Well obviously we are all aware that LD is older than DVD. But they were most certainly competitors at one time.
Your point, about not needing to flip disks, demonstrates that people could indeed choose between the two formats and ended up going with VHS or DVD. Given the finite number of formats that have ever existed, no format-war analogy is going to be perfect. Yet that doesn't mean that the analogies should be ignored. Ignoring history is not a particularly enlightened analytical technique.
My point was that LD had *no* advantages compared with DVD and could therefore not (realistically) be considered a competitor.
LD's compared to DVD had:
- low resolution
- high player price
- no extra features
- short play time per side
- physically large media.
- Very limited catalog of titles
- no economy of scale behind it since it was a videophile format primarily
What advantage could LD be considered to have when compared against DVD? If any comparisons were made when DVD was released I'm fairly certain DVD answered any questions in fairly short order. LD only looked attractive at all when compared against the other contemporary format of the time, VHS. VCD never made any impact in the US at least but from what I've seen it was a nice way to package VHS quality content.
My point was that LD had *no* advantages compared with DVD and could therefore not (realistically) be considered a competitor.
That is a very strange and narrow definition of competition.
The relative merits of each format are exactly what make them competitors. They existed in the consumer market simultaneously for the sole purpose of video playback. They were aimed at the same customers and video displays. AKA, competitors.
LD had advantages over DVD - no copy protection, larger album art (like LPs have), more exclusive, more beautiful disks. LD was like the Aston Martin to DVD's BMW.
LD had advantages over DVD - no copy protection, larger album art (like LPs have), more exclusive, more beautiful disks. LD was like the Aston Martin to DVD's BMW.
Those discs could only be more beautiful if they were single sided, unless you just mean the inherent beauty of a large silver shiny disc, which I believe we can all appreciate.
That is a very strange and narrow definition of competition.
The relative merits of each format are exactly what make them competitors. They existed in the consumer market simultaneously for the sole purpose of video playback. They were aimed at the same customers and video displays. AKA, competitors.
My point was that as a competitor, it was an extremely weak one and didn't provide much in the way of advantages over DVD. LD was great for its time, and that time ran out.
The lack of so many merits on LDs side ensured that it's impact on the competition at that time was minimal at best. I'm sure there are a good many people who don't even know LD ever existed. Beyond copy protection/region coding, what did LD have going for it when compared to DVD? It had a great many strengths compared to VHS, but DVD crushed it in nearly every functional way (the copy protect/region coding being the exceptions). There was exactly 0 momentum behind the format and I speak as an owner. The best I can say for it is that I was able to pick up a bunch of discs at great prices on clearance.
There will be no need for a Blu-ray vs HD DVD (2009)
Marz will start once anyway. It's the only discussion (and I use that term loosely) he knows.
I'm happy the war's decided but obviously ticked off the more anti-consumer format won.
I'll likely get a BR drive in a Mac purchase later this year, but I certainly won't be buying a player for the TV room for the near future. My surplus cash goes into Apple Store purchases and I would have to upgrade my large-screen rear projection TV to see any benefit from high-definition.
While I may end up with a BR player in the next few years, my next TV-related purchase will be an Apple TV.
The two-year war between HD DVD and Blu-ray officially ended early Tuesday morning as Toshiba waved the white flag and declared it would stop producing HD DVD products.
The company, which began sales of HD DVD in March 2006 with the HD-A1 player, "decided it was not right for us to keep going with such a small presence," according to chief executive Atsutoshi Nishida. The Blu-ray format is now the definitive winner in the war and stands unopposed as the optical media replacement for DVD.
Toshiba's press release goes into a bit more detail: "Toshiba will begin to reduce shipments of HD DVD players and recorders to retail channels, aiming for cessation of these businesses by the end of March 2008. Toshiba also plans to end volume production of HD DVD disk drives for such applications as PCs and games in the same timeframe, yet will continue to make efforts to meet customer requirements. The company will continue to assess the position of notebook PCs with integrated HD DVD drives within the overall PC business relative to future market demand."
Three movie studios currently support HD DVD--Universal, Paramount, and DreamWorks Animation--but we expect them to follow suit and announce support of Blu-ray sooner rather than later.
With Blu-ray support announced by industry heavyweights Netflix, Wal-mart and Best Buy, speculation ran rampant before the weekend that Toshiba would end the war, and the company deserves credit for pulling out as soon as it did. The two incompatible formats have led to plenty of confusion among prospective buyers of next-gen hardware and software, although some have opined that the war was a good thing -- at least it led to price drops.
We've been advising readers against the purchase of HD DVD players since the announcement by Warner Brothers in January that it would exclusively support Blu-ray. That doesn't mean we're telling everyone to rush out and buy a Blu-ray player now; we still believe that most home theater fans would be better served to wait for prices on players to fall. Of course, with the exit of Blu-ray's major competition, those prices may fall later rather than sooner.
Although the article had a bit of HD DVD slant/sour grapes at the end (as prices will come down as competiton between Blu-ray companies is still thriving), I think this is the right move for Toshiba.
The statement that Blu-ray fans have been waiting for nearly two years to hear, president of Universal Studios Home Entertainment Craig Kornblau has announced that Universal Studios will begin distributing their films on the Blu-ray format. He commented, "While Universal values the close partnership we have shared with Toshiba, it is time to turn our focus to releasing new and catalog titles on Blu-ray."
He continued, "The path for widespread adoption of the next-generation platform has finally become clear. Universal will continue its aggressive efforts to broaden awareness for hi-def's unparalleled offerings in interactivity and connectivity, at an increasingly affordable price. The emergence of a single, high-definition format is cause for consumers, as well as the entire entertainment industry, to celebrate."
While no solid details about which titles or specific dates were revealed at this time, a more detailed announcement is expected soon.
That was fast...but then again, so was the demise of HD DVD.
Well obviously we are all aware that LD is older than DVD. But they were most certainly competitors at one time.
Your point, about not needing to flip disks, demonstrates that people could indeed choose between the two formats and ended up going with VHS or DVD. Given the finite number of formats that have ever existed, no format-war analogy is going to be perfect. Yet that doesn't mean that the analogies should be ignored. Ignoring history is not a particularly enlightened analytical technique.
History shouldn't be ignored, but it shouldn't be skewed either.
LD hit the market about 2 years AFTER VHS and nearly 20 years BEFORE DVD. In realistic terms, LD was a competitor for VHS, as they were both Analog video mediums, and LD did have a few advantages over VHS.
VHS had long since become the standard, with LD filling a very small niche, before DVD became available.
I don't think there was ever anyone who was at the store saying "Hmm, I need a new player. Should I get LD or DVD?"
LD was essentially an obsolete format before DVD ever hit shelves. That means there was never any true competition between the two.
But then how will Marzetta and Walter remind us how awesome Blu-Ray is six times a day? \
...
That's for the gloating thread in the General Board. From what the Administrator posted in that thread, this one is due to be locked when there's a clear winner. The next thread that will appear here will be something like "HDM: It's Future, BD, Downloads, Or a Niche Product".
It's money time. It will be interesting to see what level the royalties end up at.
One of the good things about the war was that it forced Sony to pay significant sums of money to win, so there's less to go around into the next pervasive DRM idea they come up with.
Although the article had a bit of HD DVD slant/sour grapes at the end (as prices will come down as competiton between Blu-ray companies is still thriving), I think this is the right move for Toshiba.
Thanks for posting links to articles! (I really do appreciate them... saves the trouble of googling if you're on the ball. )
But I've got to comment on the "sour grapes" meme that I see trying to gain a foothold. The phrase seems to be getting bandied around quite a bit recently. But I've yet to see a significant number of HD-DVD supporters fit that description.
The article in question certainly doesn't exhibit the sour grapes phenomenon. It advises people to wait for a price drop, which is anything but sour grapes. They're not claiming that HD is undesirable. Just that it makes more sense at a lower price point, which has always been a harping point for the HD-DVD camp.
It isn't like HD-DVD people are now saying that they don't want HD anymore.
As a laserdisc owner who still occasionally watches them? L.A. Confidential last night, can't wait for that to show up on BD?here's some thoughts about the format.
IMO, laserdiscs were never in completion with any format. It was more a supplement to VHS rather than a competitor. From the beginning it was designed as a niche product aimed at those who wanted to buy movies that provided the best definition and sound available at the time and for the longest while the only way to get movies in letterbox form.
As has been pointed out, LDs had a number of drawbacks and when DVD appeared on the scene it was clear that it was the logical successor, even to the most die hard LD fans.
Contrary to what someone stated, in the early 90s there was a fairly complete LD catalog. Also later machines, albeit more expensive ones, would automatically switch sides. Earlier ones took about 30- 45 seconds, my later Pioneer 919 takes about 10 seconds.
As a laserdisc owner who still occasionally watches them? L.A. Confidential last night, can't wait for that to show up on BD?here's some thoughts about the format.
IMO, laserdiscs were never in completion with any format. It was more a supplement to VHS rather than a competitor. From the beginning it was designed as a niche product aimed at those who wanted to buy movies that provided the best definition and sound available at the time and for the longest while the only way to get movies in letterbox form.
As has been pointed out, LDs had a number of drawbacks and when DVD appeared on the scene it was clear that it was the logical successor, even to the most die hard LD fans.
Contrary to what someone stated, in the early 90s there was a fairly complete LD catalog. Also later machines, albeit more expensive ones, would automatically switch sides. Earlier ones took about 30- 45 seconds, my later Pioneer 919 takes about 10 seconds.
Yeah, I was probably exaggerating a bit with the limited catalog jab. My brother had one of the pioneer LD players that did the side switching automatically. I was pretty jealous of him . I just figured that switching sides on mine was a logical point to get a drink and take a bio break.
Like you said though, when DVD came out it was seen as a logical progression, and no one thinking about buying into a player was looking at LD vs. DVD.
It's money time. It will be interesting to see what level the royalties end up at.
One of the good things about the war was that it forced Sony to pay significant sums of money to win, so there's less to go around into the next pervasive DRM idea they come up with.
Frank, interesting links. However the second link is very puzzling. The headlines trumpet that Sony paid Warner $400M but in my quick read the article makes no mention of it. Sounds to me it's just more of the FUD that has come from both camps.
IMO, laserdiscs were never in completion with any format. It was more a supplement to VHS rather than a competitor. From the beginning it was designed as a niche product aimed at those who wanted to buy movies that provided the best definition and sound available at the time and for the longest while the only way to get movies in letterbox form.
I'd bet the companies selling LD and LD players would disagree with that. Their failing to defeat VHS doesn't mean that they weren't trying.
I sold my LaserDisk player a long time ago but still vividly remember the marketing literature. LD was definitely intended to be the next-gen format to succeed VHS. Granted, it was somewhat obvious from the early days of LD, or at least viewed as likely, that LD would never really catch on with the mass market.
LaserDisk may not have been "competitive", but it was definitely "competing". (or at least attempting to compete)
I think LD was to VHS what SACD and DVD-A were for CD. The intention was to create a next-gen, better format for the masses, but the already established formats (VHS and CD) were good enough for the average joe, whereas the new ones appealed more to the videophiles and audiophiles, and settled into that niche rather than taking off in any mainstream kind of way.
Now, will Blu-Ray be able to send DVD to the same place that DVD sent VHS to? I remember watching the DVD sections at rental and retail stores grow slightly larger. Growing from one "general" DVD section, into division of genres, slowly taking up more and more shelf space and pushing VHS aside until VHS was merely an afterthought on any shelf.
I think DVD still has a few more strong years in it yet.
Comments
There will be no need for a Blu-ray vs HD DVD (2009)
Are you sure there won't still be b****ing about it a year from now?
Well obviously we are all aware that LD is older than DVD. But they were most certainly competitors at one time.
Your point, about not needing to flip disks, demonstrates that people could indeed choose between the two formats and ended up going with VHS or DVD. Given the finite number of formats that have ever existed, no format-war analogy is going to be perfect. Yet that doesn't mean that the analogies should be ignored. Ignoring history is not a particularly enlightened analytical technique.
My point was that LD had *no* advantages compared with DVD and could therefore not (realistically) be considered a competitor.
LD's compared to DVD had:
- low resolution
- high player price
- no extra features
- short play time per side
- physically large media.
- Very limited catalog of titles
- no economy of scale behind it since it was a videophile format primarily
What advantage could LD be considered to have when compared against DVD? If any comparisons were made when DVD was released I'm fairly certain DVD answered any questions in fairly short order. LD only looked attractive at all when compared against the other contemporary format of the time, VHS. VCD never made any impact in the US at least but from what I've seen it was a nice way to package VHS quality content.
My point was that LD had *no* advantages compared with DVD and could therefore not (realistically) be considered a competitor.
That is a very strange and narrow definition of competition.
The relative merits of each format are exactly what make them competitors. They existed in the consumer market simultaneously for the sole purpose of video playback. They were aimed at the same customers and video displays. AKA, competitors.
LD had advantages over DVD - no copy protection, larger album art (like LPs have), more exclusive, more beautiful disks. LD was like the Aston Martin to DVD's BMW.
Those discs could only be more beautiful if they were single sided, unless you just mean the inherent beauty of a large silver shiny disc, which I believe we can all appreciate.
That is a very strange and narrow definition of competition.
The relative merits of each format are exactly what make them competitors. They existed in the consumer market simultaneously for the sole purpose of video playback. They were aimed at the same customers and video displays. AKA, competitors.
My point was that as a competitor, it was an extremely weak one and didn't provide much in the way of advantages over DVD. LD was great for its time, and that time ran out.
The lack of so many merits on LDs side ensured that it's impact on the competition at that time was minimal at best. I'm sure there are a good many people who don't even know LD ever existed. Beyond copy protection/region coding, what did LD have going for it when compared to DVD? It had a great many strengths compared to VHS, but DVD crushed it in nearly every functional way (the copy protect/region coding being the exceptions). There was exactly 0 momentum behind the format and I speak as an owner. The best I can say for it is that I was able to pick up a bunch of discs at great prices on clearance.
There will be no need for a Blu-ray vs HD DVD (2009)
Marz will start once anyway. It's the only discussion (and I use that term loosely) he knows.
I'm happy the war's decided but obviously ticked off the more anti-consumer format won.
I'll likely get a BR drive in a Mac purchase later this year, but I certainly won't be buying a player for the TV room for the near future. My surplus cash goes into Apple Store purchases and I would have to upgrade my large-screen rear projection TV to see any benefit from high-definition.
While I may end up with a BR player in the next few years, my next TV-related purchase will be an Apple TV.
For now, DVD is good enough for me.
It's official: Toshiba announces HD DVD surrender
http://www.news.com/8301-10784_3-987...l?tag=nefd.top
The two-year war between HD DVD and Blu-ray officially ended early Tuesday morning as Toshiba waved the white flag and declared it would stop producing HD DVD products.
The company, which began sales of HD DVD in March 2006 with the HD-A1 player, "decided it was not right for us to keep going with such a small presence," according to chief executive Atsutoshi Nishida. The Blu-ray format is now the definitive winner in the war and stands unopposed as the optical media replacement for DVD.
Toshiba's press release goes into a bit more detail: "Toshiba will begin to reduce shipments of HD DVD players and recorders to retail channels, aiming for cessation of these businesses by the end of March 2008. Toshiba also plans to end volume production of HD DVD disk drives for such applications as PCs and games in the same timeframe, yet will continue to make efforts to meet customer requirements. The company will continue to assess the position of notebook PCs with integrated HD DVD drives within the overall PC business relative to future market demand."
Three movie studios currently support HD DVD--Universal, Paramount, and DreamWorks Animation--but we expect them to follow suit and announce support of Blu-ray sooner rather than later.
With Blu-ray support announced by industry heavyweights Netflix, Wal-mart and Best Buy, speculation ran rampant before the weekend that Toshiba would end the war, and the company deserves credit for pulling out as soon as it did. The two incompatible formats have led to plenty of confusion among prospective buyers of next-gen hardware and software, although some have opined that the war was a good thing -- at least it led to price drops.
We've been advising readers against the purchase of HD DVD players since the announcement by Warner Brothers in January that it would exclusively support Blu-ray. That doesn't mean we're telling everyone to rush out and buy a Blu-ray player now; we still believe that most home theater fans would be better served to wait for prices on players to fall. Of course, with the exit of Blu-ray's major competition, those prices may fall later rather than sooner.
Although the article had a bit of HD DVD slant/sour grapes at the end (as prices will come down as competiton between Blu-ray companies is still thriving), I think this is the right move for Toshiba.
http://www.blu-ray.com/news/?id=1007
The statement that Blu-ray fans have been waiting for nearly two years to hear, president of Universal Studios Home Entertainment Craig Kornblau has announced that Universal Studios will begin distributing their films on the Blu-ray format. He commented, "While Universal values the close partnership we have shared with Toshiba, it is time to turn our focus to releasing new and catalog titles on Blu-ray."
He continued, "The path for widespread adoption of the next-generation platform has finally become clear. Universal will continue its aggressive efforts to broaden awareness for hi-def's unparalleled offerings in interactivity and connectivity, at an increasingly affordable price. The emergence of a single, high-definition format is cause for consumers, as well as the entire entertainment industry, to celebrate."
While no solid details about which titles or specific dates were revealed at this time, a more detailed announcement is expected soon.
That was fast...but then again, so was the demise of HD DVD.
Well obviously we are all aware that LD is older than DVD. But they were most certainly competitors at one time.
Your point, about not needing to flip disks, demonstrates that people could indeed choose between the two formats and ended up going with VHS or DVD. Given the finite number of formats that have ever existed, no format-war analogy is going to be perfect. Yet that doesn't mean that the analogies should be ignored. Ignoring history is not a particularly enlightened analytical technique.
History shouldn't be ignored, but it shouldn't be skewed either.
LD hit the market about 2 years AFTER VHS and nearly 20 years BEFORE DVD. In realistic terms, LD was a competitor for VHS, as they were both Analog video mediums, and LD did have a few advantages over VHS.
VHS had long since become the standard, with LD filling a very small niche, before DVD became available.
I don't think there was ever anyone who was at the store saying "Hmm, I need a new player. Should I get LD or DVD?"
LD was essentially an obsolete format before DVD ever hit shelves. That means there was never any true competition between the two.
See Bancho's post above for more points.
There will be no need for a Blu-ray vs HD DVD (2009)
But then how will Marzetta and Walter remind us how awesome Blu-Ray is six times a day?
...as prices will come down as competiton between Blu-ray companies is still thriving...
So why have prices of Blu-Ray players gone up $100 or more since Warner's announcement in January?
But then how will Marzetta and Walter remind us how awesome Blu-Ray is six times a day?
...
That's for the gloating thread in the General Board. From what the Administrator posted in that thread, this one is due to be locked when there's a clear winner. The next thread that will appear here will be something like "HDM: It's Future, BD, Downloads, Or a Niche Product".
One of the good things about the war was that it forced Sony to pay significant sums of money to win, so there's less to go around into the next pervasive DRM idea they come up with.
Although the article had a bit of HD DVD slant/sour grapes at the end (as prices will come down as competiton between Blu-ray companies is still thriving), I think this is the right move for Toshiba.
Thanks for posting links to articles! (I really do appreciate them... saves the trouble of googling if you're on the ball.
But I've got to comment on the "sour grapes" meme that I see trying to gain a foothold. The phrase seems to be getting bandied around quite a bit recently. But I've yet to see a significant number of HD-DVD supporters fit that description.
The article in question certainly doesn't exhibit the sour grapes phenomenon. It advises people to wait for a price drop, which is anything but sour grapes. They're not claiming that HD is undesirable. Just that it makes more sense at a lower price point, which has always been a harping point for the HD-DVD camp.
It isn't like HD-DVD people are now saying that they don't want HD anymore.
Definitely not "sour grapes".
IMO, laserdiscs were never in completion with any format. It was more a supplement to VHS rather than a competitor. From the beginning it was designed as a niche product aimed at those who wanted to buy movies that provided the best definition and sound available at the time and for the longest while the only way to get movies in letterbox form.
As has been pointed out, LDs had a number of drawbacks and when DVD appeared on the scene it was clear that it was the logical successor, even to the most die hard LD fans.
Contrary to what someone stated, in the early 90s there was a fairly complete LD catalog. Also later machines, albeit more expensive ones, would automatically switch sides. Earlier ones took about 30- 45 seconds, my later Pioneer 919 takes about 10 seconds.
As a laserdisc owner who still occasionally watches them? L.A. Confidential last night, can't wait for that to show up on BD?here's some thoughts about the format.
IMO, laserdiscs were never in completion with any format. It was more a supplement to VHS rather than a competitor. From the beginning it was designed as a niche product aimed at those who wanted to buy movies that provided the best definition and sound available at the time and for the longest while the only way to get movies in letterbox form.
As has been pointed out, LDs had a number of drawbacks and when DVD appeared on the scene it was clear that it was the logical successor, even to the most die hard LD fans.
Contrary to what someone stated, in the early 90s there was a fairly complete LD catalog. Also later machines, albeit more expensive ones, would automatically switch sides. Earlier ones took about 30- 45 seconds, my later Pioneer 919 takes about 10 seconds.
Yeah, I was probably exaggerating a bit with the limited catalog jab. My brother had one of the pioneer LD players that did the side switching automatically. I was pretty jealous of him
Like you said though, when DVD came out it was seen as a logical progression, and no one thinking about buying into a player was looking at LD vs. DVD.
It's money time. It will be interesting to see what level the royalties end up at.
One of the good things about the war was that it forced Sony to pay significant sums of money to win, so there's less to go around into the next pervasive DRM idea they come up with.
Frank, interesting links. However the second link is very puzzling. The headlines trumpet that Sony paid Warner $400M but in my quick read the article makes no mention of it. Sounds to me it's just more of the FUD that has come from both camps.
IMO, laserdiscs were never in completion with any format. It was more a supplement to VHS rather than a competitor. From the beginning it was designed as a niche product aimed at those who wanted to buy movies that provided the best definition and sound available at the time and for the longest while the only way to get movies in letterbox form.
I'd bet the companies selling LD and LD players would disagree with that. Their failing to defeat VHS doesn't mean that they weren't trying.
I sold my LaserDisk player a long time ago but still vividly remember the marketing literature. LD was definitely intended to be the next-gen format to succeed VHS. Granted, it was somewhat obvious from the early days of LD, or at least viewed as likely, that LD would never really catch on with the mass market.
LaserDisk may not have been "competitive", but it was definitely "competing". (or at least attempting to compete)
Now, will Blu-Ray be able to send DVD to the same place that DVD sent VHS to? I remember watching the DVD sections at rental and retail stores grow slightly larger. Growing from one "general" DVD section, into division of genres, slowly taking up more and more shelf space and pushing VHS aside until VHS was merely an afterthought on any shelf.
I think DVD still has a few more strong years in it yet.