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.
PLEASE not the tired old ratification process argument again! didn't you listen the last time?
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:
I was merely responding by saying that some people/enthusiasts/early adopters also paid $1k+ even for DVD player:
...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....
Either cheap players are good for mass market acceptance or they are not?
If they are then "we" the "early adoptors" who are "bringing the price down to levels for the average joe to accept them" should be supporting those cheap players not doing as murch has done and buying the $1000 players in spite of $300 players being in existance.
or are you saying its alright to keep the ASP high at this time?
1. Market demand is not the only factor in calculating business sense. Paying royalties on every film you sell to a competing studio is not good business sense.
2. Even if you wanted to use market demand as the primary factor, you don't use the technophile market (which comprises less than 1% of market) to gauge exactly how mainstream customers will react when the product is in the mainstream marketplace.
3. This idea Blu-Ray backers are spreading about Redmond trying to kill discs to dominate with downloads is simply FUD. While I'm sure they do want to win that market eventually, Microsoft remain a corporate services giant. To think they would risk Windows' competitive position by alienating the corporate back-up-on-disc market is silly. Every computer that ship with Windows will eventually read and write to an HD optical disc. HD discs aren't being thrown out of the computing world anytime soon, least of all by Redmond.
Thats called covering their asses, something Redmond does in spades.
if you bother to read the RDM article, HD-DVD uses M$ VC-1 codec, but even if it fails M$ have covered their asses by also allowing VC-1 to be used in BD (even if BD fails they have covered their ass by allowing VC-1 to be used in HD-DVD and so on infinitum)
Do you remeber that this happened with M$ and IBM?
M$: sure you can use our OS, but we want to be able to sell it to everyone else as well.
(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......
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.
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.
1. If backup on optical was so important, why would any company including Microsoft pick the format that has fewer (and slower) burners available, and lower capacity?
2. I notice Murch is conspicuously silent in response to this. What happened to him saying the future isn't in optical backup? That Blu-ray disks are too expensive when compared with DVD backups or even hard drive arrays today? What's the matter, Murch? Changed stances yet again, or just don't want to step on the toes of a fellow HD DVD advocate?
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.
Artificial means? That's ridiculous. Sony had a format and started lining up support for it. The horror. blu-ray is every bit as good technically as HD-DVD, if not better. Artificial my ass.
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.
I'd like some support for that. I'm also not sure it's relevant.
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).
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.
Wow. Talk about delusions. Now you're building delusions on other delusions. What you're saying is that because HD-DVD supposedly had more mature hardware, blu-ray shouldn't have even tried to compete? And worse..you're upset with consumers (and blaming them) for buying blu-ray. I mean, it's SO CLEAR that HD-DVD is better. Stupid consumers!
[quote]
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frank777
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.
How about investing millions in a format that may not exist in 2 years and pissing off the consumers of the currently-on-top format? That outweighs the miniscule royalty payments, I assure you. They got talked into a short term cash boost. And they're going to regret it.
Quote:
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.
Uh, it's an economy of scale, and therefore that claim is absurd. Here's an example.
Product Type 2 has current sales of 500,000 units per year. It will replace Product Type 1, which is selling 10,000,000 units per year.
Product Type 2.1 sells 350,000 units per year of those 500,000.
Product Type 2.2 seels 150,000 units per year of those 500,000.
Product Type 2 overall expects to see growth to 5,000,000 units in 3 years.
You're telling me it makes sense to pick product 2.2? Of course it doesn't. The market is not that big, but it will be. There's no reason to think that once the scale changes, others things will.
Quote:
3. This idea Blu-Ray backers are spreading about Redmond trying to kill discs to dominate with downloads is simply FUD.
Didn't M$ state they saw that happening?
Quote:
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.
Alienating? And really, corporations don't use optical discs to back things up. They just don't.
Either cheap players are good for mass market acceptance or they are not?
If they are then "we" the "early adoptors" who are "bringing the price down to levels for the average joe to accept them" should be supporting those cheap players not doing as murch has done and buying the $1000 players in spite of $300 players being in existance.
or are you saying its alright to keep the ASP high at this time?
Yes and No.... I believe most high end enthusiasts do prefer higher end hardware for the main Home Theather, but they also like cheaper players to place by other areas in the house. I do have a second unit in my bedroom.
When it comes to ASP.... this would matter to market analyst or the CE manufacturers and perhaps the retail stores. I buy CE goods because I want them, not because it's going to raise or lower the ASP. I wonder how many enthusiasts or consumers think about how a purchasing decision is impacting the ASP at the end of the year........
(in the direction of steep price drop, which the hardware price is dropping faster than when DVD was introduced.)
False. The average price in 1998 was $400something. The average price in 2007 is $300somthing to 400something EXCEPT YOU HAVE TO BUY TWO. With the war the COST IS HIGHER (or perhaps the same adjusted for inflation).
Same cost or higher, far more confusion.
Quote:
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.
That is EXACTLY what you were suggesting and it is clearly FALSE. Only a small fraction paid over $1K for their players.
Quote:
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......
Accuse? You wrote that. Do I need to repeat it AGAIN?
Quote:
Originally Posted by bitemymac
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.
DVD was a monopoly. Gee, and yet prices dropped quickly anyway.
Quote:
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?
That is exactly Sony's strategy for winning the war. They claim that the PS2 was the tipping point for DVD the last go around but personally I believe it occured a little earlier.
This go around the PS3 itself isn't selling as quickly as they hoped. Overall though the strategy should work even if it cost them game console dominiance this generation.
Quote:
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.
Heh...you're dizzy because no matter how much you twist can't escape your own words no matter how much you try.
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.
You mean paying royalties to the 13 companies that founded blu-ray of which Sony is one. Like with MPEG-2 where 24 patent holders pooled 650 patents. Ya think if Sony had enough IP that they wouldn't have gone it alone vs go into a partnership? Not too likely given Sony's history.
Quote:
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.
Which is why Sony, admittedly Blu-Ray's biggest backer, played the PS3 trump card to insure rapid market penetration by leveraging the console market. A point not lost to the other patent holders in the Blu-Ray patent/royalty pool...also managed by MPEG-LA I think.
Quote:
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.
Corporate back-up-on-disc market? What corporate back-up-on-disc market? I recently purchased 2 x 320GB of disk space and its already 20% full. I ain't burning that to any optical media even if I had a BR burner but instead back it up to the other disk (I decided manual backup using cron vs RAID 1). $80 for the second drive. That's cheaper than a 400GB backup tape. Actually, given that most of that content is from DV tape my real backup are the original tapes. I'm only backing up the iMovie projects and iPhoto library.
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.
Sony is to blame? I think someone needs to review their history. I've compiled an interesting summation, and let's just say, Sony is far from being blamed...that honor goes to Toshiba for going against the rest of the industry to try and force their own agenda...
Okay, history lesson time. As many of you'll notice, there are many companies that are a part of the DVD Forum that are also a part of the BDA. Why? One may ask, is because of certain events that have brought us to the current predicament of having two next generation of formats.
First, is that Blu-ray was ofiicially announced in February of 2002 (with the development of the technology spanning all the way back to 1995)...
Having stated this and providing proof for this fact, the question remains, why are we in this predicament? Well, if there is a good portion of blame to throw too, it is to the Toshiba clan who, when presenting the HD DVD format to the DVD Forum, could NOT get the necessary votes within the DVD Forum to get their format approved. So what happened? Well, the committee, changed the way votes were counted, so that abstained votes were not counted, since the majority of the steering committee were Blu-ray supporters (10 out of 17) and were not present.
If this is not dirty, I don't know what is, but the reality of the fact is that a format war was not upon us until Toshiba and Co. resorted to unethical tacticts to get their format approved by the DVD Forum. Furthermore, even though that HD DVD has the DVD Forum's approval, it is important to note that...
Note that the DVD Forum does not specify standards. It does not design formats, rather it provides support in terms of format compliance verification. Designing formats is under the realm of manufacturers or teams of manufacturers.
So either way, the DVD Forum doesn't mean really much at all, but simply a hyped talking point of HD DVD supporters.
You mean paying royalties to the 13 companies that founded blu-ray of which Sony is one. Like with MPEG-2 where 24 patent holders pooled 650 patents. Ya think if Sony had enough IP that they wouldn't have gone it alone vs go into a partnership? Not too likely given Sony's history.
The only reason Sony didn't go it alone is that they understood that no other studios would have gone along with them. Even now, I would love to see what percentage of the royalties from the pool go directly to Sony.
Quote:
Originally Posted by vinea
Corporate back-up-on-disc market? What corporate back-up-on-disc market? I recently purchased 2 x 320GB of disk space and its already 20% full. I ain't burning that to any optical media even if I had a BR burner but instead back it up to the other disk (I decided manual backup using cron vs RAID 1). $80 for the second drive. That's cheaper than a 400GB backup tape. Actually, given that most of that content is from DV tape my real backup are the original tapes. I'm only backing up the iMovie projects and iPhoto library.
Corporate users back up to 400GB or 800GB tape.
Yes, as SDW has already pointed out I should have been more precise in my wording.
"Corporations" do back up everything to a server, which then uses tape. I understand that. (I've actually complained in other threads about the lack of Mac-compatible tape backup hardware.) However individuals working at home, small businesses with less than 10 employees and individual product groups within large companies all use disc backup in one form or another.
False. The average price in 1998 was $400something. The average price in 2007 is $300somthing to 400something EXCEPT YOU HAVE TO BUY TWO. With the war the COST IS HIGHER (or perhaps the same adjusted for inflation).
Same cost or higher, far more confusion.
so it is cheaper with HD-DVD than when it was with DVD..... how does your average cost have range $300 to $400?.... so.... $300 for HD-DVD only, but $400 with blu-Ray and HD-DVD together?.... how was ASP for Blu-Ray players alone?... $500+?
Quote:
Originally Posted by vinea
That is EXACTLY what you were suggesting and it is clearly FALSE. Only a small fraction paid over $1K for their players.
nope.... but you wish I did suggested it. When did I quoted that every enthusiasts paid $1+ for their DVD player?
Quote:
Originally Posted by vinea
DVD was a monopoly. Gee, and yet prices dropped quickly anyway.
Really? By which single company was this?...
Quote:
Originally Posted by vinea
That is exactly Sony's strategy for winning the war. They claim that the PS2 was the tipping point for DVD the last go around but personally I believe it occured a little earlier.
This go around the PS3 itself isn't selling as quickly as they hoped. Overall though the strategy should work even if it cost them game console dominiance this generation.
Heh...you're dizzy because no matter how much you twist can't escape your own words no matter how much you try.
Vinea
This is what you like to believe, but not so much impact have been shown, given the 4+ million PS3's already in people's home.
Marzetta7 that's nice but there's a couple of missing points.
Although Blu-ray's creation does predate HD DVD it still was not submitted to the DVD Forum for potential ratification.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marzetta7
Having stated this and providing proof for this fact, the question remains, why are we in this predicament? Well, if there is a good portion of blame to throw too, it is to the Toshiba clan who, when presenting the HD DVD format to the DVD Forum, could NOT get the necessary votes within the DVD Forum to get their format approved. So what happened? Well, the committee, changed the way votes were counted, so that abstained votes were not counted, since the majority of the steering committee were Blu-ray supporters (10 out of 17) and were not present
Again I've covered this. They abstained from voting in the hopes of delaying the progress of HD DVD. While Blu-ray was first conceived as recording format that doesn't mean it's the right product for the nextgen DVD replacement. Sony should have submitted the format for consideration. They didn't and Toshiba was faster about designing AoD.
Quote:
So either way, the DVD Forum doesn't mean really much at all, but simply a hyped talking point of HD DVD supporters.
Yes but what the consortium has attempted to make the transition from DVD to HD successor easier? None. The DVD Forum attempted to deliver a unified format for us and Sony, like they always do, cannot play along.
Ahem
SACD
Digital8
MicroMV
Minidisc
Beta
The company has a well known History of creating format battles.
"Corporations" do back up everything to a server, which then uses tape. I understand that. (I've actually complained in other threads about the lack of Mac-compatible tape backup hardware.) However individuals working at home, small businesses with less than 10 employees and individual product groups within large companies all use disc backup in one form or another.
At $50 for a 50GB blu ray or 30GB HD-DVD R/W that doesn't seem all that cost effective given I can get offsite managed backup for $0.15 per gigabyte + streaming charge from Amazon S3 or another HDD and do RAID 1 or RAID 10 for $50/drive (plus enclosure).
At 4.7GB/8.5GB DVD that's just annoying to do. It's like using 1.44MB floppies to back up a 50-100MB drive. Granted most drives aren't full but who the heck still want's to fiddle with 10+ DVDs to do a backup?
Seriously, its cheaper just to build a second array and automate it than spend the labor hours to babysit a DVD based backup system. A 1TB NAS is what? $600? Buy two, leave as RAID 5, setup a backup schedule and forget about it. If you want offsite, buy three or stick the backup array at someone house and use up his or her bandwidth or do Amazon S3 once a week/month/whatever.
so it is cheaper with HD-DVD than when it was with DVD..... how does your average cost have range $300 to $400?.... so.... $300 for HD-DVD only, but $400 with blu-Ray and HD-DVD together?.... how was ASP for Blu-Ray players alone?... $500+?
It isn't cheaper with HD-DVD unless you like not seeing movies from Blu-Ray exclusive companies. Its $300 for HD-DVD and $400 for Blu-Ray...actually $500 as you say. So combined the cost today is $700-$800.
There is no way for you to spin the current situation as being cheaper for the consumer. Either they miss out on movies because of exclusive studios or they pay double what it cost at the point in the DVD lifecycle.
Quote:
nope.... but you wish I did suggested it. When did I quoted that every enthusiasts paid $1+ for their DVD player?
Oh...I dunno...in that BIG BLOCK you keep deleting instead of addressing when you say were it not for the format war we'd be paying $1K per player and $50 per movie.
Twist, twist, twist. No wonder you're dizzy.
Quote:
Really? By which single company was this?...
Keep twisting. It has an amusement factor although we're laughing at you, not with you.
In any case, notice that Blu-Ray isn't sold by a single CE company but multiple. And Blu-Ray is yet another association much like DVD Forum with many of the same companies.
Quote:
This is what you like to believe, but not so much impact have been shown, given the 4+ million PS3's already in people's home.
This is what Sony would like to believe. Whether they are right or wrong remains to be seen but thus far they DO have more HD players on the market than anyone else. If the Blu-Ray format succeeds then Sony can legitimately claim it was the reason unlike with DVD where there is some debate on the impact of the PS2.
Its funny, the BD people are pretty much of one voice, all seem to be saying that one single format is good. no matter which.
More disc space is better for films and personal back-up, so BD is better.
and that the format war is bad for any next gen format (against SD-DVD)
but bite seems to think, the war is good for the formats adoption while murch does not.
bite actually bought a BD player (for a week, took it back and wasn't out a penny so has this amusing "right" to speak up against BD in whatever way he sees fit today)
but, murch, who endlessly remarks on his love of f"ilms above formats", when given the chance of buying a $500 BD player (with free movies) bought a $900 HD-DVD player instead, missing out on the $400 worth of films, that he can't watch due to the format war that bite so loves.
Frank seems more interested in assumed payment royalties than the technical advantages of either format so it is likely he isn't that interested in the films, and SD-DVD is probably good enough. He also seems to think that Redmond should be trusted with having a dominant position in the form of a codec.
The HD-DVD supporters on this thread don't agree, the BD supporters do agree, the sane people think one format would be best, no matter which. the sane people seem to think the format thats in most homes would be best for the studios support.
Is it any wonder HD-DVD is being outsold 2 to 1 when their is that much confusion among their suporters.
Actually Transformers was quite good. I share many of the films on your list (Like Zulu) so take that for whatever its worth.
Pearl Harbor was a turd though although the effects were fun.
Vinea
Hey
Just an update, I went to see Transformers tonight \
It's ahh, Okaaay if I was 12, pretty amazing CGI but wow the plot was thin, the dialogue however I don't know, maybe I'm getting older but I thought it was Story that counted over spectacle.
Won't be wanting this at any time EVER, well ok, if it's on TV in a few years time I may record it.
It seems like its a kid movie, and I own a PS3. murch implied that PS3 and BD player owners would be more likely into teen/kid movies, i guess I'm not fitting into his expectation of a PS3 owner demographic, which is hardly surprising. Funny though that the HD-DVD owners have been going crazy for Transformers, a teen/kid movie, what does that do to his theroies?
And bite gave the impression he thinks it ROKKZZ, but hey, whatever dUUUDz
Its funny, the BD people are pretty much of one voice, all seem to be saying that one single format is good. no matter which.
More disc space is better for films and personal back-up, so BD is better.
and that the format war is bad for any next gen format (against SD-DVD)
but bite seems to think, the war is good for the formats adoption while murch does not.
bite actually bought a BD player (for a week, took it back and wasn't out a penny so has this amusing "right" to speak up against BD in whatever way he sees fit today)
but, murch, who endlessly remarks on his love of f"ilms above formats", when given the chance of buying a $500 BD player (with free movies) bought a $900 HD-DVD player instead, missing out on the $400 worth of films, that he can't watch due to the format war that bite so loves.
Frank seems more interested in assumed payment royalties than the technical advantages of either format so it is likely he isn't that interested in the films, and SD-DVD is probably good enough. He also seems to think that Redmond should be trusted with having a dominant position in the form of a codec.
The HD-DVD supporters on this thread don't agree, the BD supporters do agree, the sane people think one format would be best, no matter which. the sane people seem to think the format thats in most homes would be best for the studios support.
Is it any wonder HD-DVD is being outsold 2 to 1 when their is that much confusion among their suporters.
Just to be clear, Frank doesn't like the way Sony treats its customers, and doesn't think they should be trusted with winning control of the next-gen disc format. Aside from that, I don't see any difference in the quality of the films (except that Blu-Ray MAY be more susceptible in the long term to scratches.)
The one thing I hate about this war is that it's forced me to defend Redmond. Anyone who's followed my rants about AppleWorks over the last several years knows I'm no friend of Microsoft.
However I don't see how Microsoft can use its HD-DVD codec to mess with users, and in any case QuickTime (H.264) is mandatory on both formats as well. I still think Sony is the bigger threat here, in the long term.
And I actually like the fact that the HD-DVD supporters here all have different reasons to support the format. It does speak to the diverse appeal of the format. The fact that all the Blu-Ray backers are all drinking the same kool-aid has been apparent to me as well.
Marzetta7 that's nice but there's a couple of missing points.
Although Blu-ray's creation does predate HD DVD it still was not submitted to the DVD Forum for potential ratification.
Not missing any point. You must have missed my last point. The BDA didn't HAVE TO go through the DVD Forum. The DVD Forum is for just that, DVDs. This is high-def optical media, not DVDs. In other words, ratification was never necessary or needed by the DVD Forum, not to mention the BDA probably would've never submitted it to the DVD Forum anyhow, as they had their own governing body/consortium/forum, the Blu-ray Disc Association.
Quote:
Again I've covered this. They abstained from voting in the hopes of delaying the progress of HD DVD. While Blu-ray was first conceived as recording format that doesn't mean it's the right product for the nextgen DVD replacement. Sony should have submitted the format for consideration. They didn't and Toshiba was faster about designing AoD.
No, they abstained because abstained votes were counted as 'no' which means HD DVD never would have been ratified if it weren't hijacked by Microsofties and Toshiba. That's called unethical, and in turn caused a format war.
And no, Sony (and might I add that it was more than Sony that developed Blu-ray for the umpteenth time) should not have submitted the format to the DVD Forum. What makes the DVD Forum the proper arena for high-def disc media? Nothing, as it is for DVDs.
Quote:
Yes but what the consortium has attempted to make the transition from DVD to HD successor easier? None. The DVD Forum attempted to deliver a unified format for us and Sony, like they always do, cannot play along.
Ahem
SACD
Digital8
MicroMV
Minidisc
Beta
The company has a well known History of creating format battles.
Nice try, but everyone can see through your Sony hatred. Again, Blu-ray was developed by a consortium called the BDA. Funny how they make up the majority of the industry, and yet, you single out Sony. I guess that's what happens when your argument is more based on your absurd dislike of Sony rather than facts. And, the BDA has and is making the transition from DVD to a HD successor easier, it is simply a minority of companies making it difficult for us consumers--Microsoft, Universal and Toshiba.
Comments
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.
PLEASE not the tired old ratification process argument again! didn't you listen the last time?
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:
I was merely responding by saying that some people/enthusiasts/early adopters also paid $1k+ even for DVD player:
...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....
Either cheap players are good for mass market acceptance or they are not?
If they are then "we" the "early adoptors" who are "bringing the price down to levels for the average joe to accept them" should be supporting those cheap players not doing as murch has done and buying the $1000 players in spite of $300 players being in existance.
or are you saying its alright to keep the ASP high at this time?
1. Market demand is not the only factor in calculating business sense. Paying royalties on every film you sell to a competing studio is not good business sense.
2. Even if you wanted to use market demand as the primary factor, you don't use the technophile market (which comprises less than 1% of market) to gauge exactly how mainstream customers will react when the product is in the mainstream marketplace.
3. This idea Blu-Ray backers are spreading about Redmond trying to kill discs to dominate with downloads is simply FUD. While I'm sure they do want to win that market eventually, Microsoft remain a corporate services giant. To think they would risk Windows' competitive position by alienating the corporate back-up-on-disc market is silly. Every computer that ship with Windows will eventually read and write to an HD optical disc. HD discs aren't being thrown out of the computing world anytime soon, least of all by Redmond.
Thats called covering their asses, something Redmond does in spades.
if you bother to read the RDM article, HD-DVD uses M$ VC-1 codec, but even if it fails M$ have covered their asses by also allowing VC-1 to be used in BD (even if BD fails they have covered their ass by allowing VC-1 to be used in HD-DVD and so on infinitum)
Do you remeber that this happened with M$ and IBM?
M$: sure you can use our OS, but we want to be able to sell it to everyone else as well.
IBM: yeah we don't have a problem with that.
M$: great, next stop world domination.
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......
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.
WOW! you must sure play a mean pinball! kid.
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.
1. If backup on optical was so important, why would any company including Microsoft pick the format that has fewer (and slower) burners available, and lower capacity?
2. I notice Murch is conspicuously silent in response to this. What happened to him saying the future isn't in optical backup? That Blu-ray disks are too expensive when compared with DVD backups or even hard drive arrays today? What's the matter, Murch? Changed stances yet again, or just don't want to step on the toes of a fellow HD DVD advocate?
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.
I'd like some support for that. I'm also not sure it's relevant.
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.
[quote]
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.
How about investing millions in a format that may not exist in 2 years and pissing off the consumers of the currently-on-top format? That outweighs the miniscule royalty payments, I assure you. They got talked into a short term cash boost. And they're going to regret it.
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.
Uh, it's an economy of scale, and therefore that claim is absurd. Here's an example.
Product Type 2 has current sales of 500,000 units per year. It will replace Product Type 1, which is selling 10,000,000 units per year.
Product Type 2.1 sells 350,000 units per year of those 500,000.
Product Type 2.2 seels 150,000 units per year of those 500,000.
Product Type 2 overall expects to see growth to 5,000,000 units in 3 years.
You're telling me it makes sense to pick product 2.2? Of course it doesn't. The market is not that big, but it will be. There's no reason to think that once the scale changes, others things will.
3. This idea Blu-Ray backers are spreading about Redmond trying to kill discs to dominate with downloads is simply FUD.
Didn't M$ state they saw that happening?
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.
Alienating? And really, corporations don't use optical discs to back things up. They just don't.
Either cheap players are good for mass market acceptance or they are not?
If they are then "we" the "early adoptors" who are "bringing the price down to levels for the average joe to accept them" should be supporting those cheap players not doing as murch has done and buying the $1000 players in spite of $300 players being in existance.
or are you saying its alright to keep the ASP high at this time?
Yes and No.... I believe most high end enthusiasts do prefer higher end hardware for the main Home Theather, but they also like cheaper players to place by other areas in the house. I do have a second unit in my bedroom.
When it comes to ASP.... this would matter to market analyst or the CE manufacturers and perhaps the retail stores. I buy CE goods because I want them, not because it's going to raise or lower the ASP. I wonder how many enthusiasts or consumers think about how a purchasing decision is impacting the ASP at the end of the year........
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.)
False. The average price in 1998 was $400something. The average price in 2007 is $300somthing to 400something EXCEPT YOU HAVE TO BUY TWO. With the war the COST IS HIGHER (or perhaps the same adjusted for inflation).
Same cost or higher, far more confusion.
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.
That is EXACTLY what you were suggesting and it is clearly FALSE. Only a small fraction paid 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......
Accuse? You wrote that. Do I need to repeat it AGAIN?
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.
DVD was a monopoly. Gee, and yet prices dropped quickly anyway.
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?
That is exactly Sony's strategy for winning the war. They claim that the PS2 was the tipping point for DVD the last go around but personally I believe it occured a little earlier.
This go around the PS3 itself isn't selling as quickly as they hoped. Overall though the strategy should work even if it cost them game console dominiance this generation.
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.
Heh...you're dizzy because no matter how much you twist can't escape your own words no matter how much you try.
Vinea
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.
You mean paying royalties to the 13 companies that founded blu-ray of which Sony is one. Like with MPEG-2 where 24 patent holders pooled 650 patents. Ya think if Sony had enough IP that they wouldn't have gone it alone vs go into a partnership? Not too likely given Sony's history.
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.
Which is why Sony, admittedly Blu-Ray's biggest backer, played the PS3 trump card to insure rapid market penetration by leveraging the console market. A point not lost to the other patent holders in the Blu-Ray patent/royalty pool...also managed by MPEG-LA I think.
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.
Corporate back-up-on-disc market? What corporate back-up-on-disc market? I recently purchased 2 x 320GB of disk space and its already 20% full. I ain't burning that to any optical media even if I had a BR burner but instead back it up to the other disk (I decided manual backup using cron vs RAID 1). $80 for the second drive. That's cheaper than a 400GB backup tape. Actually, given that most of that content is from DV tape my real backup are the original tapes. I'm only backing up the iMovie projects and iPhoto library.
Corporate users back up to 400GB or 800GB tape.
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.
Sony is to blame? I think someone needs to review their history. I've compiled an interesting summation, and let's just say, Sony is far from being blamed...that honor goes to Toshiba for going against the rest of the industry to try and force their own agenda...
Okay, history lesson time. As many of you'll notice, there are many companies that are a part of the DVD Forum that are also a part of the BDA. Why? One may ask, is because of certain events that have brought us to the current predicament of having two next generation of formats.
First, is that Blu-ray was ofiicially announced in February of 2002 (with the development of the technology spanning all the way back to 1995)...
http://www.blu-raydisc.com/top/About_us/Index.html
One year and nine months later, HD DVD format was announced in November of 2003...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HD_DVD
This link (and there are many others) also support the fact that Blu-ray was first in terms of the creation of the next generation format...
http://www.timefordvd.com/tutorial/HDDVDTutorial.shtml
Having stated this and providing proof for this fact, the question remains, why are we in this predicament? Well, if there is a good portion of blame to throw too, it is to the Toshiba clan who, when presenting the HD DVD format to the DVD Forum, could NOT get the necessary votes within the DVD Forum to get their format approved. So what happened? Well, the committee, changed the way votes were counted, so that abstained votes were not counted, since the majority of the steering committee were Blu-ray supporters (10 out of 17) and were not present.
http://www.videobusiness.com/index.a...D=6572&catID=4
If this is not dirty, I don't know what is, but the reality of the fact is that a format war was not upon us until Toshiba and Co. resorted to unethical tacticts to get their format approved by the DVD Forum. Furthermore, even though that HD DVD has the DVD Forum's approval, it is important to note that...
http://www.timefordvd.com/tutorial/HDDVDTutorial.shtml
Note that the DVD Forum does not specify standards. It does not design formats, rather it provides support in terms of format compliance verification. Designing formats is under the realm of manufacturers or teams of manufacturers.
So either way, the DVD Forum doesn't mean really much at all, but simply a hyped talking point of HD DVD supporters.
You mean paying royalties to the 13 companies that founded blu-ray of which Sony is one. Like with MPEG-2 where 24 patent holders pooled 650 patents. Ya think if Sony had enough IP that they wouldn't have gone it alone vs go into a partnership? Not too likely given Sony's history.
The only reason Sony didn't go it alone is that they understood that no other studios would have gone along with them. Even now, I would love to see what percentage of the royalties from the pool go directly to Sony.
Corporate back-up-on-disc market? What corporate back-up-on-disc market? I recently purchased 2 x 320GB of disk space and its already 20% full. I ain't burning that to any optical media even if I had a BR burner but instead back it up to the other disk (I decided manual backup using cron vs RAID 1). $80 for the second drive. That's cheaper than a 400GB backup tape. Actually, given that most of that content is from DV tape my real backup are the original tapes. I'm only backing up the iMovie projects and iPhoto library.
Corporate users back up to 400GB or 800GB tape.
Yes, as SDW has already pointed out I should have been more precise in my wording.
"Corporations" do back up everything to a server, which then uses tape. I understand that. (I've actually complained in other threads about the lack of Mac-compatible tape backup hardware.) However individuals working at home, small businesses with less than 10 employees and individual product groups within large companies all use disc backup in one form or another.
False. The average price in 1998 was $400something. The average price in 2007 is $300somthing to 400something EXCEPT YOU HAVE TO BUY TWO. With the war the COST IS HIGHER (or perhaps the same adjusted for inflation).
Same cost or higher, far more confusion.
so it is cheaper with HD-DVD than when it was with DVD..... how does your average cost have range $300 to $400?.... so.... $300 for HD-DVD only, but $400 with blu-Ray and HD-DVD together?.... how was ASP for Blu-Ray players alone?... $500+?
That is EXACTLY what you were suggesting and it is clearly FALSE. Only a small fraction paid over $1K for their players.
nope.... but you wish I did suggested it. When did I quoted that every enthusiasts paid $1+ for their DVD player?
DVD was a monopoly. Gee, and yet prices dropped quickly anyway.
Really? By which single company was this?...
That is exactly Sony's strategy for winning the war. They claim that the PS2 was the tipping point for DVD the last go around but personally I believe it occured a little earlier.
This go around the PS3 itself isn't selling as quickly as they hoped. Overall though the strategy should work even if it cost them game console dominiance this generation.
Heh...you're dizzy because no matter how much you twist can't escape your own words no matter how much you try.
Vinea
This is what you like to believe, but not so much impact have been shown, given the 4+ million PS3's already in people's home.
Although Blu-ray's creation does predate HD DVD it still was not submitted to the DVD Forum for potential ratification.
Having stated this and providing proof for this fact, the question remains, why are we in this predicament? Well, if there is a good portion of blame to throw too, it is to the Toshiba clan who, when presenting the HD DVD format to the DVD Forum, could NOT get the necessary votes within the DVD Forum to get their format approved. So what happened? Well, the committee, changed the way votes were counted, so that abstained votes were not counted, since the majority of the steering committee were Blu-ray supporters (10 out of 17) and were not present
Again I've covered this. They abstained from voting in the hopes of delaying the progress of HD DVD. While Blu-ray was first conceived as recording format that doesn't mean it's the right product for the nextgen DVD replacement. Sony should have submitted the format for consideration. They didn't and Toshiba was faster about designing AoD.
So either way, the DVD Forum doesn't mean really much at all, but simply a hyped talking point of HD DVD supporters.
Yes but what the consortium has attempted to make the transition from DVD to HD successor easier? None. The DVD Forum attempted to deliver a unified format for us and Sony, like they always do, cannot play along.
Ahem
SACD
Digital8
MicroMV
Minidisc
Beta
The company has a well known History of creating format battles.
"Corporations" do back up everything to a server, which then uses tape. I understand that. (I've actually complained in other threads about the lack of Mac-compatible tape backup hardware.) However individuals working at home, small businesses with less than 10 employees and individual product groups within large companies all use disc backup in one form or another.
At $50 for a 50GB blu ray or 30GB HD-DVD R/W that doesn't seem all that cost effective given I can get offsite managed backup for $0.15 per gigabyte + streaming charge from Amazon S3 or another HDD and do RAID 1 or RAID 10 for $50/drive (plus enclosure).
At 4.7GB/8.5GB DVD that's just annoying to do. It's like using 1.44MB floppies to back up a 50-100MB drive. Granted most drives aren't full but who the heck still want's to fiddle with 10+ DVDs to do a backup?
Seriously, its cheaper just to build a second array and automate it than spend the labor hours to babysit a DVD based backup system. A 1TB NAS is what? $600? Buy two, leave as RAID 5, setup a backup schedule and forget about it. If you want offsite, buy three or stick the backup array at someone house and use up his or her bandwidth or do Amazon S3 once a week/month/whatever.
so it is cheaper with HD-DVD than when it was with DVD..... how does your average cost have range $300 to $400?.... so.... $300 for HD-DVD only, but $400 with blu-Ray and HD-DVD together?.... how was ASP for Blu-Ray players alone?... $500+?
It isn't cheaper with HD-DVD unless you like not seeing movies from Blu-Ray exclusive companies. Its $300 for HD-DVD and $400 for Blu-Ray...actually $500 as you say. So combined the cost today is $700-$800.
There is no way for you to spin the current situation as being cheaper for the consumer. Either they miss out on movies because of exclusive studios or they pay double what it cost at the point in the DVD lifecycle.
nope.... but you wish I did suggested it. When did I quoted that every enthusiasts paid $1+ for their DVD player?
Oh...I dunno...in that BIG BLOCK you keep deleting instead of addressing when you say were it not for the format war we'd be paying $1K per player and $50 per movie.
Twist, twist, twist. No wonder you're dizzy.
Really? By which single company was this?...
Keep twisting. It has an amusement factor although we're laughing at you, not with you.
In any case, notice that Blu-Ray isn't sold by a single CE company but multiple. And Blu-Ray is yet another association much like DVD Forum with many of the same companies.
This is what you like to believe, but not so much impact have been shown, given the 4+ million PS3's already in people's home.
This is what Sony would like to believe. Whether they are right or wrong remains to be seen but thus far they DO have more HD players on the market than anyone else. If the Blu-Ray format succeeds then Sony can legitimately claim it was the reason unlike with DVD where there is some debate on the impact of the PS2.
Vinea
More disc space is better for films and personal back-up, so BD is better.
and that the format war is bad for any next gen format (against SD-DVD)
but bite seems to think, the war is good for the formats adoption while murch does not.
bite actually bought a BD player (for a week, took it back and wasn't out a penny so has this amusing "right" to speak up against BD in whatever way he sees fit today)
but, murch, who endlessly remarks on his love of f"ilms above formats", when given the chance of buying a $500 BD player (with free movies) bought a $900 HD-DVD player instead, missing out on the $400 worth of films, that he can't watch due to the format war that bite so loves.
Frank seems more interested in assumed payment royalties than the technical advantages of either format so it is likely he isn't that interested in the films, and SD-DVD is probably good enough. He also seems to think that Redmond should be trusted with having a dominant position in the form of a codec.
The HD-DVD supporters on this thread don't agree, the BD supporters do agree, the sane people think one format would be best, no matter which. the sane people seem to think the format thats in most homes would be best for the studios support.
Is it any wonder HD-DVD is being outsold 2 to 1 when their is that much confusion among their suporters.
If given the opportunity to take advantage of that same deal for Blu-ray I'd make the
move.
Actually Transformers was quite good. I share many of the films on your list (Like Zulu) so take that for whatever its worth.
Pearl Harbor was a turd though although the effects were fun.
Vinea
Hey
Just an update, I went to see Transformers tonight
It's ahh, Okaaay if I was 12, pretty amazing CGI but wow the plot was thin, the dialogue however
Won't be wanting this at any time EVER, well ok, if it's on TV in a few years time I may record it.
It seems like its a kid movie, and I own a PS3. murch implied that PS3 and BD player owners would be more likely into teen/kid movies, i guess I'm not fitting into his expectation of a PS3 owner demographic, which is hardly surprising. Funny though that the HD-DVD owners have been going crazy for Transformers, a teen/kid movie, what does that do to his theroies?
And bite gave the impression he thinks it ROKKZZ, but hey, whatever dUUUDz
Its funny, the BD people are pretty much of one voice, all seem to be saying that one single format is good. no matter which.
More disc space is better for films and personal back-up, so BD is better.
and that the format war is bad for any next gen format (against SD-DVD)
but bite seems to think, the war is good for the formats adoption while murch does not.
bite actually bought a BD player (for a week, took it back and wasn't out a penny so has this amusing "right" to speak up against BD in whatever way he sees fit today)
but, murch, who endlessly remarks on his love of f"ilms above formats", when given the chance of buying a $500 BD player (with free movies) bought a $900 HD-DVD player instead, missing out on the $400 worth of films, that he can't watch due to the format war that bite so loves.
Frank seems more interested in assumed payment royalties than the technical advantages of either format so it is likely he isn't that interested in the films, and SD-DVD is probably good enough. He also seems to think that Redmond should be trusted with having a dominant position in the form of a codec.
The HD-DVD supporters on this thread don't agree, the BD supporters do agree, the sane people think one format would be best, no matter which. the sane people seem to think the format thats in most homes would be best for the studios support.
Is it any wonder HD-DVD is being outsold 2 to 1 when their is that much confusion among their suporters.
Just to be clear, Frank doesn't like the way Sony treats its customers, and doesn't think they should be trusted with winning control of the next-gen disc format. Aside from that, I don't see any difference in the quality of the films (except that Blu-Ray MAY be more susceptible in the long term to scratches.)
The one thing I hate about this war is that it's forced me to defend Redmond. Anyone who's followed my rants about AppleWorks over the last several years knows I'm no friend of Microsoft.
However I don't see how Microsoft can use its HD-DVD codec to mess with users, and in any case QuickTime (H.264) is mandatory on both formats as well. I still think Sony is the bigger threat here, in the long term.
And I actually like the fact that the HD-DVD supporters here all have different reasons to support the format. It does speak to the diverse appeal of the format. The fact that all the Blu-Ray backers are all drinking the same kool-aid has been apparent to me as well.
Marzetta7 that's nice but there's a couple of missing points.
Although Blu-ray's creation does predate HD DVD it still was not submitted to the DVD Forum for potential ratification.
Not missing any point. You must have missed my last point. The BDA didn't HAVE TO go through the DVD Forum. The DVD Forum is for just that, DVDs. This is high-def optical media, not DVDs. In other words, ratification was never necessary or needed by the DVD Forum, not to mention the BDA probably would've never submitted it to the DVD Forum anyhow, as they had their own governing body/consortium/forum, the Blu-ray Disc Association.
Again I've covered this. They abstained from voting in the hopes of delaying the progress of HD DVD. While Blu-ray was first conceived as recording format that doesn't mean it's the right product for the nextgen DVD replacement. Sony should have submitted the format for consideration. They didn't and Toshiba was faster about designing AoD.
No, they abstained because abstained votes were counted as 'no' which means HD DVD never would have been ratified if it weren't hijacked by Microsofties and Toshiba. That's called unethical, and in turn caused a format war.
And no, Sony (and might I add that it was more than Sony that developed Blu-ray for the umpteenth time) should not have submitted the format to the DVD Forum. What makes the DVD Forum the proper arena for high-def disc media? Nothing, as it is for DVDs.
Yes but what the consortium has attempted to make the transition from DVD to HD successor easier? None. The DVD Forum attempted to deliver a unified format for us and Sony, like they always do, cannot play along.
Ahem
SACD
Digital8
MicroMV
Minidisc
Beta
The company has a well known History of creating format battles.
Nice try, but everyone can see through your Sony hatred. Again, Blu-ray was developed by a consortium called the BDA. Funny how they make up the majority of the industry, and yet, you single out Sony. I guess that's what happens when your argument is more based on your absurd dislike of Sony rather than facts. And, the BDA has and is making the transition from DVD to a HD successor easier, it is simply a minority of companies making it difficult for us consumers--Microsoft, Universal and Toshiba.