Apparently Paramount just accepted blood money (150 million) to drop support of BD and only do HD. Most unfortunate for consumers who, as you said, are best served by HD dying as quickly as possible.
Apparently Paramount just accepted blood money (150 million) to drop support of BD and only do HD. Most unfortunate for consumers who, as you said, are best served by HD dying as quickly as possible.
Yup...makes you wonder how much "Blood Money" the BDA has paid to keep the exclusive support of multiple companies. I think consumers are best served by the product that wins on its own merit rather than the product that wins by allegiences.
Yup...makes you wonder how much "Blood Money" the BDA has paid to keep the exclusive support of multiple companies. I think consumers are best served by the product that wins on its own merit rather than the product that wins by allegiences.
...and Tosh has no allegiance with microsoft?
It's ture that microsoft as no allegiance with Tosh, but only because they have no allegiance with anyone only their own monopoly.
BTW been meaning to ask, hows your attach rate now that you have two stand alone players? must have HALVED right then and there
Apparently Paramount just accepted blood money (150 million) to drop support of BD and only do HD. Most unfortunate for consumers who, as you said, are best served by HD dying as quickly as possible.
It's not surprising that the Blu-Ray side has little to counter with other than spreading FUD over and over.
Nobody wrote a $150 million dollar cheque. It's been widely reported as being a mix of cash, advertising and other marketing incentives.
Those who had problems with Sony and Blu-Ray doing the same exact thing prior to the Paramount deal should have spoken up then, because now you all simply look like hypocrites.
It's ture that microsoft as no allegiance with Tosh, but only because they have no allegiance with anyone only their own monopoly.
BTW been meaning to ask, hows your attach rate now that you have two stand alone players? must have HALVED right then and there
That's the point Walter. Both sides have made alliances that are anti-consumer. The only fair way would have been to have all studios go neutral and see what format consumers "really' want. My guess is they would have navigated to the cheapest hardware.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frank777
It's not surprising that the Blu-Ray side has little to counter with other than spreading FUD over and over.
Nobody wrote a $150 million dollar cheque. It's been widely reported as being a mix of cash, advertising and other marketing incentives.
Those who had problems with Sony and Blu-Ray doing the same exact thing prior to the Paramount deal should have spoken up then, because now you all simply look like hypocrites.
Exactly. When Sony buys Target's attention for Christmas it's a "good" thing. When Blockbuster shuns HD DVD it's a "good" thing. When Paramount decides supporting a single platform is their ideal situation everyone in the BD camp freaks out. You have guys with $10,000 home theatre systems that won't spend $250 to have access to all movies. That certainly makes a lot of sense.
Nobody wrote a $150 million dollar cheque. It's been widely reported as being a mix of cash, advertising and other marketing incentives.
Yeah...right. Because when my buddy gave his kid a car to get him to go to the state uni rather than a middle of the pack (but still uber expensive) private uni he wasn't writing a $20,000 cheque but rather a mix of cash, car and insurance coverage.
Most normal folks would STILL say he bribed his kid.
Has Blu-Ray bribed studios? Not so blatently that it made the NYT. So rumors are simply that until confirmed.
Exactly. When Sony buys Target's attention for Christmas it's a "good" thing. When Blockbuster shuns HD DVD it's a "good" thing.
These were "good" things only because Blu-Ray was already winning and these moves would shorten the format war.
Quote:
When Paramount decides supporting a single platform is their ideal situation everyone in the BD camp freaks out. You have guys with $10,000 home theatre systems that won't spend $250 to have access to all movies. That certainly makes a lot of sense.
Not just BD camp but all the neutrals tired of the format war as well. The reason this is "bad" isn't because it supports HD-DVD but props up the side that was losing without dealing a death-blow to the side that was winning.
And to have access to all movies requires $650...not $250. Not that this is going to break the bank but frankly a pox on both their houses. There should never have been a format war.
xactly. When Sony buys Target's attention for Christmas it's a "good" thing. When Blockbuster shuns HD DVD it's a "good" thing. When Paramount decides supporting a single platform is their ideal situation everyone in the BD camp freaks out. You have guys with $10,000 home theatre systems that won't spend $250 to have access to all movies. That certainly makes a lot of sense.
Uh, those "good things" also make business sense, because those chains are responding to market demand. What Paramount did went totally contrary to market demand. They did it because M$ and Toshiba threw a boatload of money at them. In the process, they extended the format war, which hurts consumers. One has to wonder...since M$ apparently wants to do away with all optical discs, maybe it's an attempt kill both formats by prolonging the war. Hmmm. Now there is a conspiracy theory.
Uh, those "good things" also make business sense, because those chains are responding to market demand. What Paramount did went totally contrary to market demand. They did it because M$ and Toshiba threw a boatload of money at them. In the process, they extended the format war, which hurts consumers. One has to wonder...since M$ apparently wants to do away with all optical discs, maybe it's an attempt kill both formats by prolonging the war. Hmmm. Now there is a conspiracy theory.
In my opinion, the reason that money was given to Paramount is that Microsoft and Toshiba are desperate. I think they see that Blue-Ray is gaining favor and momentum.
On a related note, I just read today about an 'eDVD' format from China.
Not just BD camp but all the neutrals tired of the format war as well. The reason this is "bad" isn't because it supports HD-DVD but props up the side that was losing without dealing a death-blow to the side that was winning.
A death blow to Blu-ray is impossible at this point, since the PS3 is not going away. I think that this move is pretty short sighted on Paramount's part - sure, they gain more money from the bribe than they would have earned selling blu-ray disks, but they are basically sabotaging the whole hd-disk market. As an Apple shareholder, I am pretty happy about the whole situation, as I see iTunes based hd movie rental as the future. Microsoft may be paying the bribe in order to kill the hd-disk market, but I doubt that they will win the online movie market because they suck.
These were "good" things only because Blu-Ray was already winning and these moves would shorten the format war.
Not just BD camp but all the neutrals tired of the format war as well. The reason this is "bad" isn't because it supports HD-DVD but props up the side that was losing without dealing a death-blow to the side that was winning.
And to have access to all movies requires $650...not $250. Not that this is going to break the bank but frankly a pox on both their houses. There should never have been a format war.
Vinea
Winning a miniscule market that is dwarfed by DVD. There were only good to the people who took the blue pill. I don't care about Death Blows. The format that should win is the one that stands head and shoulders above the competition. Blu-ray got it's lead by artificial means (working alliance deals) and thus they lived by the sword and died (in Paramounts eyes) by the sword. That's fairplay.
Yes ..there never should have been a format war. Thank Sony for that. They never submitted Blu-ray to the DVD Forum for ratification as the DVD successor. They had allys that refused to vote at key milestones in the hope of slowing HD DVD down. The voting process eventually had to be amended so that abstaining votes had to count for something.
You can thank the BDA for this lovely war. HD DVD had more mature hardware (as witnessed by the stable HDi and interactive features as well as dual decoders).
It always cracks me up with Blu-ray fans whine about the war. Hello McFly ...your purchase Blu-ray helped this war and will help the next war.
You're amazing.... you still haven't moved on..... but I guess you're looking to hear my reply.
If you look back how the pricing was mentioned.......
The player cost was noted for $1K Hidef player:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Walter Slocombe
No-one asks the early adopters to spend $1000 on a player, there is their choice Look at murch, over joyed every time tosh announced a price drop, but then went and spent nearly the $1000 on a new player...?? why??
I was merely responding by saying that some people/enthusiasts/early adopters also paid $1k+ even for DVD player:
Quote:
Originally Posted by bitemymac
Initial 4 years of DVD was spent with the enthusiasts prior to the mass acceptance. And during this time, people did pay $1000 for their first DVD players and did shed the blood for J6P.
...and I have no I idea why you keep going off on average unit prices and all the enthusiasts purchase prices...yada yada..... as shown below. Some people still buy $3k+ DVD players now.... why is it so surprising some people had paid $1K+ back in 1997 to 2000? Or are you just trying to pick a fight to get your post counts up?.... It just looks like you're making things up to argue about..... Hence, I would rather not get into this pointless debate with you........
BTW, are you saying that first 5 million DVD players sold by end of 1999 makes up the mass acceptance?...... Over 130 million DVD players have been sold in the states so far since March of 1997..... and 5 Million counts do not mean a mass acceptance in the CE space. Perhaps, it may be a significant number in the gaming console market....
Quote:
Originally Posted by vinea
Yeah...a whole 8% in Jan 1999 but only 5% in Dec 1998. Wanna bet that by December 1999 that the amount is far less than even 5%?
So in 1998 out of 1M players a whole ~50,000 high-end player or so were sold. So out of $422M revenue only $50M was generated "enthusiasts" at the 1K mark. A nice sum but hardly the driving factor for DVD funding.
I would argue that all 1M players sold in 1998 were bought by videophiles/enthusiasts/early adopters.
No, I want you to stop whining when proven wrong. You tried to make the case that the format war is a good thing by saying that the first 4 years of DVD was driven by the enthusiast market and 1K pricing. Numbers you pulled out of your ass and is unsupported by history.
I think I've shown it wasn't 4 years and the $1000 DVD market, while nice, wasn't the driving factor NOR was the average sale price very high.
Winning is winning with respect to ending the format war. I don't care which wins.
Quote:
I don't care about Death Blows.
I do. The format war is ultimately unproductive.
Quote:
The format that should win is the one that stands head and shoulders above the competition. Blu-ray got it's lead by artificial means (working alliance deals) and thus they lived by the sword and died (in Paramounts eyes) by the sword. That's fairplay.
Many folks don't care WHICH wins as long one of them does. As a HD-DVD zealot that might surprise you but really, it true.
Quote:
Yes ..there never should have been a format war. Thank Sony for that. They never submitted Blu-ray to the DVD Forum for ratification as the DVD successor. They had allys that refused to vote at key milestones in the hope of slowing HD DVD down. The voting process eventually had to be amended so that abstaining votes had to count for something.
Who cares how it started anyway? Its still stupid. Blame Sony...fine. Whatever.
But Blu-Ray appeared first and the Blu-Ray standard still has more CE and studio backers which basically says that the DVD Forum doesn't really have any more mandate than the Blu-Ray Forum on what constitutes the next generation optical disc format.
And hell...there were 10 companies that started Blu-Ray. Its not like it was simply a Sony show.
Quote:
You can thank the BDA for this lovely war. HD DVD had more mature hardware (as witnessed by the stable HDi and interactive features as well as dual decoders).
And less stable and mature burners. Its a wash. Neither format is heads and shoulders above the other.
Quote:
It always cracks me up with Blu-ray fans whine about the war. Hello McFly ...your purchase Blu-ray helped this war and will help the next war.
Hello McFly...I could give a rats ass which format wins if one did tomorrow. You can knock off the stupid "you must be a blu-ray fanboi if you disagree" crap.
You're amazing.... you still haven't moved on..... but I guess you're looking to hear my reply.
Oh please. You said something not supported by the facts and rather than simply saying oops you want to try to rephrase the issue.
Quote:
I was merely responding by saying that some people/enthusiasts/early adopters also paid $1k+ even for DVD player:
Initial 4 years of DVD was spent with the enthusiasts prior to the mass acceptance. And during this time, people did pay $1000 for their first DVD players and did shed the blood for J6P.
One, it wasn't 4 years.
Two, while some people did spend $1000 very few did
Three, no one was shedding blood for J6P...they were buying the best gear for themselves.
Four, his question is based on THIS quote:
Quote:
Originally Posted by bitemymac
No one will challenge that one and only format choice is a good thing as long as it's affordable for everyone. In the ideal world, everyone can benefit from just one and only choice.....
However, in reality, that would be a monopoly and you can see where this is going with greedy corporate cultures. They'll eat all of us alive.
As much as I would like to have less confusion in life, especially in choice of home theater equipments, but that would mean paying $1k+ for the player and $50 for a HiDef movies, maybe at even higher price. If it wasn't for this silly hidef format war, the current pricing of $199 hidef hardware couldn't have been possible this early in the product cycle. There will be casualties of this format war, mostly early adopters, but it will be a very small sacrifice compared to all the price benefit it will provide for the J6P in the long run.
What? Do you think that old posts magically vanish into the ether?
Quote:
...and I have no I idea why you keep going off on average unit prices and all the enthusiasts purchase prices...yada yada..... as shown below. Some people still buy $3k+ DVD players now.... why is it so surprising some people had paid $1K+ back in 1997 to 2000? Or are you just trying to pick a fight to get your post counts up?
Because you're making the assertion that
One, the format war is good
Two, the early adoptors paid for DVD's success by paying $1000+ (the bleed for J6P)
Three, we'd have to be paying $1000 even 4 years in (because monopolies eat us alive)
Get it? No one disputes that people buy $3K+ DVD players or $1K DVD players. What is disputed is that we'd have to pay that much if there was no format war. History shows this to be UNTRUE. At this point in DVD's history we'd be paying under $500 and we could WATCH ALL THE MOVIES FROM EVERY STUDIO. With the format war we need to pay OVER $500 to do the same thing.
In neither case would you be required to pay $1000 as you assert.
Quote:
BTW, are you saying that first 5 million DVD players sold by end of 1999 makes up the mass acceptance?
The industry was saying that mass market acceptance had begun in 1999. There's a reference cited. Find your own dissenting reference...
Quote:
Over 130 million DVD players have been sold in the states so far since March of 1997..... and 5 Million counts do not mean a mass acceptance in the CE space. Perhaps, it may be a significant number in the gaming console market....
4M per year and a 4x YOY growth indicates that mass market acceptance had begun. Which is what the industry was saying in 2000.
Given that game consoles are part of the CE market and you agree that 4M is a significant number for that subsector of CE there's no reason to require that DVD (another subsector) exceed that amount for mass market acceptance.
Likewise mass market acceptance of DVRs, home satellite systems, camcorders, etc probably were considered to have occured by or before the 4M/year mark.
Uh, those "good things" also make business sense, because those chains are responding to market demand. What Paramount did went totally contrary to market demand. They did it because M$ and Toshiba threw a boatload of money at them. In the process, they extended the format war, which hurts consumers. One has to wonder...since M$ apparently wants to do away with all optical discs, maybe it's an attempt kill both formats by prolonging the war. Hmmm. Now there is a conspiracy theory.
1. Market demand is not the only factor in calculating business sense. Paying royalties on every film you sell to a competing studio is not good business sense.
2. Even if you wanted to use market demand as the primary factor, you don't use the technophile market (which comprises less than 1% of market) to gauge exactly how mainstream customers will react when the product is in the mainstream marketplace.
3. This idea Blu-Ray backers are spreading about Redmond trying to kill discs to dominate with downloads is simply FUD. While I'm sure they do want to win that market eventually, Microsoft remain a corporate services giant. To think they would risk Windows' competitive position by alienating the corporate back-up-on-disc market is silly. Every computer that ship with Windows will eventually read and write to an HD optical disc. HD discs aren't being thrown out of the computing world anytime soon, least of all by Redmond.
Two, the early adoptors paid for DVD's success by paying $1000+ (the bleed for J6P)
Three, we'd have to be paying $1000 even 4 years in (because monopolies eat us alive)
Get it? No one disputes that people buy $3K+ DVD players or $1K DVD players. What is disputed is that we'd have to pay that much if there was no format war. History shows this to be UNTRUE. At this point in DVD's history we'd be paying under $500 and we could WATCH ALL THE MOVIES FROM EVERY STUDIO. With the format war we need to pay OVER $500 to do the same thing.
In neither case would you be required to pay $1000 as you assert.
Are you kidding me?........
One, the format war is good
(in the direction of steep price drop, which the hardware price is dropping faster than when DVD was introduced.)
Two, the early adoptors paid for DVD's success by paying $1000+ (the bleed for J6P)
(you make this sound like every early dvd adopters had to pay $1k+ to keep DVD a succes),..... is this what you're accusing me of?.... if not, then you already know the answer. Many enthusiasts do pay over $1K+ for their players.
Three, we'd have to be paying $1000 even 4 years in (because monopolies eat us alive)
This is the same pointless thing you're trying accuse from your #2......
Quote:
Originally Posted by vinea
The industry was saying that mass market acceptance had begun in 1999. There's a reference cited. Find your own dissenting reference...
4M per year and a 4x YOY growth indicates that mass market acceptance had begun. Which is what the industry was saying in 2000.
Given that game consoles are part of the CE market and you agree that 4M is a significant number for that subsector of CE there's no reason to require that DVD (another subsector) exceed that amount for mass market acceptance.
Likewise mass market acceptance of DVRs, home satellite systems, camcorders, etc probably were considered to have occured by or before the 4M/year mark.
Vinea
If you're correct about 4M players per year being the key mass acceptance magic number..... then how 4+ million blu-ray players in the market pulling as the mass acceptance?.... Didn't even take a full year to get 4 million PS's out...., but I don't see that creating any mass acceptance movement to Blu-Ray from consumers..... do you?
once again.... thanks for inviting me to your spin fest........ I'm most not likely will join your next session..... I'm getting dizzy already.
Yes ..there never should have been a format war. Thank Sony for that. They never submitted Blu-ray to the DVD Forum for ratification as the DVD successor.
Thank Sony? HD DVD was developed after Blu-ray.
And who on earth decided that DVD Forum should decide which format should follow their format?
Did the makers of the LP have any say when the CD was introduced?
The only fair way would have been to have all studios go neutral and see what format consumers "really' want. My guess is they would have navigated to the cheapest hardware.
I believe thats the gist of what I have said that, in the last few pages.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hmurchison
Exactly. When Sony buys Target's attention for Christmas it's a "good" thing. When Blockbuster shuns HD DVD it's a "good" thing. When Paramount decides supporting a single platform is their ideal situation everyone in the BD camp freaks out. You have guys with $10,000 home theatre systems that won't spend $250 to have access to all movies. That certainly makes a lot of sense.
it was "good" in that it looked like a single format was coming forward as the option most likely to succeed, Blockbusters announcment was that BD was the consumer choice. Paramounts decision seems to go AGAINST the consumer choice.
You talk about attach rates and rankings, but ignore (as paramount sseems to be) the potential 4 million players in homes (BD), and are going for the 0.3 million players in homes. hardly logical.
Comments
The Roughly Drafted article is up if anyone is interested in his take on things
Linky
Its full of facts and figures if thats your thing.
Apparently Paramount just accepted blood money (150 million) to drop support of BD and only do HD. Most unfortunate for consumers who, as you said, are best served by HD dying as quickly as possible.
Yup...makes you wonder how much "Blood Money" the BDA has paid to keep the exclusive support of multiple companies. I think consumers are best served by the product that wins on its own merit rather than the product that wins by allegiences.
Yup...makes you wonder how much "Blood Money" the BDA has paid to keep the exclusive support of multiple companies. I think consumers are best served by the product that wins on its own merit rather than the product that wins by allegiences.
...and Tosh has no allegiance with microsoft?
It's ture that microsoft as no allegiance with Tosh, but only because they have no allegiance with anyone only their own monopoly.
BTW been meaning to ask, hows your attach rate now that you have two stand alone players? must have HALVED right then and there
Apparently Paramount just accepted blood money (150 million) to drop support of BD and only do HD. Most unfortunate for consumers who, as you said, are best served by HD dying as quickly as possible.
It's not surprising that the Blu-Ray side has little to counter with other than spreading FUD over and over.
Nobody wrote a $150 million dollar cheque. It's been widely reported as being a mix of cash, advertising and other marketing incentives.
Those who had problems with Sony and Blu-Ray doing the same exact thing prior to the Paramount deal should have spoken up then, because now you all simply look like hypocrites.
...and Tosh has no allegiance with microsoft?
It's ture that microsoft as no allegiance with Tosh, but only because they have no allegiance with anyone only their own monopoly.
BTW been meaning to ask, hows your attach rate now that you have two stand alone players? must have HALVED right then and there
That's the point Walter. Both sides have made alliances that are anti-consumer. The only fair way would have been to have all studios go neutral and see what format consumers "really' want. My guess is they would have navigated to the cheapest hardware.
It's not surprising that the Blu-Ray side has little to counter with other than spreading FUD over and over.
Nobody wrote a $150 million dollar cheque. It's been widely reported as being a mix of cash, advertising and other marketing incentives.
Those who had problems with Sony and Blu-Ray doing the same exact thing prior to the Paramount deal should have spoken up then, because now you all simply look like hypocrites.
Exactly. When Sony buys Target's attention for Christmas it's a "good" thing. When Blockbuster shuns HD DVD it's a "good" thing. When Paramount decides supporting a single platform is their ideal situation everyone in the BD camp freaks out. You have guys with $10,000 home theatre systems that won't spend $250 to have access to all movies. That certainly makes a lot of sense.
Nobody wrote a $150 million dollar cheque. It's been widely reported as being a mix of cash, advertising and other marketing incentives.
Yeah...right. Because when my buddy gave his kid a car to get him to go to the state uni rather than a middle of the pack (but still uber expensive) private uni he wasn't writing a $20,000 cheque but rather a mix of cash, car and insurance coverage.
Most normal folks would STILL say he bribed his kid.
Has Blu-Ray bribed studios? Not so blatently that it made the NYT. So rumors are simply that until confirmed.
Vinea
Exactly. When Sony buys Target's attention for Christmas it's a "good" thing. When Blockbuster shuns HD DVD it's a "good" thing.
These were "good" things only because Blu-Ray was already winning and these moves would shorten the format war.
When Paramount decides supporting a single platform is their ideal situation everyone in the BD camp freaks out. You have guys with $10,000 home theatre systems that won't spend $250 to have access to all movies. That certainly makes a lot of sense.
Not just BD camp but all the neutrals tired of the format war as well. The reason this is "bad" isn't because it supports HD-DVD but props up the side that was losing without dealing a death-blow to the side that was winning.
And to have access to all movies requires $650...not $250. Not that this is going to break the bank but frankly a pox on both their houses. There should never have been a format war.
Vinea
xactly. When Sony buys Target's attention for Christmas it's a "good" thing. When Blockbuster shuns HD DVD it's a "good" thing. When Paramount decides supporting a single platform is their ideal situation everyone in the BD camp freaks out. You have guys with $10,000 home theatre systems that won't spend $250 to have access to all movies. That certainly makes a lot of sense.
Uh, those "good things" also make business sense, because those chains are responding to market demand. What Paramount did went totally contrary to market demand. They did it because M$ and Toshiba threw a boatload of money at them. In the process, they extended the format war, which hurts consumers. One has to wonder...since M$ apparently wants to do away with all optical discs, maybe it's an attempt kill both formats by prolonging the war. Hmmm. Now there is a conspiracy theory.
murch:
Uh, those "good things" also make business sense, because those chains are responding to market demand. What Paramount did went totally contrary to market demand. They did it because M$ and Toshiba threw a boatload of money at them. In the process, they extended the format war, which hurts consumers. One has to wonder...since M$ apparently wants to do away with all optical discs, maybe it's an attempt kill both formats by prolonging the war. Hmmm. Now there is a conspiracy theory.
In my opinion, the reason that money was given to Paramount is that Microsoft and Toshiba are desperate. I think they see that Blue-Ray is gaining favor and momentum.
On a related note, I just read today about an 'eDVD' format from China.
Not just BD camp but all the neutrals tired of the format war as well. The reason this is "bad" isn't because it supports HD-DVD but props up the side that was losing without dealing a death-blow to the side that was winning.
A death blow to Blu-ray is impossible at this point, since the PS3 is not going away. I think that this move is pretty short sighted on Paramount's part - sure, they gain more money from the bribe than they would have earned selling blu-ray disks, but they are basically sabotaging the whole hd-disk market. As an Apple shareholder, I am pretty happy about the whole situation, as I see iTunes based hd movie rental as the future. Microsoft may be paying the bribe in order to kill the hd-disk market, but I doubt that they will win the online movie market because they suck.
A death blow to Blu-ray is impossible at this point, since the PS3 is not going away.
If all the studios but Sony went HD-DVD exclusive then Blu-Ray would turn into UMD. Death Blow. Not even vaguely likely though.
These were "good" things only because Blu-Ray was already winning and these moves would shorten the format war.
Not just BD camp but all the neutrals tired of the format war as well. The reason this is "bad" isn't because it supports HD-DVD but props up the side that was losing without dealing a death-blow to the side that was winning.
And to have access to all movies requires $650...not $250. Not that this is going to break the bank but frankly a pox on both their houses. There should never have been a format war.
Vinea
Winning a miniscule market that is dwarfed by DVD. There were only good to the people who took the blue pill. I don't care about Death Blows. The format that should win is the one that stands head and shoulders above the competition. Blu-ray got it's lead by artificial means (working alliance deals) and thus they lived by the sword and died (in Paramounts eyes) by the sword. That's fairplay.
Yes ..there never should have been a format war. Thank Sony for that. They never submitted Blu-ray to the DVD Forum for ratification as the DVD successor. They had allys that refused to vote at key milestones in the hope of slowing HD DVD down. The voting process eventually had to be amended so that abstaining votes had to count for something.
You can thank the BDA for this lovely war. HD DVD had more mature hardware (as witnessed by the stable HDi and interactive features as well as dual decoders).
It always cracks me up with Blu-ray fans whine about the war. Hello McFly ...your purchase Blu-ray helped this war and will help the next war.
If you look back how the pricing was mentioned.......
The player cost was noted for $1K Hidef player:
No-one asks the early adopters to spend $1000 on a player, there is their choice Look at murch, over joyed every time tosh announced a price drop, but then went and spent nearly the $1000 on a new player...?? why??
I was merely responding by saying that some people/enthusiasts/early adopters also paid $1k+ even for DVD player:
Initial 4 years of DVD was spent with the enthusiasts prior to the mass acceptance. And during this time, people did pay $1000 for their first DVD players and did shed the blood for J6P.
...and I have no I idea why you keep going off on average unit prices and all the enthusiasts purchase prices...yada yada..... as shown below. Some people still buy $3k+ DVD players now.... why is it so surprising some people had paid $1K+ back in 1997 to 2000? Or are you just trying to pick a fight to get your post counts up?.... It just looks like you're making things up to argue about..... Hence, I would rather not get into this pointless debate with you........
BTW, are you saying that first 5 million DVD players sold by end of 1999 makes up the mass acceptance?...... Over 130 million DVD players have been sold in the states so far since March of 1997..... and 5 Million counts do not mean a mass acceptance in the CE space. Perhaps, it may be a significant number in the gaming console market....
Yeah...a whole 8% in Jan 1999 but only 5% in Dec 1998. Wanna bet that by December 1999 that the amount is far less than even 5%?
So in 1998 out of 1M players a whole ~50,000 high-end player or so were sold. So out of $422M revenue only $50M was generated "enthusiasts" at the 1K mark. A nice sum but hardly the driving factor for DVD funding.
I would argue that all 1M players sold in 1998 were bought by videophiles/enthusiasts/early adopters.
No, I want you to stop whining when proven wrong. You tried to make the case that the format war is a good thing by saying that the first 4 years of DVD was driven by the enthusiast market and 1K pricing. Numbers you pulled out of your ass and is unsupported by history.
I think I've shown it wasn't 4 years and the $1000 DVD market, while nice, wasn't the driving factor NOR was the average sale price very high.
Winning a miniscule market that is dwarfed by DVD
Winning is winning with respect to ending the format war. I don't care which wins.
I don't care about Death Blows.
I do. The format war is ultimately unproductive.
The format that should win is the one that stands head and shoulders above the competition. Blu-ray got it's lead by artificial means (working alliance deals) and thus they lived by the sword and died (in Paramounts eyes) by the sword. That's fairplay.
Many folks don't care WHICH wins as long one of them does. As a HD-DVD zealot that might surprise you but really, it true.
Yes ..there never should have been a format war. Thank Sony for that. They never submitted Blu-ray to the DVD Forum for ratification as the DVD successor. They had allys that refused to vote at key milestones in the hope of slowing HD DVD down. The voting process eventually had to be amended so that abstaining votes had to count for something.
Who cares how it started anyway? Its still stupid. Blame Sony...fine. Whatever.
But Blu-Ray appeared first and the Blu-Ray standard still has more CE and studio backers which basically says that the DVD Forum doesn't really have any more mandate than the Blu-Ray Forum on what constitutes the next generation optical disc format.
And hell...there were 10 companies that started Blu-Ray. Its not like it was simply a Sony show.
You can thank the BDA for this lovely war. HD DVD had more mature hardware (as witnessed by the stable HDi and interactive features as well as dual decoders).
And less stable and mature burners. Its a wash. Neither format is heads and shoulders above the other.
It always cracks me up with Blu-ray fans whine about the war. Hello McFly ...your purchase Blu-ray helped this war and will help the next war.
Hello McFly...I could give a rats ass which format wins if one did tomorrow. You can knock off the stupid "you must be a blu-ray fanboi if you disagree" crap.
Vinea
You're amazing.... you still haven't moved on..... but I guess you're looking to hear my reply.
Oh please. You said something not supported by the facts and rather than simply saying oops you want to try to rephrase the issue.
I was merely responding by saying that some people/enthusiasts/early adopters also paid $1k+ even for DVD player:
Initial 4 years of DVD was spent with the enthusiasts prior to the mass acceptance. And during this time, people did pay $1000 for their first DVD players and did shed the blood for J6P.
One, it wasn't 4 years.
Two, while some people did spend $1000 very few did
Three, no one was shedding blood for J6P...they were buying the best gear for themselves.
Four, his question is based on THIS quote:
No one will challenge that one and only format choice is a good thing as long as it's affordable for everyone. In the ideal world, everyone can benefit from just one and only choice.....
However, in reality, that would be a monopoly and you can see where this is going with greedy corporate cultures. They'll eat all of us alive.
As much as I would like to have less confusion in life, especially in choice of home theater equipments, but that would mean paying $1k+ for the player and $50 for a HiDef movies, maybe at even higher price. If it wasn't for this silly hidef format war, the current pricing of $199 hidef hardware couldn't have been possible this early in the product cycle. There will be casualties of this format war, mostly early adopters, but it will be a very small sacrifice compared to all the price benefit it will provide for the J6P in the long run.
What? Do you think that old posts magically vanish into the ether?
...and I have no I idea why you keep going off on average unit prices and all the enthusiasts purchase prices...yada yada..... as shown below. Some people still buy $3k+ DVD players now.... why is it so surprising some people had paid $1K+ back in 1997 to 2000? Or are you just trying to pick a fight to get your post counts up?
Because you're making the assertion that
One, the format war is good
Two, the early adoptors paid for DVD's success by paying $1000+ (the bleed for J6P)
Three, we'd have to be paying $1000 even 4 years in (because monopolies eat us alive)
Get it? No one disputes that people buy $3K+ DVD players or $1K DVD players. What is disputed is that we'd have to pay that much if there was no format war. History shows this to be UNTRUE. At this point in DVD's history we'd be paying under $500 and we could WATCH ALL THE MOVIES FROM EVERY STUDIO. With the format war we need to pay OVER $500 to do the same thing.
In neither case would you be required to pay $1000 as you assert.
BTW, are you saying that first 5 million DVD players sold by end of 1999 makes up the mass acceptance?
The industry was saying that mass market acceptance had begun in 1999. There's a reference cited. Find your own dissenting reference...
Over 130 million DVD players have been sold in the states so far since March of 1997..... and 5 Million counts do not mean a mass acceptance in the CE space. Perhaps, it may be a significant number in the gaming console market....
4M per year and a 4x YOY growth indicates that mass market acceptance had begun. Which is what the industry was saying in 2000.
Given that game consoles are part of the CE market and you agree that 4M is a significant number for that subsector of CE there's no reason to require that DVD (another subsector) exceed that amount for mass market acceptance.
Likewise mass market acceptance of DVRs, home satellite systems, camcorders, etc probably were considered to have occured by or before the 4M/year mark.
Vinea
Uh, those "good things" also make business sense, because those chains are responding to market demand. What Paramount did went totally contrary to market demand. They did it because M$ and Toshiba threw a boatload of money at them. In the process, they extended the format war, which hurts consumers. One has to wonder...since M$ apparently wants to do away with all optical discs, maybe it's an attempt kill both formats by prolonging the war. Hmmm. Now there is a conspiracy theory.
1. Market demand is not the only factor in calculating business sense. Paying royalties on every film you sell to a competing studio is not good business sense.
2. Even if you wanted to use market demand as the primary factor, you don't use the technophile market (which comprises less than 1% of market) to gauge exactly how mainstream customers will react when the product is in the mainstream marketplace.
3. This idea Blu-Ray backers are spreading about Redmond trying to kill discs to dominate with downloads is simply FUD. While I'm sure they do want to win that market eventually, Microsoft remain a corporate services giant. To think they would risk Windows' competitive position by alienating the corporate back-up-on-disc market is silly. Every computer that ship with Windows will eventually read and write to an HD optical disc. HD discs aren't being thrown out of the computing world anytime soon, least of all by Redmond.
Because you're making the assertion that
One, the format war is good
Two, the early adoptors paid for DVD's success by paying $1000+ (the bleed for J6P)
Three, we'd have to be paying $1000 even 4 years in (because monopolies eat us alive)
Get it? No one disputes that people buy $3K+ DVD players or $1K DVD players. What is disputed is that we'd have to pay that much if there was no format war. History shows this to be UNTRUE. At this point in DVD's history we'd be paying under $500 and we could WATCH ALL THE MOVIES FROM EVERY STUDIO. With the format war we need to pay OVER $500 to do the same thing.
In neither case would you be required to pay $1000 as you assert.
Are you kidding me?........
One, the format war is good
(in the direction of steep price drop, which the hardware price is dropping faster than when DVD was introduced.)
Two, the early adoptors paid for DVD's success by paying $1000+ (the bleed for J6P)
(you make this sound like every early dvd adopters had to pay $1k+ to keep DVD a succes),..... is this what you're accusing me of?.... if not, then you already know the answer. Many enthusiasts do pay over $1K+ for their players.
Three, we'd have to be paying $1000 even 4 years in (because monopolies eat us alive)
This is the same pointless thing you're trying accuse from your #2......
The industry was saying that mass market acceptance had begun in 1999. There's a reference cited. Find your own dissenting reference...
4M per year and a 4x YOY growth indicates that mass market acceptance had begun. Which is what the industry was saying in 2000.
Given that game consoles are part of the CE market and you agree that 4M is a significant number for that subsector of CE there's no reason to require that DVD (another subsector) exceed that amount for mass market acceptance.
Likewise mass market acceptance of DVRs, home satellite systems, camcorders, etc probably were considered to have occured by or before the 4M/year mark.
Vinea
If you're correct about 4M players per year being the key mass acceptance magic number..... then how 4+ million blu-ray players in the market pulling as the mass acceptance?.... Didn't even take a full year to get 4 million PS's out...., but I don't see that creating any mass acceptance movement to Blu-Ray from consumers..... do you?
once again.... thanks for inviting me to your spin fest........ I'm most not likely will join your next session..... I'm getting dizzy already.
Yes ..there never should have been a format war. Thank Sony for that. They never submitted Blu-ray to the DVD Forum for ratification as the DVD successor.
Thank Sony? HD DVD was developed after Blu-ray.
And who on earth decided that DVD Forum should decide which format should follow their format?
Did the makers of the LP have any say when the CD was introduced?
The only fair way would have been to have all studios go neutral and see what format consumers "really' want. My guess is they would have navigated to the cheapest hardware.
I believe thats the gist of what I have said that, in the last few pages.
Exactly. When Sony buys Target's attention for Christmas it's a "good" thing. When Blockbuster shuns HD DVD it's a "good" thing. When Paramount decides supporting a single platform is their ideal situation everyone in the BD camp freaks out. You have guys with $10,000 home theatre systems that won't spend $250 to have access to all movies. That certainly makes a lot of sense.
it was "good" in that it looked like a single format was coming forward as the option most likely to succeed, Blockbusters announcment was that BD was the consumer choice. Paramounts decision seems to go AGAINST the consumer choice.
You talk about attach rates and rankings, but ignore (as paramount sseems to be) the potential 4 million players in homes (BD), and are going for the 0.3 million players in homes. hardly logical.
{sorry, it seems this was already answered