived. What can be better than something that people can buy and is supported by stores and manufacturers? The average person and most others couldn't tell the difference in video quality, and what difference there was, was minute.

It would be nice if there can be peace, but SA-CD/DVD-A and DCC/DAT showed us very clearly what happens when one doesn't win.

The world is cruel. Either one goes down, or both will.

---

VHS and betamax is the other template, and one irritant for the rental stores was some movies needing 2 betamax tapes, and only one on VHS, it created logistics problems for them.

Unfortunately the one that eventually lost, Betamax. Consumers wanted cheaper and more available and they got it along with PQ that wasn't as good as Beta.

Um yeah, and porn.

From me it is a simple common sense choice as to why I want one format, BD to win.

In one machine I have a PC, gaming and movie capability without extras or add ons, namely the PS3. I don't want to have to spend more money on a second player. I don't want to have a second player taking up more space. I want to go to a store or rental and pick from ANY available movies and NOT have to choose by studio just to see certain films.

You my friend are in the minority. Most people I know always want more electronics..that way we can compare whose "Rack" is bigger.:D

It would be nice if there can be peace, but SA-CD/DVD-A and DCC/DAT showed us very clearly what happens when one doesn't win.

The world is cruel. Either one goes down, or both will.
The problem with SACD/DVD-A was that by the time CE mans figured out what to do with it (and Sony gave them the chips), it was too late. Hopefully, companies like Samsung see that and are giving HDM a chance.

Unfortunately the one that eventually lost, Betamax. Consumers wanted cheaper and more available and they got it along with PQ that wasn't as good as Beta.

I've grown to hate the beta/vhs analogies as much as I hate the SACD/DVD-A analogies, but I do think they have at least one redeaming point:

Beta didn't cause VHS to fail. It simply couldn't succed with it in the market place. So the beta/Vhs example doesn't prove that having two formats hurts adoption of both. It proves that, in that scenario, the more popular format will succed despite there being a challenger.

With that in mind, one can see that the audio format war isn't what killed both SACD and DVD-A. If consumers had wanted HD audio, at least one of the formats would have been successful. Like VHS, it might have beaten out the other format, but it would have succeded in the end. So it looks most likely that SACD and DVD-A died because of lack of consumer interest at that time.

I don't want multiple formats with movies "dumbed down" to the least common denominator (25G Blu-ray or 30G HD DVD). 50G and 48Mbps is the only way to go until the next uber-HD format appears. :)

I've grown to hate the beta/vhs analogies as much as I hate the SACD/DVD-A analogies, but I do think they have at least one redeaming point:

Beta didn't cause VHS to fail. It simply couldn't succed with it in the market place. So the beta/Vhs example doesn't prove that having two formats hurts adoption of both. It proves that, in that scenario, the more popular format will succed despite there being a challenger.

With that in mind, one can see that the audio format war isn't what killed both SACD and DVD-A. If consumers had wanted HD audio, at least one of the formats would have been successful. Like VHS, it might have beaten out the other format, but it would have succeded in the end. So it looks most likely that SACD and DVD-A died because of lack of consumer interest at that time.

So why is "that" time different from "this" time?

"CD was good enough"

"DVD is good enough"

Sounds famaliar.:(

I don't want multiple formats with movies "dumbed down" to the least common denominator (25G Blu-ray or 30G HD DVD). 50G and 48Mbps is the only way to go until the next uber-HD format appears. :)
If you keep saying it, it will be true.

You my friend are in the minority. Most people I know always want more electronics..that way we can compare whose "Rack" is bigger.:D

Agreed all part of that "American mentality". Mine is bigger, yet cheaper and therefore "better" than yours. There is still very much that hate Japan thing going on in the US, particularly hate SOny.

It is amazing even after years beyond a reasonable doubt that Japanese cars are still better and more reliable than US and built HERE by Americans, people will drive or try to drive something that is less dependable and breaks down more frequently. SO STUBBORN!
And I have to say this HD DVD/ MS thing is more apparent here on the west coast like in Oregon, but especially as you get into Washington state all around Seattle.
Sure none of these companies really care about the consumer other than what profit it can give them, but "fooling" people into thinking cheaper is better for the consumer is such BS, yet many buy it when as I stated earlier the fact is cheaper is better for the companies because it means greater profit, regardless of quality.

Agreed all part of that "American mentailty". There is still very much that hate Japan thing going on in the US, particularly hate SOny.



Really?:eek:

Agreed all part of that "American mentality". Mine is bigger, yet cheaper and therefore "better" than yours. There is still very much that hate Japan thing going on in the US, particularly hate SOny.

It is amazing even after years beyond a reasonable doubt that Japanese cars are still better and more reliable than US and built HERE by Americans, people will drive or try to drive something that is less dependable and breaks down more frequently. SO STUBBORN!
And I have to say this HD DVD/ MS thing is more apparent here on the west coast like in Oregon, but especially as you get into Washington state all around Seattle.
Sure none of these companies really care about the consumer other than what profit it can give them, but "fooling" people into thinking cheaper is better for the consumer is such BS, yet many buy it when as I stated earlier the fact is cheaper is better for the companies because it means greater profit, regardless of quality.


I don't even know where to begin with this post. Perhaps there was too much strychnine in the diethylamide.

I guess you overlooked my common sense statement.

You are focusing on media content at the moment, but not overall common sense, simplicity and the future of an all in one solution. Why would you want more controllers, more hardware taking up space, more wires, and on and on. A one machine solution is absolutely the way to go and had MS and HD DVD offered that in one solution I most likely would have bought it last year. Sony got it right and I am glad I waited. At this point only content is dividing the two.

As far as the games for the PS3, the current lie of lies still seems to be that there are no games or very little games for the PS3. This is BS at best. There are good games right now. All the sports games like racing, tennis, golf, baseball, football, basketball and hockey are excellent. Resistance, Motorstorm, Darkness, Warhawk, Heavenly Sword, Oblivion, and several more are excellent as well.

The "best of both worlds" argument is the same nonsense we all hear with this format war. I took a stand and picked IMO what was the best choice. Better sound quality, better discs with more storage( and this does matter), an all in one media machine, etc.

The reason the studios and the HD DVD hardware and software companies are saying HD DVD is better for consumers is because it is cheaper. The reality is it is cheaper for the companies and the profit margin at current maybe better. They don't give a good damn if you are getting a cheaper player other than if the average person buys cheaper players it means more profit to the co's.

They are fooling people into believing that players are cheaper and the overall quality of sound, picture and features are better, which they are not. The only thing HD DVD keeps claiming is better than BD is the final spec. This is the LEAST important and most bogus argument in this war. And why is this mantra about the final spec repeated over and over? Simple, it is the ONLY advantage HD DVD has over BD and again it is extremely over rated by the HD DVD camp. WHen it is the only advantage you have I guess one must scream it from the mountain tops to get those that might think it is important to listen.

This HD DVD is better FUD is a disgrace, really it is. Early format adopters of both formats or just HD DVD alone, if they are honest and sincere they will, and some have admitted, that BD does have slight technical advantages, just as the majority of hardware and technical analysts have said. Anyone disputing that is spreading lies and rumours.

I don't think there's any question that BD has a technical advantage and that's why it costs more. Alot more! I know the tech advantage is out there - I just don't see it or hear it so I sure don't want to pay extra for it. You seem to want to trivialize the cost advantage that HD-DVD enjoys over BD but it's alot more important than you realize. For me it has taken the RISK out of purchasing a HD-DVD player in a format war. Hell...it barely cost more than the last upconverting DVD player that I bought. Now on the other hand forking over $500 for a BD player in the middle of a format war to me is SCARY!!! Sony must think the average consumer is made out of money or they are simply out of touch with reality.

Really?:eek:

No, O"Reilly.:eek:

I guess you overlooked my common sense statement.

You are focusing on media content at the moment, but not overall common sense, simplicity and the future of an all in one solution. Why would you want more controllers, more hardware taking up space, more wires, and on and on. A one machine solution is absolutely the way to go and had MS and HD DVD offered that in one solution I most likely would have bought it last year. Sony got it right and I am glad I waited. At this point only content is dividing the two.

As far as the games for the PS3, the current lie of lies still seems to be that there are no games or very little games for the PS3. This is BS at best. There are good games right now. All the sports games like racing, tennis, golf, baseball, football, basketball and hockey are excellent. Resistance, Motorstorm, Darkness, Warhawk, Heavenly Sword, Oblivion, and several more are excellent as well.

The "best of both worlds" argument is the same nonsense we all hear with this format war. I took a stand and picked IMO what was the best choice. Better sound quality, better discs with more storage( and this does matter), an all in one media machine, etc.

The reason the studios and the HD DVD hardware and software companies are saying HD DVD is better for consumers is because it is cheaper. The reality is it is cheaper for the companies and the profit margin at current maybe better. They don't give a good damn if you are getting a cheaper player other than if the average person buys cheaper players it means more profit to the co's.

They are fooling people into believing that players are cheaper and the overall quality of sound, picture and features are better, which they are not. The only thing HD DVD keeps claiming is better than BD is the final spec. This is the LEAST important and most bogus argument in this war. And why is this mantra about the final spec repeated over and over? Simple, it is the ONLY advantage HD DVD has over BD and again it is extremely over rated by the HD DVD camp. WHen it is the only advantage you have I guess one must scream it from the mountain tops to get those that might think it is important to listen.

This HD DVD is better FUD is a disgrace, really it is. Early format adopters of both formats or just HD DVD alone, if they are honest and sincere they will, and some have admitted, that BD does have slight technical advantages, just as the majority of hardware and technical analysts have said. Anyone disputing that is spreading lies and rumours.

Hughmc, you are debating a "what if". For you you are fine with just the PS3 for all of your gaming, movie watching needs. However, reality is now showing that HD DVD is here for much longer, meaning no Universal (and now most Paramount/Dreamworks) for HD and many 360 "exclusive" games to play. I don't see how you can discount all the "exclusives" when there looks to be no end in sight to them.

I am not saying HD DVD is better, but I am saying that so far Blu Ray is not

Those are utterly different sales models. Please guys, study think f this in terms of sales margins, volumes, market segments, etc, but don't just pull this stuff from where the sun doesn't shine. None of these examples use the same sales model as media distribution formats, which is why they can exist in the market while HDM cannot (while reaching mass adoption).



Unfortunately it's starting to look like you are right, which is why we may be condemned never to have mass adoption...which we COULD if this format war would end (or better, had never happened).

I think DVD-A vs SACD is by far the best analogy for the current format war. Both were a marked but subtle upgrade from CD, but could only be appreciated by a sub market that had high end audio gear. Much like HDM, you need an expensive HD display device, and, a decent audio rig to truly experience the difference from DvD.

Sadly, all indications are physical media for HD will suffer the exact same fate.

Hughmc, you are debating a "what if". For you you are fine with just the PS3 for all of your gaming, movie watching needs. However, reality is now showing that HD DVD is here for much longer, meaning no Universal (and now most Paramount/Dreamworks) for HD and many 360 "exclusive" games to play. I don't see how you can discount all the "exclusives" when there looks to be no end in sight to them.

I am not saying HD DVD is better, but I am saying that so far Blu Ray is not

Even though AV enthusiasts, the majority of HD DVD supporters, tech analysts and even porn industry KNOW and have stated that BD is technically better, you believe in your opinion that BD is not better. I hear you, I really do, but fact is fact and your opinion based on your bias and not fact doesn't change what is fact.

This is the area where the HD DVD camp naysayers really need to be called to step up and stop the FUD and lies. BD is technically better regardless of favoring one format over the other. So let's stop BSing each other on this point as the facts have already been established.

Absolutely, which is why I don't own any of the Sony-only formats they've championed. Luckily this time I favor the format created by a large consortium of companies and supported by the majority of CE manufacturers...Blu-ray...and not the one created by a small number of proprietary companies...HD DVD.

But regardless, if history is any guide (and it's realy the only guide we have) they will not both be mass-adopted, and the longer this format battle goes on the less chance we have of either being mass adopted.

Are you aware that HD DVD comes from the DVD Forum?

Maybe the right question is not Beta vs. VHS. Let's assume HD DVD were not here.

It's Blu-ray vs. DVD. Would this not be like SVHS vs. VHS? How did SVHS do, despite the much higher PQ and AQ?

I owned several JVC SVHS machines and they were great for many years... Yet, they did not replace VHS.

The main problem that HDM faces is that most people with displays under 50? inches will not see a big difference. I said 50? because we need to consider studies showing the minimum HDTV size where J6P would notice a difference. Note that J6P likes to watch sports in HD but may not mind DVD upscaling for DVDs costing $5-$15 at Wallmart.

I don't even know where to begin with this post. Perhaps there was too much strychnine in the diethylamide.

Now that was worth chuckling about.. I instantly visualized the size of the vial in the Good Shephard.... might have just been way too much diethlylamide.... I think these BD guys must be part of The League of Spiritual Discovery. :eek:

I guess you overlooked my common sense statement.

You are focusing on media content at the moment, but not overall common sense, simplicity and the future of an all in one solution. Why would you want more controllers, more hardware taking up space, more wires, and on and on. A one machine solution is absolutely the way to go and had MS and HD DVD offered that in one solution I most likely would have bought it last year. Sony got it right and I am glad I waited. At this point only content is dividing the two.

As far as the games for the PS3, the current lie of lies still seems to be that there are no games or very little games for the PS3. This is BS at best. There are good games right now. All the sports games like racing, tennis, golf, baseball, football, basketball and hockey are excellent. Resistance, Motorstorm, Darkness, Warhawk, Heavenly Sword, Oblivion, and several more are excellent as well.

The "best of both worlds" argument is the same nonsense we all hear with this format war. I took a stand and picked IMO what was the best choice. Better sound quality, better discs with more storage( and this does matter), an all in one media machine, etc.

The reason the studios and the HD DVD hardware and software companies are saying HD DVD is better for consumers is because it is cheaper. The reality is it is cheaper for the companies and the profit margin at current maybe better. They don't give a good damn if you are getting a cheaper player other than if the average person buys cheaper players it means more profit to the co's.

They are fooling people into believing that players are cheaper and the overall quality of sound, picture and features are better, which they are not. The only thing HD DVD keeps claiming is better than BD is the final spec. This is the LEAST important and most bogus argument in this war. And why is this mantra about the final spec repeated over and over? Simple, it is the ONLY advantage HD DVD has over BD and again it is extremely over rated by the HD DVD camp. WHen it is the only advantage you have I guess one must scream it from the mountain tops to get those that might think it is important to listen.

This HD DVD is better FUD is a disgrace, really it is. Early format adopters of both formats or just HD DVD alone, if they are honest and sincere they will, and some have admitted, that BD does have slight technical advantages, just as the majority of hardware and technical analysts have said. Anyone disputing that is spreading lies and rumours.

Price is not an advantage, manufacturability is not an advantage? Even you only position the technical advantages that BD has as slight... BD is not built on a vaible economic model and the "slight" technical advantages mean nothing of substance to 99% of the potential audience. BD has studio and retailer support that was bought, day one... that is all, and it is a wall that will crack to largest economic force there is, price.

Even though AV enthusiasts, the majority of HD DVD supporters, tech analysts and even porn industry KNOW and have stated that BD is technically better, you believe in your opinion that BD is not better. I hear you, I really do, but fact is fact and your opinion based on your bias and not fact doesn't change what is fact.

This is the area where the HD DVD camp naysayers really need to be called to step up and stop the FUD and lies. BD is technically better regardless of favoring one format over the other. So let's stop BSing each other on this point as the facts have already been established.

Well then, can you give me a real world example where Blu Ray outshines HD DVD overall? If you are one of those that lives by specs that's fine. But please don't BS me that Blu Ray is better just because of the specs. It hasn't happened yet and it is no longer in preproduction.
If you are a videophile then I'm sure you frequent the front PJ forum and know that printed specs and real outputs are two different beasts.
That's OK if you want to belive them but don't, especially on this site, tell us that those better specs have given us better results, because they haven't.

I also see that you have no reply about the few games that are out for the PS3. This isn't about what "may" come out later or next year but what's out now.

In my small group of 90% law enforcement buddies (10% regular folks), they tell me there waiting for the dual format players. Some of them don't even know that (i think) 2 df players already exist (lg and sammy, right?). Some of my friends are not considering switching.......EVER. And yes, we are all aware of the "format war" going on.

Point being, I consider myself and my buddies pretty much J6P types. This format war will be won when we get hd-br discs or players that are common place, like dvd-r / dvd+r. Doesn't matter if it's a different sales model or whatever the argument is.

Even though we all own Hdtv's. Most all of the were bought at wal-mart, except my Toshiba. Goes to show you some shopping habits of folks.

I'm just trying to throw in a "blue collar" perspective.

I do know 2 young Officers (21 years old) that have ps3's. One of them knows he has a blu-ray player, but zero movies, the other had no clue till i told him.

Well then, can you give me a real world example where Blu Ray outshines HD DVD overall? If you are one of those that lives by specs that's fine. But please don't BS me that Blu Ray is better just because of the specs. It hasn't happened yet and it is no longer in preproduction.
If you are a videophile then I'm sure you frequent the front PJ forum and know that printed specs and real outputs are two different beasts.
That's OK if you want to belive them but don't, especially on this site, tell us that those better specs have given us better results, because they haven't.

I also see that you have no reply about the few games that are out for the PS3. This isn't about what "may" come out later or next year but what's out now.



Obviously you aren't completely reading my posts or being selective. My post # 51 in this thread, third paragraph is my response to the game FUD/lies:

As far as the games for the PS3, the current lie of lies still seems to be that there are no games or very little games for the PS3. This is BS at best. There are good games right now. All the sports games like racing, tennis, golf, baseball, football, basketball and hockey are excellent. Resistance, Motorstorm, Darkness, Warhawk, Heavenly Sword, Oblivion, and several more are excellent as well.

Are you aware that HD DVD comes from the DVD Forum?

Are you aware that it's totally irrelevant to any discussion of format coexistence? Who give a sh!t unless you want it as an oblique talking point for your format of choice?

Well then, can you give me a real world example where Blu Ray outshines HD DVD overall?

Sales.

I was going to read every post in this thread before commenting, but stopped in the middle of page two. I keep hearing people talk of how DVD won't be replaced, or HDDVD and Blu-ray can't coexist and have "mass-adoption"...it's laugh-out-loudable, because when it's all "said'n'done" it's as simple as one studio dropping DVD and only releasing new movies on HD formats. Of course the studios will wait til there are more HDTVs in homes, but if successful, THAT will spur on "mass adoption"

New Movie Everyone has to have: "HOT"

customer: "Do you have "HOT" on DVD?"
retailer: "No, that movie is only being released in High Definition on HDDVD/BD, it won't play in a regular DVD player."
customer: "That sucks!!! This is BS!!! ...and how much does a new player cost? One that will play the movie?"
retailer: "got a few from $99 to $399, but the ones that are $299-$399, will play ALL of the discs, and the lower priced players will only play HDDVD+DVD or BD+DVD"
customer: "ok, let me get one that plays everything so I don't have to worry about this BS anymore!"
retailer: "ok, just take it to check out, and don't forget your copy of "HOT", let me know if you need anything else"
customer: " alright, thanks"
...end of drama.

How about this jedimaster:
customer: do you have "hot"
retailer: only in high def, you can buy a player for $299-$399 that will play it and the other HD format and your old discs.
customer: you can put this back for me, I don't want to spend $300 right now.

Well, imo what history has shown us is, that each and every format war is different. Nothing more, nothing less. I have found, that about every assumption concering this format war at hand can be "proven" or "falsified" with one of the past format wars.

For example DVD+/-R has shown us, that one solution (of a format war, not related to a prerecorded a media format war) can be coexistence. The war imo was solved by 3rd parties offering an easy and affordable hardware solution.

Vinyl/CD/Cassettes/mp3 etc. have shown us imo, that the audio market is very different from the video market, although it is about pre-recorded media as well. The world of audio seems more likely to accept different medias side by side. mp3/CD/SACD&DVD-Audio and even vinyl exist side by side right now and i can´t see, that mp3 will "kill" CD in the foreseeable future. The niche for high-end audio is very small, imo because of the way audio is consumed in many different, convenient ways, but imo only very few people outside the "audiophile realm" actually sit down in front of their audio gear and listen to music. (Big difference to video, which imo is almost always consumed sitting "still" in front of a screen/tv/display and may it just with a laptop on board of a plane)

"VHS/Beta" imo shows, that having two (there were even three formats, iirc) competing formats do not per se lead to the failure of all formats. So much for "Format A" has to "die" because it prevents "Format B" from succeeding and therefore "Format A" is the reason for all misery.

I agree that the real "enemy" of HDM is DVD and not "the other format". Being an advanced product, but only in an evolutionary way and not a revolutionary way, doesn´t by itself create a large demand for it. As long as DVD is around, it will be hard to beat. And remember, DVD is still making tons of money for all involved, doesn´t really make sense to stop releasing DVDs any time soon.

New Movie Everyone has to have: "HOT"

customer: "Do you have "HOT" on DVD?"
retailer: "No, that movie is only being released in High Definition on HDDVD/BD, it won't play in a regular DVD player."
customer: "That sucks!!! This is BS!!! ...and how much does a new player cost? One that will play the movie?"
retailer: "got a few from $99 to $399, but the ones that are $299-$399, will play ALL of the discs, and the lower priced players will only play HDDVD+DVD or BD+DVD"
customer: "ok, let me get one that plays everything so I don't have to worry about this BS anymore!"
retailer: "ok, just take it to check out, and don't forget your copy of "HOT", let me know if you need anything else"
customer: " alright, thanks"
...end of drama.
New Movies Everyone has to have: "HOT" and "COOL"

Dude 1: Can you burn me a copy of "HOT"?
Dude 2: I'm still busy downloading it, it's taking forever.
Dude 1: Really? Why does it take so long?
Dude 2: The file is like 25 GB.
Dude 1: But that won't fit on a DVD!
Dude 2: No, this movie is only being released in High Definition on HDDVD/BD, it won't play in a regular DVD player.
Dude 1: That sucks!!! This is BS!!! ...and how much does a new player cost? One that will play the movie?
Dude 2: There are a few from $99 to $399, but the ones that are $299-$399, will play ALL of the discs, and the lower priced players will only play HDDVD+DVD or BD+DVD.
Dude 1: Ok, let me get one that plays everything so I don't have to worry about this BS anymore!
...
Dude 1: I have a BD/HDDVD player now, can you burn me a copy of "HOT"?
Dude 2: I'm still busy downloading it, it's taking forever.
Dude 1: Bummer. How about "COOL"?
Dude 2: Hasn't been cracked yet.
Dude 1: Bummer.
...
Dude 2: Hey, I have finally downloaded "HOT". You still want it?
Dude 1: You bet! How much does it cost?
Dude 2: That'll be $10.00. These BD/HDDVD writable disks ain't cheap.
Dude 1: Are you nuts? I might just as well buy the real thing or go to the cinema!

Sales.

So this is your only example? That's what I thought

Obviously you aren't completely reading my posts or being selective. My post # 51 in this thread, third paragraph is my response to the game FUD/lies:

As far as the games for the PS3, the current lie of lies still seems to be that there are no games or very little games for the PS3. This is BS at best. There are good games right now. All the sports games like racing, tennis, golf, baseball, football, basketball and hockey are excellent. Resistance, Motorstorm, Darkness, Warhawk, Heavenly Sword, Oblivion, and several more are excellent as well.

They are nice and excellent but most (except for a few) already exist for other consoles or the PC. There is hardly no "exclusive" content to warrant a purchase to most people ( as I said earlier about other's getting HD DVD and/or a 360).

Mass hysteria!

oy, I sure botched that quote. been too long since I've seen Ghostbusters.

So this is your only example? That's what I thought

No, that was my attempt at humor so as not to pull the thread to far afield. There have been at least twice as many BDs with a lossless or uncompressed soundtrack as there have been HD DVDs...I would guess that's because of the size of the disk, but maybe the studios supporting HD DVD just don't care. Either way, it's been consistently better on Blu-ray. I agree that PQ is a wash atm, although there is probably more overhead on BDs to improve them in the future (high bit-rate VC-1 and AVC!).

Maybe the right question is not Beta vs. VHS. Let's assume HD DVD were not here.

It's Blu-ray vs. DVD. Would this not be like SVHS vs. VHS? How did SVHS do, despite the much higher PQ and AQ?

I owned several JVC SVHS machines and they were great for many years... Yet, they did not replace VHS.

I agree that this would indeed be the issue, but (despite what is becoming a growing mantra of some) it's manageable. The timing is good (HT enthusiasts are already spending at least as much on high quality SD DVD players), and the advanced interactivity that allows the potential for new ways to enjoy media (or new ways for video to babysit your kids) that can be enjoyed even if you don't see much of an improvement in PQ and AQ.

Remember it took almost a decade for DVD to outsell VHS, and I would expect nothing less from a single HDM (there's a LOT more CE support and marketing behind HDM than there was behind SVHS). THe problem is that many on AVS seem to think that consumer interest is driven by price, and that's wrong. Consumer interest is driven by word of mouth, reviews, and other modes of conveying perception of value for a product. All price does is increase sales once consumer interest is already there. Right now the vast majority of mainstream reviewers are recommending that everyone sit the format war out. That, combined with the historical consumer intolerance for competing media distribution formats and the lack of floor space in retail stores (making the formats not look as "mainstream") kills interest, regardless of price.

Fact: Ipods sell like hotcakes, despite costing more than an entry level HDM player.

Fact: The GameCube was the same price as the Wii, but sold like horse manure.

Lowering prices before there is large-scale consumer interest decreases the percieved value of the format rather than increases it. It also decreases the actual value of the format to manufacturers and retailers, since it squeezes the profits out earlier than the normal CE profit margin/sales volume curve.

Lowering prices are great, but that alone will not drive mass adoption while there is a format war, and it won't allow coexistence, unless you mean in an SACD/DVD-A sort of way.

No, what is happening is that everytime an example is offered, you narrow the criterea so that you can say it's not the same thing. How about this 45's and LPs? Records also came in different speeds. Or how about MP3's and CD's? Two different formats for mass media delivery? Widescreen and fullscreen, Pal and Ntsc.

By far the best contradictory response so far. I would point out that I actually provided over a half-dozen examples that fit the criteria, so it's not like I'm making a moving target. It's not my fault that the history of media distribution formats doesn't support the conclusion you want to be true.

45s and LPs are a good example actually. LPs and 45s were both introduced to replace 78s, both formats offered advantages in media longevity, while both largely coexisted, leading to the advent of variable-speed turntables ("combo players", if you will). The economics of media distribution in the '40s - '60s was quite different from today, and I would maintain that MiniDisc vs. DCC or SACD vs DVD-A are closer analogies, but if you want to invoke vinyl, I have no real objection to it.

Hell, we could go so far as to say HDTV v. SDTV are both types of mass media distribution in different formats.

You could say that, just like color and black and white where different distribution formats. With the latter replacement was total, but it too decades. The HDTV/SDTV switchover will probably be faster than the transition to color sets, but it will still take a while. The manufacturing and distribution models of these examples aren't really good analogs to physical media, but had there been two incompatible versions of color broadcasts that required you to own a different TV to watch them, imagine how much longer the transition would have taken?

Satelite v. Cable are different mass media distribution formats.

Sort of. They deliver essentially identical content, and produced content can be distributed on both at no added cost. Also, cable and satelite companies use a rental-based profit stream by charging you monthly for their service. The economics are not really reconcilable with physical distribution media.

Single formats are the exception, not the rule in everything that is sold to consumers. That is as true for mass media distribution as anything else.

That is just factually wrong in media distribution...at least of they physical variety. Outside of records, I can't think of other examples. The fact that you have to invoke physical media from the 1940's shows just how rare co-existence is, IMO.

I agree that this would indeed be the issue, but (despite what is becoming a growing mantra of some) it's manageable. The timing is good (HT enthusiasts are already spending at least as much on high quality SD DVD players), and the advanced interactivity that allows the potential for new ways to enjoy media (or new ways for video to babysit your kids) that can be enjoyed even if you don't see much of an improvement in PQ and AQ.

Remember it took almost a decade for DVD to outsell VHS, and I would expect nothing less from a single HDM (there's a LOT more CE support and marketing behind HDM than there was behind SVHS). THe problem is that many on AVS seem to think that consumer interest is driven by price, and that's wrong. Consumer interest is driven by word of mouth, reviews, and other modes of conveying perception of value for a product. All price does is increase sales once consumer interest is already there. Right now the vast majority of mainstream reviewers are recommending that everyone sit the format war out. That, combined with the historical consumer intolerance for competing media distribution formats and the lack of floor space in retail stores (making the formats not look as "mainstream") kills interest, regardless of price.

Fact: Ipods sell like hotcakes, despite costing more than an entry level HDM player.

Fact: The GameCube was the same price as the Wii, but sold like horse manure.

Lowering prices before there is large-scale consumer interest decreases the percieved value of the format rather than increases it. It also decreases the actual value of the format to manufacturers and retailers, since it squeezes the profits out earlier than the normal CE profit margin/sales volume curve.

Lowering prices are great, but that alone will not drive mass adoption while there is a format war, and it won't allow coexistence, unless you mean in an SACD/DVD-A sort of way.

The fact that you acknowledge the coexistance of DVD and VHS for over a decade cuts against many of your points about the inability of different formats to coexist. I know you are going to say that it is different for one reason or another, but it does go a ways to disproving your theories.

That is just factually wrong in media distribution...at least of they physical variety. Outside of records, I can't think of other examples. The fact that you have to invoke physical media from the 1940's shows just how rare co-existence is, IMO.


I don't see anything prior to this quote of yours as a challenge to what I posted, so I won't address them. I'll only address the above quote.

Just how many different physical mass media format contest have been held over the past few decades? The reason my example is rare is because there aren't many examples of mass market media formats to cite either way. And everytime I bring one up, you try to disqualify it for one reason or another. I could just as easily say the SACD v. DVD-A example isn't relevent because audiophiles make up a much smaller percentage of the country than HDTV owners, and so HD audio died on it's own merits.

Mass market media distribution formats play by the same rules as most every other product. There's no reason to think stores won't carry different HD formats when they carried DVD and VHS, LCD's and Plasmas, etc.. There's no reason to think there will be any more consumer confusion over this issue than there is with Macs and PC, widescreen and fullscreen DVD's, satelite and cable, etc.

The fact that you acknowledge the coexistance of DVD and VHS for over a decade cuts against many of your points about the inability of different formats to coexist.

No it doesn't. DVD was replacing VHS; once there was consumer interest there was never of issue of "if", just "when" price points and market penetration resulted in replacement. HD DVD can Blu-ray are competing to see who gets to try and gain enough consumer interest to attempt to replace DVD. Every month that goes by with the two formats in a war is a shorter remaining window for either format to generate consumer interest to become the "next gen" format after DVD.

Surely you can see the difference between DVD vs Divx and DVD vs. VHS, and see why one is a better analog for the current market situation?

No it doesn't.

I think it does. For example - take the limited point that stores won't carry two formats because it's too big of a burden to use that much shelf space. Surely you can see that they were willing to carry do both fDVD/VHS, as well as a whole wide variaty of products. The "shelf space" argument is a red herring that is easily disproved, but that doesn't prevent it from rearing it's ugly head.

Further, the fact that VHS existed didn't cause consumer confusion or kill both formats. You describe it as "replacing" VHS, but we only know that after the fact and in hindsight. During the time, they were both competing technologies that comfortably lived together in the same time period.

Mass market media distribution formats play by the same rules as most every other product. There's no reason to think stores won't carry different HD formats when they carried DVD and VHS, LCD's and Plasmas, etc.

Actually, it was stores not wanting to carry both DVD and VHS that helped speed up DVD's market penetration. Rental chains, for example, phased out VHS rentals for DVD rentals before DVD market penetration alone justified it (because people who bought DVD players were bigger movie fans, so rented more, and because the profit margins were a bit higher, since they had already established a price increase for the "new" format).

LCDs and Plasmas are a worthless example, as you only sell the hardware once and make a large margin on it. Totally the opposite of movie sales.

Look, the cost of ownership of a movie (or audio) format is not mainly in the hardware, it's in buying (or renting) the movies. I paid around $300 for my A1 and $1,000 for my BD-10. In the first year I spent $450 on HD DVDs and $800 on BDs. Over the lifetime of the formats (even a sad, non-mass-market abbreviated lifetime) I will spend far more on the software than the hardware. It HAS to be that way with media distribution formats or else the people who produce the content don't make any money. The average consumer doesn't want to invest in a player AND A MOVIE COLLECTION when there is the risk that the format may not have long-term support.

Had dual-players been marketed as the solution from before the begginning of the format war things might ahve been different. If S&V and other enthusiast sources had said "the format war won't matter, just buy a dual player" from day 1, perhaps the idea of a "format war" could have been avoided. It doesn't matter now, because consumers (and retailers) see it as a format war, so interest is muted. People looking at dual format players still wonder which of the formats to buy, since one format will "win" and the don't want an collection of the "losing" format if it won't be around in 10 years.

I think it does. For example - take the limited point that stores won't carry two formats because it's too big of a burden to use that much shelf space. Surely you can see that they were willing to carry do both fDVD/VHS, as well as a whole wide variaty of products. The "shelf space" argument is a red herring that is easily disproved, but that doesn't prevent it from rearing it's ugly head.

It's not a red herring. Why do you think Target decided it wouldn't carry Divx? (btw, that's what helped end the Divx/DVD war) VHS already has excellent sales volume, but slipping margins because it was at a later point in its sales cycle. DVD and Divx both offered higher margins, but it wasn't reasonable to stock both in quantity, so they killed one and helped establish a de facto "replacement" format. DVD was "next gen", so they could charge more and make more money with less sales.

As soon as increasing sales revenue from DVD eclispsed VHS (which was long before DVD unit sales caught VHS...remember they made more from each DVD sold) retailers started emphasizing the more profitable format and reducing VHS sales space. This spurred on DVD market penetration, and encouraged repurchasing of favorite movies, eventual double-dipping, etc. DVD and VHS only "coexisted" in a state of dynamic disequilibria.
Further, the fact that VHS existed didn't cause consumer confusion or kill both formats.

No, it killed Beta, and DVD killed Divx. See the difference?

You describe it as "replacing" VHS, but we only know that after the fact and in hindsight. During the time, they were both competing technologies that comfortably lived together in the same time period.

No, for the reasons I wrote above. Once DVD killed Divx and became the defacto "next gen" format, the replacement of VHS by DVD was never in doubt. Long before DVD unit sales caught VHS it was just a matter of letting DVD production costs drop and finding the profit/volume point at which retailers dropped support for VHS.

Now the process needs to start again, but instead of a nice quick DVD/Divx battle, we are getting an ugly MiniDisc/DCC or SACD/DVD-A style war, and if it doesn't resolve soon we will be stuck with niether succeding DVD.

They are nice and excellent but most (except for a few) already exist for other consoles or the PC. There is hardly no "exclusive" content to warrant a purchase to most people ( as I said earlier about other's getting HD DVD and/or a 360).

Ands here is the FUD and lies. First you stated there were little or no games for the PS3 as that is what we were discussing. Then when I do list games, you come back and change to talking about exclusive games. Good spin.

The reality is there are great games right now for the PS3 and quite a few.

Ands here is the FUD and lies. First you stated there were little or no games for the PS3 as that is what we were discussing. Then when I do list games, you come back and change to talking about exclusive games. Good spin.

The reality is there are great games right now for the PS3 and quite a few.
Calling me a liar doesn't change the fact that you cannot debate this without resorting to name calling.

Actually, you are now being reported. This thread is about coexistance of formats. In reality you can't get all the games and movies you want with just one format. You are wishing it were true to justify your purchase but it hasn't happened. Please tell me that you can play Gears of War, Shadowrun, Flight Simulator X, Far Cry and any Halo game and watch the Matrix trilogy, Hot Fuzz, Shawn of the Dead, Lucky Number Slevin on your PS3 to justify that your PS3 can do it all? If all your going to do is resort to calling "FUD" then maybe you shouldn't be in this type forum.

And yes, the PS3 has a lack of games to justify it as the only piece of equipment anybody needs in their rack, not yours.

Actually, it was stores not wanting to carry both DVD and VHS that helped speed up DVD's market penetration. Rental chains, for example, phased out VHS rentals for DVD rentals before DVD market penetration alone justified it (because people who bought DVD players were bigger movie fans, so rented more, and because the profit margins were a bit higher, since they had already established a price increase for the "new" format).

May I ask the source of this information? It would be tempting for me to believe that you make up information that you state as a solid fact. Am I right to believe this is speculation on your part, or did you read a survey of some sort that verified this?


LCDs and Plasmas are a worthless example, as you only sell the hardware once and make a large margin on it. Totally the opposite of movie sales.

Look, the cost of ownership of a movie (or audio) format is not mainly in the hardware, it's in buying (or renting) the movies. I paid around $300 for my A1 and $1,000 for my BD-10. In the first year I spent $450 on HD DVDs and $800 on BDs. Over the lifetime of the formats (even a sad, non-mass-market abbreviated lifetime) I will spend far more on the software than the hardware. It HAS to be that way with media distribution formats or else the people who produce the content don't make any money. The average consumer doesn't want to invest in a player AND A MOVIE COLLECTION when there is the risk that the format may not have long-term support.



It seems to me that information is irrelevant. Stores still dedicate twice the shelf space to different formats whether it is expensive one time purchases or small items that are purchased often. From the stores perspective, it wouldn't make any difference whether it was something bought often with a small margin, or something bought rarely with a big margin.

So you cited a distinction without a difference. Yes, one is rarely bought with high margin, while the other is often bought with small margins. But that doesn't change anything regarding a stores need to stock both types.

Calling me a liar doesn't change the fact that you cannot debate this without resorting to name calling.

Actually, you are now being reported. This thread is about coexistance of formats. In reality you can't get all the games and movies you want with just one format. You are wishing it were true to justify your purchase but it hasn't happened. Please tell me that you can play Gears of War, Shadowrun, Flight Simulator X, Far Cry and any Halo game and watch the Matrix trilogy, Hot Fuzz, Shawn of the Dead, Lucky Number Slevin on your PS3 to justify that your PS3 can do it all? If all your going to do is resort to calling "FUD" then maybe you shouldn't be in this type forum.

And yes, the PS3 has a lack of games to justify it as the only piece of equipment anybody needs in their rack, not yours.


Report all you want. I NEVER called you a liar. Telling the truth is not name calling. If you reread my post and my other posts I said these are the lies and FUD being spread. These lies and FUD are that the PS3 doesn't have many games or any appealing games, etc. You stated one thing about the PS3 and its' games. When I called BS on it, which it is, you changed the subject about the PS3 to not having many games to not having many exclusive games to fit your argument.

I want people to come to this forum and see and read the truth. The truth is the PS3 is an excellent system and has many good games right now available to play.

Seems to me that video games are the most comparable example and there has never been a universal format for games. There's always been noncompatible mac vs. PC, Atari vs. intellivision, PS vs. Nintendo, and now Xbox vs. PS3.

People also forget that even in the "classic" format war, VHS vs. Beta, both formats co-existed for nearly 10 years (!) before VHS finally "won."

One thing to watch closely is whether the dual-format players catch on. If they do, or if the price of an HD-DVD and BR player falls far enough to make the purchase of both of them feasible, then there's no reason why both formats won't co-exist for the foreseeable future.

At some point, 1080p HD will be replaced by something newer and better, and both BR and HD-DVD will cease to exist, in much the same way that VHS is dead today. But until that day, I see no reason why there "can be only one!" high-def format.

Seems to me that video games are the most comparable example and there has never been a universal format for games. There's always been noncompatible mac vs. PC, Atari vs. intellivision, PS vs. Nintendo, and now Xbox vs. PS3.

People also forget that even in the "classic" format war, VHS vs. Beta, both formats co-existed for nearly 10 years (!) before VHS finally "won."

One thing to watch closely is whether the dual-format players catch on. If they do, or if the price of an HD-DVD and BR player falls far enough to make the purchase of both of them feasible, then there's no reason why both formats won't co-exist for the foreseeable future.

At some point, 1080p HD will be replaced by something newer and better, and both BR and HD-DVD will cease to exist, in much the same way that VHS is dead today. But until that day, I see no reason why there "can be only one!" high-def format.

Agreed.

The discs are playable on a single unit. If you had a beta/vhs player that was no bigger than a normal tape deck that accepted both kinds of tapes in the same tape slot, would beta have died out? This will end up just like the +/- war. If one player plays both formats, who cares which it is?

OMG the case is blue or red!! No one cares if the players play both.

"OMG the case is blue or red!! No one cares if the players play both."

I'm already on the dual-format bandwagen. I have a 300-series BR player now but am jumping on the UP5000 as soon as it comes out. After that, I could care less which format "wins" and actually would prefer the increased competition of HD-DVD and BR fighting it out for years to come. :D

Competition is always good!

You mean like VHS and Beta co-existed for almost 10 years?

yes

VHS in the consumer market
Beta in the Proffesional market.

and not 10 years. Up until 2000. ;)

Seems to me that video games are the most comparable example and there has never been a universal format for games. There's always been noncompatible mac vs. PC, Atari vs. intellivision, PS vs. Nintendo, and now Xbox vs. PS3.

Ugh. Please go back and catch up with this thread. Console sales are not even remotely like media distribution sales. Videogames sell in lower volumes at huge margins, which is why companies can take a loss on the sale of the console itself. Hence even a small videogame store can carry enough titles of all the major console formats to make a handy profit.

People also forget that even in the "classic" format war, VHS vs. Beta, both formats co-existed for nearly 10 years (!) before VHS finally "won."

That's true, although it wasn't really a war during the second half of that time. It was also the first time mass market video distribution formats existed. I'm not saying that if Blu-ray wins HD DVDs would stop being pressed before the holidays (or vice versa). "Winning" is being the de facto word of mouth next-gen format combined with the vast majority of retail shelf space devoted to HDM. That lets consumer interest in HDM grow and would help drive the roll-out of HDTVs. It would still take years to catch DVD sales.

One thing to watch closely is whether the dual-format players catch on. If they do, or if the price of an HD-DVD and BR player falls far enough to make the purchase of both of them feasible, then there's no reason why both formats won't co-exist for the foreseeable future.

I fully encourage you to watch dual-format sales, but I can all but promise they won't catch on, except in the bleeding edge enthusiast market like at AVS (where they are still a minority). And the price of players is largely immaterial; the investment in software is much higher, and competing formats wil still blunt consumer interest in the formats, even if players are given away.

Seriously guys, if you're going to contribute to a thread, please go back and read the posts rather than clutter up the thread with points that have already been discussed and discarded.

Ugh. Please go back and catch up with this thread. Console sales are not even remotely like media distribution sales. Videogames sell in lower volumes at huge margins, which is why companies can take a loss on the sale of the console itself. Hence even a small videogame store can carry enough titles of all the major console formats to make a handy profit.



That's true, although it wasn't really a war during the second half of that time. It was also the first time mass market video distribution formats existed. I'm not saying that if Blu-ray wins HD DVDs would stop being pressed before the holidays (or vice versa). "Winning" is being the de facto word of mouth next-gen format combined with the vast majority of retail shelf space devoted to HDM. That lets consumer interest in HDM grow and would help drive the roll-out of HDTVs. It would still take years to catch DVD sales.



I fully encourage you to watch dual-format sales, but I can all but promise they won't catch on, except in the bleeding edge enthusiast market like at AVS (where they are still a minority). And the price of players is largely immaterial; the investment in software is much higher, and competing formats wil still blunt consumer interest in the formats, even if players are given away.

Seriously guys, if you're going to contribute to a thread, please go back and read the posts rather than clutter up the thread with points that have already been discussed and discarded.

I think you are really missing the obvious reality in front of your face. People are already dual format. It is not rocket science as to what is driving it. Cheap HD DVD players. I have a PS3 now, why? It was $349 it is sitting in the same rack as my $199 A2.

Gee some of us are already voting for coexistence even though we might have a sentimental favorite.. I prefer Red, but I now buy both. If the studios won't go nuetral the end customer will... but the main thing making that possible is really cheap HD DVD players, and at some point cheap DF players. Do you really think if a significant portion of the market is formate exclusive that when we have $100 player capable of playing that format BD prefering buyers won't say screw I want Universal, Dreamworks, and Paramount so I will buy that $100 HD DVD player. This actually works both ways, all the momentum is driving to format coexistence which is a win for HD DVD..

DF capability adds little or no cost to a BD player, once we get past this very early phase. DF will be a feature of any BD player, just as HD will be a feature of any DVD player.

"Ugh. Please go back and catch up with this thread. Console sales are not even remotely like media distribution sales. Videogames sell in lower volumes at huge margins, which is why companies can take a loss on the sale of the console itself. Hence even a small videogame store can carry enough titles of all the major console formats to make a handy profit."

Just because you said something earlier doesn't make it true. The fact is that videogame sales are comparable. The differences in margins and volume is not definitive. You are forgetting that a game is made solely as a game and all revenue comes from sales and rentals. With films, they are already made and usually released (at a profit) in the theater. The cost of making the BR or HD-DVD does not include producing the film. It's essentially just a data-conversion issue. So there doesn't have to be as much of a built-in profit to sustain both formats, and the money will be made in volume anyway.

At the end of the day, the cost of producing the film, promotion, and distributing thousands of prints to theaters will absolutely dwarf whatever extra cost would be associated with supporting both BR and HD-DVD.

As for the point-of-sale, the majority of DVDs are going to be bought or rented online, where "shelf space" is not an issue. And, even if it were, it does not take up more space or cost much more money to stock 5 copies of Film X in BR and 5 in HD-DVD than it does to stock 10 in a "universal" format.

Just because you said something earlier doesn't make it true. The fact is that videogame sales are comparable. The differences in margins and volume is not definitive.

Ok, so if you think they are comparable, are you ready to pay $60 per movie? No? That's what new console games cost, and the higher margin for the store is why even small stores can carry multiple formats. What is so hard about this?

Why did Target stop carrying Divx originlly? It's not like DVD sales were a significant fraction of VHS sales at the time. If you are right then the customers had not yet "decided" and both formats should have been kept. Why are UMD movies being cleared out of CE stores already? They're smaller than DVDs, and the install base of players is larger than HD DVD (and the prices are about the same). Shouldn't that format "surive" too based on your videogame analogy?

I'm sure if we were paying $40-60 a pop they would be stocked, what do you think? Do you still think it's a relevant example? If so, please expain why.


As for the point-of-sale, the majority of DVDs are going to be bought or rented online, where "shelf space" is not an issue.

Actually, that's a good arguement, I just don't think it's going to be true very soon. I order all of my movies online from Amazon (I don't have a major CE retailer near me) but I don't believe that online-retail will pass up B&M stores for movie sales soon. Maybe in time for the next format war (downloads vs. optical). Of course I may be wrong on that, time will tell.


And, even if it were, it does not take up more space or cost much more money to stock 5 copies of Film X in BR and 5 in HD-DVD than it does to stock 10 in a "universal" format.

In terms of floor space it costs twice as much, since you only one stack of the "universal" format while the others can be in the back. Worse, it costs you sales, because in that second slot you can stock a second title, expanding the number of titles available for impules buying from customers. Double-stocking both, especially while DVD has to be stocked (at least another 5-7 years) is extremely expensive, especially when so little is made per sale.

I think you are really missing the obvious reality in front of your face. People are already dual format. It is not rocket science as to what is driving it. Cheap HD DVD players. I have a PS3 now, why? It was $349 it is sitting in the same rack as my $199 A2.

The really obvious point is that people are niether at this point. The fact that a handful of AV geeks on AVS (myself included) argue endlessly and buy a lot of disks per person... some of them are dual format (incuding myself) does not mean squat in this format war. Had the formats been unified prior to release even in name (with all players being dual players), I would agree with you. Instead, first adopters, general enthusiasts, and the media already "know" there is a format war, and we aren not going to "re-educate" them just because we ardently wish it were so. Consumer interst will languish unti a wiinner is decided, and that will either happen before mass adoption, or mass adoption is not going to happen.

DF capability adds little or no cost to a BD player, once we get past this very early phase. DF will be a feature of any BD player, just as HD will be a feature of any DVD player.

The first part (about the cost) is true, but it's just too late to convince everyone to swith to "both". If HD DVD "wins" simply by becoming a "feature" of dvd players, then we will never see the vast majority of niche products get released on HDM, it will just be the huge box-office sellers that make it worth while to encode to HD. In that case we all lose.

If eventually all BD players are capable of playing HD DVD, it will be because BD is winning and the transition is being made easier with people who invested in both. People are not going to pay the added cost when they only buy HD DVDs, and if they pay the added cost for the player they'll want the "better" disk format (i.e. the higher bandwidth version...regardless of whether it's really better).

Either way the idea that at this point the two HDM formats can co-exist seems really dubious based on the history of media distribution formats, and it would probably preclude mass penetration of either format (ala SACD and DVD-A) if it did.

No offense ottscay, but it quickly becomes appearent that only the things that verify your theories do you find comparable. You manage to find a reason for every other format comparison to be invalid by some non sequitar theory or another. They are either too old, too low in volume, not mass market enough, not media like enough, etc. Only comparisons that fit your theory are deemed valid, while each and every one of the numerous counter examples you throw away.

If you were fair, you would acknowledge that your own pet comparison (SACD/ DVD-A) is as flawed as any of those you dismiss, simply because those formats died because there was very little interest in them. Those formats wouldn't have caught on even without competition, because there was no interest in the product. How ever small you judge the HDTV movement, it is certainly much, much larger than the HD audio movement.

So here is a challenge to your intellectual honesty: Do you agree that DVD-A didn't kill SACD, but the fact that there was no interest in it killed them both?

I think the two formats can co-exist perfectly fine. Out of all my friends and family, I'm the only one who bought into HDM.

They all say two reasons why they haven't:
1.) Price - first and foremost
2.) Picking the wrong side

Inexpensive dual format players would tip the scale for most of them.

As I've thought all along: With dual format players, the vast majority wouldn't really care what format the movie is on.

Skogan, I would love for both HDM formats to achieve mass use, I'm just honest enough to admit that history doesn't support it. I agree that SACD and DVD-A had problems attracting consumer interest even without the format war. Moreover, the anal-rententive length the formats made consumers go to to protect DRM (e.g. using multiple analog hookups) was a real turn-off even to many audiophiles.

Even if you throw out SACD/DVD-A, there are other comparisons (I listed several). I personally think the best example is MiniDisc vs. DCC. There was a lot of ineterst in the formats, they offered many advantages (more portable, more durable, easier to record onto...back then burning CDs wasn't a practical option for most), but the format war between the two turned the public off, so there was never a lot of shelf-space dedicated to either (relative to cassette tape and eventually CD) and there ended up not being a lot of pre-recorded albums released. Had there not been a format war, one might have caught on...like MiniDisc did in Japan, where DCC didn't make a good showing.

You keep wanting to ignore it, but the DVD vs. Divx battle is a VERY good analogy. A lot of people were intersted in the idea, but sales didn't take off until retailers (and Target in particular) took matters into their own hands and favored DVD over Divx. In fact, here a some crrepy parallels to the current HDM war:

1) Studio and retailer support was initially split between DVD and Divx
2) Divx players could, in fact, play DVD (they were "dual players)
3) DVD ended up "winning" while sales of DVD were a minute fraction of VHS sales
4) Standalone players were still still expensive when DVD won.

It's not aperfect analogy, I grant you, but it's a better analogy than videogame consoles (where software costs $40-60 or more and "players" are made by a single hardware vender and drop only slowly in price during their lifecycle) or computer operating systems (which is just such a different sales model i terms of hardware and software that I can't understand why it keeps comig up).

Seriously, go ahead and champion LP and 45 coexistence, and suggest that a greater emphasis ononline-retailing will make it possible. Those are both relevant analogies, even if I don't think they are as informmative as other format wars.

But for thse who want to cite recordable media or the cola wars (someone actualy did in another thread) please try to explain the analogy beyond two "things" existing in a marketplace.

"Ok, so if you think they are comparable, are you ready to pay $60 per movie? No? That's what new console games cost, and the higher margin for the store is why even small stores can carry multiple formats. What is so hard about this?"

The cost per unit for the consumer is not definitive. You think that video stores get to keep the total price of the game? They charge more for the game because the gamemaker charges them more.

And again, I don't see the "small store" as the key point of sale for either video games or, especially, HDM. I think they'll be sold online or in megastores, where margins can be lower because volume is higher and where shelf/storage space is not as much of an issue. Besides, games probably take up more space on a per-unit basis because the boxes are usually larger (and contain manuals, etc.)

"Why did Target stop carrying Divx originlly?"

I think Divx was just a DOA concept that no one was interested in at all. The concept was silly, IMO, and was too drastic a change from the usual rent-and-return procedure. You can't say the same about HD movies. I really don't see why you would use Divx as an example at all. It was not so much a new media format so much as a new media distribution concept.

"Why are UMD movies being cleared out of CE stores already? They're smaller than DVDs, and the install base of players is larger than HD DVD (and the prices are about the same). Shouldn't that format "surive" too based on your videogame analogy?"

Another format that no one was remotely interested in. Obviously, the format has to have some appeal or it will die no matter what. You really can't compare obscure formats like Divx or UMD that never got off the ground at all, with HDM movies. People are definately gonna want high-def films. And if they don't then both HD-DVD and BR are both gonna die.

"In terms of floor space it costs twice as much, since you only one stack of the "universal" format while the others can be in the back. Worse, it costs you sales, because in that second slot you can stock a second title, expanding the number of titles available for impules buying from customers. Double-stocking both, especially while DVD has to be stocked (at least another 5-7 years) is extremely expensive, especially when so little is made per sale."

There are only so many titles to stock. Look at Blockbuster. They have like 25 copies of a DVD out there on the shelves. Waste of space if you ask me, but this is their business model. Personally, I think the current model of storing the DVDs in boxes that you pick up and carry to the front, and then they "unlock" them, is silly and should be totally revamped.

In any event, like I said above, the key point of sale is likely to be on-line, either through Amazon-like purchase or netflix-like rental.

The more movies released on both formats the longer the war will continue.

And since both formats are announcing more and more and more titles, well.... I guess you see my point, both will survive for a long long time.

The people who think the war will be over within the next year are really just talking out of their butt, I mean there is NO SCENARIO that would lead to one of the formats being dead in only 1 year, it will take years and years for one to die out.

Skogan, I would love for both HDM formats to achieve mass use, I'm just honest enough to admit that history doesn't support it.



Since I don't think that is what history tells us, I don't think you can point to your own honesty as reveiling that alleged fact.


You keep wanting to ignore it, but the DVD vs. Divx battle is a VERY good analogy.

I think we can safely say that the existance of Divx didn't kill DVD's. If your point is that having two formats causes both to die, I don't see how that example helps you at all.

Would you admit that in the DVD/Divx example (the one you self-describe as the best comparison) the existance of two formats didn't kill both of them? And if there is any leason to be learned from this analogy its that having two formats will not doom both, although one may eventually become the preferred format?

showing.

You keep wanting to ignore it, but the DVD vs. Divx battle is a VERY good analogy.

I don't think so. SACD and DVD-A is a better one. They were technologies that very few people could appreciate and even less wanted. Just like HDM. The difference is that the HD audio formats were pretty much dead by the time uniplayers showed up. They are getting out early this time.

I don't think so. SACD and DVD-A is a better one. They were technologies that very few people could appreciate and even less wanted. Just like HDM. The difference is that the HD audio formats were pretty much dead by the time uniplayers showed up. They are getting out early this time.

I think there are a good number more people who like HDTV than HD audio. HDTV sells go a long way in proving this. So even if consumer demand for HDM isn't where we would like it to be right now, I still think it is far ahead of HD audio.

Basically, the HD audio analogy is flawed because we know why it failed - consumers didn't want HD audio. It had nothing to do with the competition between the two. It's the same way with UMD, really. It's just a product that not many people are interested in imo.

I think there are a good number more people who like HDTV than HD audio. HDTV sells go a long way in proving this. So even if consumer demand for HDM isn't where we would like it to be right now, I still think it is far ahead of HD audio.

Basically, the HD audio analogy is flawed because we know why it failed - consumers didn't want HD audio. It had nothing to do with the competition between the two. It's the same way with UMD, really. It's just a product that not many people are interested in imo.

Agreed. I think the reason for the general public saying "meh" to HD audio is the 'buy-in' for audio is much steeper.

What does the buy-in entail for getting the most out of an SACD? A new player. Great Speakers. (potentially SIX of them included a sub) A great receiver. And most importantly, an optimized room to put them in. Plus the benefits don't smack you over the head right away. It's almost an education for your ears as the difference is more apparent once you've listened to it, and then try to go back to regular CD. (And guess what? A regular CD will improve with all of the same changes! Insult to injury. ^_^)

On the other hand, with HD, grab a new TV and a player and you're done. Just turn the lights down. You can SEE the difference right away. There's so much less hocus pocus with your eyes over your ears. Regular SD broadcasts don't get any better on an HDTV. (Unlike CD's which sound better with better speakers) Heck, the problems are often made to look worse!

DF players are the future. Fanboys of both sides should calm down and get one. The best thing I ever did for my motion picture viewing experience was going format neutral.