Whatever. Like I say, I don't have a dog in this hunt and I have no interest in "deflecting facts", particularly with rabid fan boys.
But your analysis of what moving up in sales rankings at Amazon portends is just wrong.
We have no way of knowing what sales ranking at Amazon mean in actual numbers. We don't know if moving from, say, 1000th to 750th means a doubling of sales, or a 15% increase, or anything. We don't know if we're starting with 500 units moved and expanding to 600 units moved. We don't know if moving from 750th to 500th is a steeper, shallow or comparable delta in terms of unit sales. For all we know the top 25 sellers on Amazon represent an aggregate 40 million units, the next 50 an aggregate 10 million and the next 1000 an aggregate 100.
The figures you cite could represent a substantial increase in Blu-Ray market penetration, or it could just as easily represent low hanging fruit in the lower reaches of Amazon rankings, where modest sales increases mean rapid ranking increases.
At the same time, HD-DVD rankings changes could also represent modest market changes (although we do know for sure that increased ranking closer to the top for any given product must represent larger absolute increases than those below), or it could be that every ranking point at the HD-DVD level equals the entire Amazon sales of Blu-Ray stuff.
Don't have enough information. Can't say.
I don't care if you keep a dog in your butt, your still diflecting what is being said. No one is saying that the amazon indicator has anything to do with real world numbers but you.
The battle is going to come down to a dead heat. The only way Blu-ray can hope to win is if Disney, Fox and Lionsgate stick it out but I don't think they will. Eventually we're going to have millions of users worldwide for both formats and that's too much money to pass up.
Universal players will come and at first be expensive but then they'll quickly drop in price so that by the end of 2008 many of us will simply upgrade to a U player and move the Xbox and PS3 to another room.
Because some of can't stand multiple threads on the same subject matter and believe that muck you starter should have never happened.
By that logic, this thread shouldn't exist. Marzetta7 created this thread at the beginning of 2006 to replace an an undated thread from 2005 (which he also started). Besides, do you expect new users in 2007 to start checking a thread titled 2006? (And no, Marzetta7 can't edit the topic title. You can edit message posts, but not titles.)
By that logic, this thread shouldn't exist. Marzetta7 created this thread at the beginning of 2006 to replace an an undated thread from 2005 (which he also started). Besides, do you expect new users in 2007 to start checking a thread titled 2006? (And no, Marzetta7 can't edit the topic title. You can edit message posts, but not titles.)
That was before I was in the discussion, but I still hate multiple threads on the same subject.. It just clutters up the boards.
That was before I was in the discussion, but I still hate multiple threads on the same subject.. It just clutters up the boards.
So it's all about you, isn't it? Boo hoo. "Some of us" don't like to check multiple topics. So what? Some of us don't like 52-page-long, year-old topics with outdated information. Don't want to check another topic? Fine. Nobody's got a gun to your head. But don't say you want it killed. If nobody wants it, it'll fade and be pruned. If other people do want to use it, you have no right to demand that they only post here for your personal convenience. I wasn't aware any of us had the power to tell anyone where they could or could not post. Who died and made you dictator?
to be honest i want this thread KEPT open for at least another 6 months so we can all get the chance to go back and point out who said the most STUPID thing on it.
and you can work out what format fan that is for your selves.
as long as the thread doesnt break the rules then theres no need to deleate it is there?
unless you want to get your panties in a bunch cos the forum rules dont suit you?
No need to delete, just lock it on December 31st. It'll still be available in the archives for people that want to reference it. Just look to the confederate flag thread for how easy it is to find old threads. When this title came up with 2006 on the end I just assumed that was the plan all along.
to be honest i want this thread KEPT open for at least another 6 months so we can all get the chance to go back and point out who said the most STUPID thing on it.
So true.
I sporadically visit this thread mostly to chuckle at the fanboyism. You know, the type of behavior that results when people can't distinguish between their own preference and forecast.
Personally, I hope that neither format wins because I think consumers would be better served by formats with fewer digital restrictions. But if one format has to win, I prefer HD-DVD simply because of cost. In the long run, I believe it would be cheaper for consumers. But as for which format will win? Anyone claiming certainty at this point is clearly naive. The race could easily go either way.
Personally, I hope that neither format wins because I think consumers would be better served by formats with fewer digital restrictions.
Unfortunately there's no way the studios will get behind any new format without there at least being a pretense of better copy prevention (and other restrictions like region coding). If both formats were to fail, it's not like a DRM-free format would rise from the ashes to save the day -- we'd either get another attempt with worse DRM, or nothing at all.
The best scenario in my book is for one of these HD formats to succeed, be cracked like DVD is now, and yet be too successful for studios to drop.
Universal players will come and at first be expensive but then they'll quickly drop in price so that by the end of 2008 many of us will simply upgrade to a U player and move the Xbox and PS3 to another room.
I think this is the most likely scenario. It will be a draw with neither format winning outright. Universal players will 'save the day' allowing the average Joe to go out and buy one and not worry that he picked the wrong format. I think eventually both formats will be happy this occurs as most consummers are unsure what to do and are not buying into either format. I know I'm not.
I think this is the most likely scenario. It will be a draw with neither format winning outright. Universal players will 'save the day' allowing the average Joe to go out and buy one and not worry that he picked the wrong format. I think eventually both formats will be happy this occurs as most consummers are unsure what to do and are not buying into either format. I know I'm not.
If this is going to be the case, why didn't it go that way in the SACD/DVD-A battle?
If this is going to be the case, why didn't it go that way in the SACD/DVD-A battle?
Didn't it though? Don't most players you buy today play both? Players that can play many formats (including DVD-Audio and SACD) are available for under $100, so both formats are likely to co-exist. Also, look at DVD-R and DVD+R. Universal players during a "format war". Its pretty much how things are going when the two technologies are very similar. I don't expect this to be any different.
I think the point was that universal players didn't save SACD/DVD-A.
(not that such players don't exist)
There is a difference.
Clean audio is harder to see benefits from than clean video (plus, who is really clamoring for 5.1 channel CDs). I have had people listen to a CD and a SACD, and they say "Ya, it sounds better, but not remarkably". Then I show them broadcast TV, and HDTV and they fall out of their seats. The difference in video quality is VERY easy to pick out. Even comparing DVD to HDTV you can clearly see a difference. That is the difference between the two format wars. One was a small step forward, while the other is a huge leap.
If this is going to be the case, why didn't it go that way in the SACD/DVD-A battle?
My impression was that SACD/DVD-A was more of an engineer's thing than a marketing thing.
As in, "we got all this room, we should be able to do something great with audio, no?" deal, rather than the industry stroking its chin and deciding that it was time to migrate everybody from CD to the new hotness.
I doubt that 1 in 1000 consumers could tell you what SACD/DVD-A even is, let alone express a preference, so if universal players didn't "save" the format I would say it was a matter of lackluster implementation coupled with nonexistent marketing and spotty to nonexistent label support.
Blu-Ray/HD-DVD is a whole 'nuther kettle of fish. Way too much money involved to allow things to languish from obscurity, so universal players will go a long way towards moving consumers along in the direction that the industry has already decided they definitely are going to go.
I agree with Addabox. In school I spent a lot of time talking with the engineers about the latest & greatest in video and audio and this is the first I've heard of SACD/DVD-A. I don't think it's a comparable situation to BluRay/HDVD.
I'm really nonplussed that people cannot see the differences between DVDA/SACD and HD DVD vs Blu-ray.
Consumers were happy with CD and many didn't want to worry about adding 6 speakers in their home to take advantage of multichannel audios. The industry got greedy and tried to push out a format that no one wanted.
Consumers are happy with DVD but there's more a chance for HD to win because:
1. Consumers watch far more TV than they listen to audio
2. The difference is easier to see. Broadcast TV to HD generates a WOW.
3. HDTV were huge sellers this Christmas. I suppose they'll be huge next Christmas as well.
Universal players are inevitable. NEC, Broadcom, Ricoh, Atmel and others are feverishly working on LSI and optical technologies that will allow them to support both. Digital technologies will always skew towards Universal players because frankly they all have 0101110110011110 as their common denominator. Thus, Sony and Toshiba are merely trying to sell us on their carrier and platform specification. The content is the same.
Comments
Whatever. Like I say, I don't have a dog in this hunt and I have no interest in "deflecting facts", particularly with rabid fan boys.
But your analysis of what moving up in sales rankings at Amazon portends is just wrong.
We have no way of knowing what sales ranking at Amazon mean in actual numbers. We don't know if moving from, say, 1000th to 750th means a doubling of sales, or a 15% increase, or anything. We don't know if we're starting with 500 units moved and expanding to 600 units moved. We don't know if moving from 750th to 500th is a steeper, shallow or comparable delta in terms of unit sales. For all we know the top 25 sellers on Amazon represent an aggregate 40 million units, the next 50 an aggregate 10 million and the next 1000 an aggregate 100.
The figures you cite could represent a substantial increase in Blu-Ray market penetration, or it could just as easily represent low hanging fruit in the lower reaches of Amazon rankings, where modest sales increases mean rapid ranking increases.
At the same time, HD-DVD rankings changes could also represent modest market changes (although we do know for sure that increased ranking closer to the top for any given product must represent larger absolute increases than those below), or it could be that every ranking point at the HD-DVD level equals the entire Amazon sales of Blu-Ray stuff.
Don't have enough information. Can't say.
I don't care if you keep a dog in your butt, your still diflecting what is being said. No one is saying that the amazon indicator has anything to do with real world numbers but you.
The battle is going to come down to a dead heat. The only way Blu-ray can hope to win is if Disney, Fox and Lionsgate stick it out but I don't think they will. Eventually we're going to have millions of users worldwide for both formats and that's too much money to pass up.
Universal players will come and at first be expensive but then they'll quickly drop in price so that by the end of 2008 many of us will simply upgrade to a U player and move the Xbox and PS3 to another room.
Because some of can't stand multiple threads on the same subject matter and believe that muck you starter should have never happened.
By that logic, this thread shouldn't exist. Marzetta7 created this thread at the beginning of 2006 to replace an an undated thread from 2005 (which he also started). Besides, do you expect new users in 2007 to start checking a thread titled 2006? (And no, Marzetta7 can't edit the topic title. You can edit message posts, but not titles.)
By that logic, this thread shouldn't exist. Marzetta7 created this thread at the beginning of 2006 to replace an an undated thread from 2005 (which he also started). Besides, do you expect new users in 2007 to start checking a thread titled 2006? (And no, Marzetta7 can't edit the topic title. You can edit message posts, but not titles.)
That was before I was in the discussion, but I still hate multiple threads on the same subject.. It just clutters up the boards.
That was before I was in the discussion, but I still hate multiple threads on the same subject.. It just clutters up the boards.
So it's all about you, isn't it? Boo hoo. "Some of us" don't like to check multiple topics. So what? Some of us don't like 52-page-long, year-old topics with outdated information. Don't want to check another topic? Fine. Nobody's got a gun to your head. But don't say you want it killed. If nobody wants it, it'll fade and be pruned. If other people do want to use it, you have no right to demand that they only post here for your personal convenience. I wasn't aware any of us had the power to tell anyone where they could or could not post. Who died and made you dictator?
its getting obnoxious.
and you can work out what format fan that is for your selves.
as long as the thread doesnt break the rules then theres no need to deleate it is there?
unless you want to get your panties in a bunch cos the forum rules dont suit you?
to be honest i want this thread KEPT open for at least another 6 months so we can all get the chance to go back and point out who said the most STUPID thing on it.
So true.
I sporadically visit this thread mostly to chuckle at the fanboyism. You know, the type of behavior that results when people can't distinguish between their own preference and forecast.
Personally, I hope that neither format wins because I think consumers would be better served by formats with fewer digital restrictions. But if one format has to win, I prefer HD-DVD simply because of cost. In the long run, I believe it would be cheaper for consumers. But as for which format will win? Anyone claiming certainty at this point is clearly naive. The race could easily go either way.
Personally, I hope that neither format wins because I think consumers would be better served by formats with fewer digital restrictions.
Unfortunately there's no way the studios will get behind any new format without there at least being a pretense of better copy prevention (and other restrictions like region coding). If both formats were to fail, it's not like a DRM-free format would rise from the ashes to save the day -- we'd either get another attempt with worse DRM, or nothing at all.
The best scenario in my book is for one of these HD formats to succeed, be cracked like DVD is now, and yet be too successful for studios to drop.
Universal players will come and at first be expensive but then they'll quickly drop in price so that by the end of 2008 many of us will simply upgrade to a U player and move the Xbox and PS3 to another room.
I think this is the most likely scenario. It will be a draw with neither format winning outright. Universal players will 'save the day' allowing the average Joe to go out and buy one and not worry that he picked the wrong format. I think eventually both formats will be happy this occurs as most consummers are unsure what to do and are not buying into either format. I know I'm not.
I think this is the most likely scenario. It will be a draw with neither format winning outright. Universal players will 'save the day' allowing the average Joe to go out and buy one and not worry that he picked the wrong format. I think eventually both formats will be happy this occurs as most consummers are unsure what to do and are not buying into either format. I know I'm not.
If this is going to be the case, why didn't it go that way in the SACD/DVD-A battle?
Whatever. Like I say, I don't have a dog in this hunt and I have no interest in "deflecting facts", particularly with rabid fan boys.
But your analysis of what moving up in sales rankings at Amazon portends is just wrong.
...
Don't have enough information. Can't say.
You've got it about right.
If this is going to be the case, why didn't it go that way in the SACD/DVD-A battle?
Didn't it though? Don't most players you buy today play both? Players that can play many formats (including DVD-Audio and SACD) are available for under $100, so both formats are likely to co-exist. Also, look at DVD-R and DVD+R. Universal players during a "format war". Its pretty much how things are going when the two technologies are very similar. I don't expect this to be any different.
(not that such players don't exist)
in case anyone is looking Amazon are selling PS3s today
make of it what you will
I think the point was that universal players didn't save SACD/DVD-A.
(not that such players don't exist)
There is a difference.
Clean audio is harder to see benefits from than clean video (plus, who is really clamoring for 5.1 channel CDs). I have had people listen to a CD and a SACD, and they say "Ya, it sounds better, but not remarkably". Then I show them broadcast TV, and HDTV and they fall out of their seats. The difference in video quality is VERY easy to pick out. Even comparing DVD to HDTV you can clearly see a difference. That is the difference between the two format wars. One was a small step forward, while the other is a huge leap.
If this is going to be the case, why didn't it go that way in the SACD/DVD-A battle?
My impression was that SACD/DVD-A was more of an engineer's thing than a marketing thing.
As in, "we got all this room, we should be able to do something great with audio, no?" deal, rather than the industry stroking its chin and deciding that it was time to migrate everybody from CD to the new hotness.
I doubt that 1 in 1000 consumers could tell you what SACD/DVD-A even is, let alone express a preference, so if universal players didn't "save" the format I would say it was a matter of lackluster implementation coupled with nonexistent marketing and spotty to nonexistent label support.
Blu-Ray/HD-DVD is a whole 'nuther kettle of fish. Way too much money involved to allow things to languish from obscurity, so universal players will go a long way towards moving consumers along in the direction that the industry has already decided they definitely are going to go.
Consumers were happy with CD and many didn't want to worry about adding 6 speakers in their home to take advantage of multichannel audios. The industry got greedy and tried to push out a format that no one wanted.
Consumers are happy with DVD but there's more a chance for HD to win because:
1. Consumers watch far more TV than they listen to audio
2. The difference is easier to see. Broadcast TV to HD generates a WOW.
3. HDTV were huge sellers this Christmas. I suppose they'll be huge next Christmas as well.
Universal players are inevitable. NEC, Broadcom, Ricoh, Atmel and others are feverishly working on LSI and optical technologies that will allow them to support both. Digital technologies will always skew towards Universal players because frankly they all have 0101110110011110 as their common denominator. Thus, Sony and Toshiba are merely trying to sell us on their carrier and platform specification. The content is the same.