Video Asylum

TVs, VCRs, DVD players, Home Theater systems and more.

Return to Video Asylum


Message Sort: Post Order or Asylum Reverse Threaded

Will HD DVD be the new Betamax ?

212.149.228.203

Posted on December 15, 2007 at 09:32:25
Ole Lund Christensen
Manufacturer

Posts: 1914
Location: Switzerland
Joined: January 1, 2001
Betamax failed because SONY were doing it alone, and the other big companies in Japan were united around VHS.

Now Toshiba is doing HD DVD alone, and Panasonic, Sharp, Sony, Pioneer,
JVC and Mitsubishi are united around Blu ray.

I think it is important, that people know the risk they take now, if they buy a new Toshiba HD DVD player at USD 223 at amazon.

A Blu ray player is a safer investment.

see link of brands

 

Hide full thread outline!
    ...
KEKOLE:, posted on December 15, 2007 at 09:50:13
Duilawyer
Audiophile

Posts: 29475
Joined: November 5, 2001
stfu. It's old, and annoying, and you are repeating the same prepackaged dogma.

 

RE: Will HD DVD be the new Betamax ?, posted on December 15, 2007 at 10:33:35
Posts: 10307
Location: Lancashire.
Joined: January 21, 2001
"Betamax failed because SONY were doing it alone, and the other big companies in Japan were united around VHS."


Totally different scenario today - Toshiba are alone in making players but it's the software which will decide this battle and the studios, where the split isn't quite so one sided.

DD-DVD players are cheaper than BluRay, the players are multi-region and now that LG have come out with the first dual format player I expect many other dual format players to follow.

How then will people react when they have a dual format machine which will play every video disc available......apart from BluRays from a different region?



Best Regards,
Chris redmond.

 

DEAR DUILAWYER, please see the hot news above, posted on December 15, 2007 at 10:35:53
Ole Lund Christensen
Manufacturer

Posts: 1914
Location: Switzerland
Joined: January 1, 2001
it is new, never posted that like before :-)

See the HOT news in my next post, Toshiba HD DVD is not selling well anymore at amazon.com. Now Samsung Blu ray leads.

So the risk is very real. Toshiba HD DVD is close to becoming the next Betamax.


 

Hot news on player sales, see above, posted on December 15, 2007 at 10:45:14
Ole Lund Christensen
Manufacturer

Posts: 1914
Location: Switzerland
Joined: January 1, 2001
The price difference between players is almost gone, if you want 1080p and the new models.

It is now USD 233 versus USD 280 on amazon.com and the Toshiba is not selling well anymore.

So a lot of people now fear that Toshiba HD DVD is the next Betamax.

Is is safer to pay USD 280 for the Samsung BD-P1400 player.

 

Anyone that believes youare not a paid stooge is a fool., posted on December 15, 2007 at 11:05:53
Duilawyer
Audiophile

Posts: 29475
Joined: November 5, 2001
Whether you are right or wrong, you are somebody's sock puppet. The way I know it is that you consider each dual format player a Blu Ray player

 

RE: Will HD DVD be the new Betamax ?, posted on December 15, 2007 at 11:10:48
Peter H-son
Audiophile

Posts: 1403
Joined: October 17, 2007
I believe Betamax fail because of lack of porn.

It seems Sony has taken Bush's timeless wisdom to heart: "There's an old saying in Tennessee--I know it's in Texas, probably in Tennessee--that says, fool me once, shame on--shame on you. Fool me--you can't get fooled again."

 

I am just very happy to see the format war ending soon, posted on December 15, 2007 at 11:38:35
Ole Lund Christensen
Manufacturer

Posts: 1914
Location: Switzerland
Joined: January 1, 2001
You can believe and write anything you want here,
but will anybody trust you, after your post about 2 to 3 times more for a Blu Ray player?

That post exposed you as a HD DVD fanboy, who should have checked the new prices before posting.

I am proud to be a Blu Ray cheerleader. I do not hide it, claiming to be neutral.

A dual format player do play Blu Ray.

And please notice my post about LG dual format player comming, and the recent post about a dual format PC drive.

I wish somebody would offer to pay me for posting. But my hour rate is perhaps too high :-)

 

Sony's CEO doesn't think it is, posted on December 15, 2007 at 11:45:52
Jack G
Audiophile

Posts: 9741
Joined: September 24, 1999
Once again he damns BD with faint praise.


"We have momentum," he told the wire service this week. "But that's all we have at the moment."

Sound like a winner?
Jack

 

Well, I bought a Toshiba HD DVD player for $199 becuase..., posted on December 15, 2007 at 12:04:02
jsm
Audiophile

Posts: 1887
Location: SF Bay Area
Joined: October 28, 2000
it's cheap enough for me, the BD standard doesn't exist yet (I don't want to have to worry about upgrading my firmware at unknown intervals in order to play the latest discs), and there's enough software out there right now for me to get my money's worth. In fact there's some software out there that I really am interested in that is only on HD DVD (e.g., a performance of the Magic Flute- I just payed as much as the Toshiba player for an evening to see it in person). There is nothing yet on BD exclusively that really interests me all that much. When one format wins, assuming one format wins, i would really like to a have a first-class player, not the cheapest money can buy, so for now I'm just dipping my toe in the water. No big loss if I have to move to another pond someday.

Joe

 

Only a winner can be so cool., posted on December 15, 2007 at 12:04:35
Ole Lund Christensen
Manufacturer

Posts: 1914
Location: Switzerland
Joined: January 1, 2001
the HD DVD is dying now, but
the real format war is against normal DVD, and that is still a long battle.

8 million POTC in DVD and 160,000 in Blu Ray is 2% Blu Ray in USA. There is a long way to 10%.

 

P.S did you see how much SONY sales and profits went up in USA?, posted on December 15, 2007 at 12:09:55
Ole Lund Christensen
Manufacturer

Posts: 1914
Location: Switzerland
Joined: January 1, 2001
I do not have shares in SONY, and my only SONY product is a 6 year old 36" tube TV, which nobody wants to buy used today.

 

I would also like to buy a Toshiba HD DVD player for $199 and get free movies, posted on December 15, 2007 at 12:28:12
Ole Lund Christensen
Manufacturer

Posts: 1914
Location: Switzerland
Joined: January 1, 2001
but so far I cannot find one so cheap in Europe. They cost USD 426 for a 1080p HD DVD player.

 

RE: P.S did you see how much SONY sales and profits went up in USA?, posted on December 15, 2007 at 13:27:57
Jack G
Audiophile

Posts: 9741
Joined: September 24, 1999
Yes, I saw that their game department lost roughly $800M, despite PS2 sales. Remember, they are still subsidizing the PS3.
Pehaps that is why Stringer is still underwhelmed with BD.
Jack

 

I think PS3 is making profits now, posted on December 15, 2007 at 13:49:44
Ole Lund Christensen
Manufacturer

Posts: 1914
Location: Switzerland
Joined: January 1, 2001
the 40GB version is cheap to make, and with Blu Ray drives above 7 million units cost are comming down fast.

 

You are wrong, posted on December 15, 2007 at 14:13:48
.

 

Only a fanboy can be so deluded (nt), posted on December 15, 2007 at 14:14:30
.

 

Ummm, let's see, didn't SONY make Beatmax, excuse me, Betamax? Remind me again who's behind Blu-ray, ...?, posted on December 15, 2007 at 22:24:43
Audiophilander
Audiophile

Posts: 30200
Location: Fort Worth (D/FW Metroplex)
Joined: March 31, 2000
;0)

Sorry, even though I'm trying to remain neutral and objective about the so-called format war, that one was hard to resist! ;^D

>>> "A Blu ray player is a safer investment." <<<

Were you a Wall Street stockbroker in a previous life, uh ...say, around the fall of '29? ;O)

AuPh

 

Yes, that was a Sony technology that lost out to the inferior technology, posted on December 16, 2007 at 00:16:27
Jazz Inmate
Audiophile

Posts: 63589
Location: Bay Area, California
Joined: April 5, 2000
due to ignorant consumers like you who adopted VHS in droves, thereby sticking us with the inferior format for 15 yrs. How apropos that you'd bring it up. Those who don't understand history are destined to repeat it, but hopefully enough consumers realize that blu-ray is the way to go so that we won't be stuck with another inferior technology.
-------------

"I have found that if you love life, life will love you back." -Arthur Rubinstein (1887-1982)

 

what is a "Beatmax", a new popband?, posted on December 16, 2007 at 02:00:19
Ole Lund Christensen
Manufacturer

Posts: 1914
Location: Switzerland
Joined: January 1, 2001
Nice try :-)

 

why?, posted on December 16, 2007 at 05:20:32
Ole Lund Christensen
Manufacturer

Posts: 1914
Location: Switzerland
Joined: January 1, 2001
PSP 439,846 units last week and total 27,776,383
PS3 417,534 units last week and total 7,194,575
X360 414,159 units last week and total 14,558,327
PS2 384,241 units last week and total 113,332,506

So PS3 is now selling better than PS2 and X360.
And adding PSP, PS2 and PS3 together you see total SONY domination.

It does not look like 2:1 for PS2 does it?

Nobody but SONY knows what the new PS3 40GB cost to make.
However when you have made 7 million, the next millions do get cheaper to make.

see link for PS2 and PS3 sales

 

What you're looking at is essentially meaningless, posted on December 16, 2007 at 07:21:32
Weekly results are useless for gauging financial success. Try looking at Sony's quarterly financial results, or at the very least, read an article in the finance section of a newspaper, instead of the fanboy section of a website.

Here's one that may get you pointed in the right direction.

 

thank you for that informative link, posted on December 16, 2007 at 10:53:14
Ole Lund Christensen
Manufacturer

Posts: 1914
Location: Switzerland
Joined: January 1, 2001
All of it sounds true.

And indeed the SONY PS3 have been a bad launch with several misfires and overly optimistic claims. This has caused lack of confidence, and a drop in stock price. (PS2 in is best days gave half the buttomline)

So my question to you is:

Let us asume, that I am correct in saying that since that article, the PS3 finally came in the bestseller version, driving sales dramatically up, is now the right time to buy SONY shares? (Bad sentence structure, sorry)
And how much could the shares go up?

The upturn is strongest in Europe, where the price is much higher, and the profit therefore better.

Secondly, the cost of building the PS3 is going dramatically down, and will end a bit above PS2 levels.

I do not have SONY shares, but your link gave me the idea, that I might have a way to beat the market. If I am correct :-)

P.S I do like to read Financial Times, but I am at the moment far away from a lot of good magazines and newspapers.



 

An excellent idea to look at results...let's check it out, shall we?, posted on December 16, 2007 at 10:54:48
Jazz Inmate
Audiophile

Posts: 63589
Location: Bay Area, California
Joined: April 5, 2000
First of all, those analyses of the "hundreds of dollars" per unit Sony is said to be losing on each PS3 are bogus. Sony manufactures millions of PS3 units and therefore orders parts by the millions. If you order parts in bulk, the costs per part go down astronomically. But yeah, if you personally bought all the materials you need to make a PS3 and assembled one, you would lose a lot of money if you sold it for $399. That isn't the case with Sony. Heck, you'd also lose money on that cheap Toshiba doorstop, if you assembled one buying each part at list price and sold it for $99.

As for Sony's latest sales results...reported for Q2 which for them ended Sept. 30...in bln yen...was 2,083 up from 1,854 in Q2 of 2006.

Gee, racer, that seems like double digit growth...not bad at all.
-------------

"I have found that if you love life, life will love you back." -Arthur Rubinstein (1887-1982)

 

Once again, you demonstrate..., posted on December 16, 2007 at 11:02:11
...that you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about.

Congratulations.

 

You're welcome - I'm glad you learned something, posted on December 16, 2007 at 11:09:48
Yes, overall Sony's profitability is beginning to rise. Sony stock may be a good investment. That is irrelevant to the subject of your constant propagandizing though.

The relevant issue is that Sony is losing money on the PS3. The relevant question is: how long will Sony permit its more profitable divisions to subsidize its money-losers?

In the past, Sony frequently subsidized its money-losers for years. That is one of the reasons why they got into financial straits. Ever since Stringer took over, Sony has chosen to focus more on short-term profit goals, and has begun to show a tendency to walk away from unprofitable business models and products.

We'll have to wait and see whether the PS3 will become profitable. In the meantime, if you're concerned, maybe you should directly contribute to the gaming division's bottom line. Instead of buying stock, you should buy several thousand PS3s ;-)


 

you continue to demonstrate you can stare straight at a fact and fail to see it NT, posted on December 16, 2007 at 11:13:15
Jazz Inmate
Audiophile

Posts: 63589
Location: Bay Area, California
Joined: April 5, 2000

-------------

"I have found that if you love life, life will love you back." -Arthur Rubinstein (1887-1982)

 

RE: You're welcome - I'm glad you learned something, posted on December 16, 2007 at 11:17:39
Jazz Inmate
Audiophile

Posts: 63589
Location: Bay Area, California
Joined: April 5, 2000
Many people in the early part of the decade said similar things about Sony. They were as confused about the PS2 and its profitability as you appear to be about the PS3, which most respectable analysts predict will be the biggest selling console over the next 10 yrs. The only thing possibly standing in the way of that is if a next generation Wii comes out that boasts processing power/graphics capabilities similar to the PS3 and if developers make games for it.
-------------

"I have found that if you love life, life will love you back." -Arthur Rubinstein (1887-1982)

 

LOL!, posted on December 16, 2007 at 11:27:21
.

 

I wish I could make you an offer you couldn't refuse., posted on December 16, 2007 at 12:01:48
jsm
Audiophile

Posts: 1887
Location: SF Bay Area
Joined: October 28, 2000
Since I like Denmark very much, I wish I were headed your way- I'd bring you one. But my text trip to Europe isn't until next June, and so far I'm scheduled to only go to Provence with a side trip to Burgundy. Maybe we could meet in Gevrey-Chambertin. By then the price should be down to $100, given the trend in prices and the falling dollar relative to the Euro. But by then you could probably get a fine BD player for under $200. Sadly, I think out of the 10 free movies I'm getting, only one or two interests me. However, there are places you can trade them in for other movies, so I have hopes that at some point I can get something I want to replace them.

Joe

 

"...ignorant consumers like you who adopted VHS in droves..." - Yeah, right, as if VHS failed to satisfy..., posted on December 16, 2007 at 23:46:33
Audiophilander
Audiophile

Posts: 30200
Location: Fort Worth (D/FW Metroplex)
Joined: March 31, 2000
... the public need for an efficient time shifting platform for scheduled programs and was such "inferior technology" that RCA, Matsushita, et al, failed to remain competitive and improve upon the technology to produce inexpensive multi-speed recorders all those years.

FYI, in it's fastest speed VHS was close enough to Betamax in quality that most consumers could rarely (if ever) detect a difference in performance or PQ. Also, VHS tapes were more readily available and there were fewer performance bugs with the consumer grade hardware (fast forward/reverse & still frame initially worked more smoothly on early VHS machines); THAT is why a ready for prime time format will usually succeed over a costlier, more elitist, gray poupon format with the general public.

Over time, VHS players became light weight and much cheaper, tape quality greatly improved (dropping rapidly in price as well), recording times were extended with longer playing tapes, and finally Super VHS was developed to match the superior resolution of Laser Disc, surpassing NTSC standards. The bottom line: HD-DVD will eventually bridge the capacity differences that exist between the two formats and if the war persists it will be interesting to see if Blu-ray will be able to compete as HD-DVD hardware prices continue to plummet.

>>> "...sticking us with the inferior format ... - How apropos that you'd bring it up." <<<

Your selective cognitive abilities aside, VHS had numerous advantages over Beta for the average consumer. Beta certainly had business and industrial applications and build quality, where capitol outlay isn't as critical a consideration to market incursion, but as that format war subsided I was left with the impression that the chips pretty much fell where they were going to regardless of SONY's best efforts.

You really should quit drinking the fan-boy Kool Aid, Jazz. I realize that you need to regurgitate all that snake oil you've been imbibing in order to alleviate your own blindness, but instead of making us suffer your insecurities maybe you should seek intervention before you require a Braille screen & voice recognition software! ;0)

>>> "Those who don't understand history are destined to repeat it..." <<<

Well, Jazz, format wars have come to pass long after George Santayana's passing, but in addition to spinning like a turbine in his final resting place I'm confident that he wouldn't have approved of your bastardized efforts to insert one of his most famous quotes in such an ignoble cause. Note: The actual quote is "Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it."

In fact, under the circumstances it seems much more reasonable to apply another of his quotes to those who would cheer-lead one format exclusively using biased propaganda as a sales tool:

"Advertising is the modern substitute for argument; its function is to make the worse appear the better."

You are indeed an advertiser for Blu-ray, and your arguments when bolstered by self-serving industry bias, opinion supported more by conjecture than by visual evidence and questionable sales figures from sources of debatable reliability does little to elevate your cause.

Cheers,
AuPh

George Santayana: "To knock a thing down, especially if it is cocked at an arrogant angle, is a deep delight of the blood."

 

Thank you for those nice words about Denmark, posted on December 17, 2007 at 13:36:24
Ole Lund Christensen
Manufacturer

Posts: 1914
Location: Switzerland
Joined: January 1, 2001
and the kind offer. It sounds like a wonderful journey for a wine lover.

Many hit movies are made for 14 year old boys, and sometimes I like to be 14 again :-) So what do you have for sale?

 

Here ya go!, posted on December 18, 2007 at 05:01:02
Jack G
Audiophile

Posts: 9741
Joined: September 24, 1999
"Sony Corp.'s Game division made up by subsidiary Sony Computer Entertainment Inc. revealed operating losses today for the second fiscal quarter of 96.7 billion yen ($841 million). The amount more than doubles last year's losses of 43.5 billion yen for the period of July through September."

Just the facts.
1 minute on Google found this, so you aren't trying very hard.
Jack

 

RE: "...ignorant consumers like you who adopted VHS in droves..." - Yeah, right, as if VHS failed to satisfy..., posted on December 18, 2007 at 21:05:33
Jazz Inmate
Audiophile

Posts: 63589
Location: Bay Area, California
Joined: April 5, 2000
>> ... the public need for an efficient time shifting platform for scheduled programs and was such "inferior technology" that RCA, Matsushita, et al, failed to remain competitive and improve upon the technology to produce inexpensive multi-speed recorders all those years. <<

What can I say, AuPhL? You continue to adopt this "good enough" argument, in the mold of McDonald's, Miller Light...heck, one wonders why you don't just sell your gear and buy Bose. You keep bringing up instances where consumers and manufacturers embraced an inferior technology, as if it's a good thing. It ain't. And your idiotic championing of such instances is stupefying, given that you consider yourself to be a quality-conscious consumer concerned with such things as sound quality. Clearly you are not.

>> FYI, in it's fastest speed VHS was close enough to Betamax in quality that most consumers could rarely (if ever) detect a difference in performance or PQ. <<

Great. Consumers also thought CDs were better than vinyl, Brittney Spears was better than Billie Holiday and George Bush was worth re-electing. Would you agree with them there?

[snip endless drivel in which AuPhL tries to convince me that the inferior format really isn't all that inferior]

>> Note: The actual quote is "Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it." <<

I stand corrected, and you stand poised to prove me correct.

>> You are indeed an advertiser for Blu-ray, <<

No, I am an advocate of higher capacity for HD optical formats. Anyone sane is. Call it blu-ray, call it whatever you want...that's what I'm for. You, on the other hand, are an advocate of "just good enough", "most consumers can't tell the difference", "capacity is snake oil" and similarly idiotic sentiments that fly in the face of logic and commitment to quality and consumer interests.

>> and your arguments when bolstered by self-serving industry bias, opinion supported more by conjecture than by visual evidence and questionable sales figures from sources of debatable reliability does little to elevate your cause. <<

I don't have a cause, except to see my favorite films (past, present and future) released in the highest-quality manner possible. I don't care what you call the format. I just care that it delivers superior technology. We were lucky two formats were offered for HD to give us a choice. Unfortunately, some of us seem to have chosen unwisely and others seem to have decided it was an opportunity to play both sides of the fence to perpetuate a format war that, like high-res digital audio before it, will lead to stagnation, sluggish adoption, slow rollout and possibly the demise of optical HD formats in the onslaught of escalating downloadable video content.
-------------

"I have found that if you love life, life will love you back." -Arthur Rubinstein (1887-1982)

 

Yep, folks like you pointed out similar phenomena during the rollout of PS2, posted on December 18, 2007 at 21:21:17
Jazz Inmate
Audiophile

Posts: 63589
Location: Bay Area, California
Joined: April 5, 2000
What you failed to understand is that bringing a quality product to market requires serious expenses in R&D and marketing at the outset. But if you can weather that storm and remain profitable, as Sony clearly is, you stand to reap benefits for many years. That's why the PS2 has now exceeded 120 million units sold...no doubt driving the company's commitment to quality in the PS3. Are you really so myopic that you think Sony will lose money on this product? Did you think that about PS2?
-------------

"I have found that if you love life, life will love you back." -Arthur Rubinstein (1887-1982)

 

"No, I am an advocate of higher capacity for HD optical formats." - Phony, straw-man argument., posted on December 19, 2007 at 01:12:29
Audiophilander
Audiophile

Posts: 30200
Location: Fort Worth (D/FW Metroplex)
Joined: March 31, 2000
Capacity can be increased by adapting a multi-layer strategy as HD-DVD purports to eventually do, when it's called for. Extra capacity isn't required for most films, only extras such as documentaries and short subjects. Who really gives a darn whether the non-essential extras are on the same disc as the movie?

>>> "What can I say, AuPhL? You continue to adopt this "good enough" argument, in the mold of McDonald's, Miller Light...heck, one wonders why you don't just sell your gear and buy Bose. You keep bringing up instances where consumers and manufacturers embraced an inferior technology, as if it's a good thing. It ain't. And your idiotic championing of such instances is stupefying, given that you consider yourself to be a quality-conscious consumer concerned with such things as sound quality. Clearly you are not." <<<

Nice misdirection, Jizz, but we weren't comparing high definition video formats, we were comparing two differing videotape systems that had similar goals: time shifting and storage of media at about half the resolution of LD and 2/3 the resolution of NTSC broadcast TV programming. Both formats had a built-in "good enough" element. When comparing VHS to Beta, we're not discussing high-end media or fine cuisine; in fact, what you're really comparing are McDonalds and Burger King. I guess then, it's no surprise that you'd favor the WHOPPER! ;0)

>>> "Great. Consumers also thought CDs were better than vinyl, Brittney Spears was better than Billie Holiday and George Bush was worth re-electing. Would you agree with them there?" <<<

That last bit was really nasty, but since you're a bush-league player yourself I'll forgive the political inaccuracy (you're apparently a few hanging chads and Diebold algorithms shy of a full load). OTOH, some CDs ARE better than their vinyl counterparts and being that I'm not an avid fan of either Brittney or Billie's music, your point has been blunted.

>>> "Call it blu-ray, call it whatever you want...that's what I'm for." <<<

Really? So, if HD-DVD researchers managed to triple the formats capacity overnight using multi-layer application of media and Blu-ray was slow to match it or there research couldn't side-step serious problems arising from the short focal length of Blu-ray's laser, would you switch from being a Blu-ray fan-boy to being an HD-DVD advocate? Inquiring minds want to know! 8^D

>>> "You, on the other hand, are an advocate of "just good enough", "most consumers can't tell the difference", "capacity is snake oil" and similarly idiotic sentiments that fly in the face of logic and commitment to quality and consumer interests." <<<

If one can't tell the difference between a 1080P presentation on Blu-ray and the same presentation on HD-DVD, then obviously "good enough" is a relevant consideration.

BTW, you really need to learn how to quote in the proper context, dude. The "most consumers can't tell the difference" misquote related to VHS/Beta comparisons, which weren't high definition by any stretch of the imagination. What I said was: "FYI, in it's fastest speed VHS was close enough to Betamax in quality that most consumers could rarely (if ever) detect a difference in performance or PQ." That's just a statement of fact.

The "capacity is snake oil" quote you've alleged also misrepresents my position, but UNUSED capacity which is hyped as being important in lieu of content when doing A/B comparisons of high definition movies that have exactly the same quality transfer IS snake oil.

>>> "I don't have a cause, except to see my favorite films (past, present and future) released in the highest-quality manner possible. I don't care what you call the format. I just care that it delivers superior technology." <<<

There's your Pinocchio-syndrome flaring an ugly nostril again. If you aren't a pompom carrying fan-boy, cheer-leading "Blu-rah-rah" up and down this page like a silly teenager doing cart-wheels to get everyone's attention then maybe Webster's needs to redefine advocacy and add a few more anecdotal entries to reflect your level of bias. ;^D

>>> "We were lucky two formats were offered for HD to give us a choice. Unfortunately, some of us seem to have chosen unwisely..." <<<

Initially I wasn't thinking this at all, but I'm confident that I've chosen wisely and in accordance with my own needs and requirements for a high definition delivery system.

>>> "...others seem to have decided it was an opportunity to play both sides of the fence to perpetuate a format war that, like high-res digital audio before it, will lead to stagnation, sluggish adoption, slow rollout and possibly the demise of optical HD formats in the onslaught of escalating downloadable video content." <<<

If there's any downside to this format war, it's the obligation HD-DVD folks have to play cyber-nanny to selfish single-minded cheer-leaders who fire off salvo after salvo of weighted propaganda trashing the format that the pompom wavers have casually dismissed in the desperate hope that their format will succeed and that the other folks choice will end up orphaned.

I guess that about covers it!

Ciao,
AuPh (since it's the holidays, that's AuPh with no L, Jazzbo! -grin)

 

Don't change the subject., posted on December 19, 2007 at 05:35:03
Jack G
Audiophile

Posts: 9741
Joined: September 24, 1999
You said they weren't losing money on the PS3. They are, HUGE amounts.
Jack

 

You're too funny, auphl, posted on December 19, 2007 at 14:36:46
Jazz Inmate
Audiophile

Posts: 63589
Location: Bay Area, California
Joined: April 5, 2000
>> Capacity can be increased by adapting a multi-layer strategy as HD-DVD purports to eventually do, when it's called for. <<

LMAO...so you care about hypothetical capacity but not real capacity. Too funny. HD DVD is already using a two-layer approach. And Blu-ray can theoretically hold a few hundred gigs--far beyond HD-DVD's theoretical limitations.

>> Extra capacity isn't required for most films, only extras such as documentaries and short subjects. <<

We've been over this. The limitations of HD DVD are already affecting bitrates, audio content and other decisions that impact the quality of releases...unless you don't mind if a film is split over two discs.

>> Who really gives a darn whether the non-essential extras are on the same disc as the movie? <<

I usually don't care, although there is occasionally some featurettes and other worthwhile material that are important. It would be nice to get those in HD as well, but you won't find that on an HD DVD.

>> Nice misdirection, Jizz, but we weren't comparing high definition video formats, we were comparing two differing videotape systems that had similar goals: <<

No we weren't.

>> Really? So, if HD-DVD researchers managed to triple the formats capacity overnight using multi-layer application of media and Blu-ray was slow to match it or there research couldn't side-step serious problems arising from the short focal length of Blu-ray's laser, would you switch from being a Blu-ray fan-boy to being an HD-DVD advocate? Inquiring minds want to know! <<

Better yet, have the HD DVD camp fold under the condition that Blu-ray is renamed HD DVD. You've got the greater capacity/bandwidth, so that's all I care about. Which is what I've been saying from the beginning. You're the idiot who can't focus on capacity as a critical issue here.

>> If one can't tell the difference between a 1080P presentation on Blu-ray and the same presentation on HD-DVD, then obviously "good enough" is a relevant consideration. <<

We've been over this before, auphl. Warner and other studios playing both sides are using the same content for both formats, dumbing down the capabilities of HD and refusing to capitalize on the advantages of Blu-ray. To then come along and say "I can't tell the difference" is silly.

>> BTW, you really need to learn how to quote in the proper context, dude. The "most consumers can't tell the difference" misquote related to VHS/Beta comparisons, which weren't high definition by any stretch of the imagination. <<

Well the subject here is formats--superior vs inferior. You proudly starting braying about the irrelevance of VHS being "good enough". That is EXACTLY analogous to your position here. I'm simply pointing out that your position proves you do not care about quality or choosing the superior format. ADMIT IT already.

>> What I said was: "FYI, in it's fastest speed VHS was close enough to Betamax in quality that most consumers could rarely (if ever) detect a difference in performance or PQ." That's just a statement of fact. <<

It's also a statement of fact that most consumers prefer McDonald's to sushi. Would you rather eat crap or fresh fish? I just raise the question to show you that your argument flies in the face of what you purport to value: quality. You clearly have gone over to the "good enough" way of thinking.

>> The "capacity is snake oil" quote you've alleged also misrepresents my position, <<

Then you've misrepresented your own opinion because you accused me of peddling snake oil in EXACTLY that context.

>> but UNUSED capacity which is hyped as being important in lieu of content when doing A/B comparisons of high definition movies that have exactly the same quality transfer IS snake oil. <<

It's unused because HD DVD has dumbed down HD video for both formats. Studios aren't going to produce the same content twice for a handful of consumers. It's not that complicated auph. Do you really not understand that? I guess I shouldn't be surprised. You're not all that bright or detail oriented.


-------------

"I have found that if you love life, life will love you back." -Arthur Rubinstein (1887-1982)

 

I am looking beyond today. Sony is very profitable. PS3 will be the dominant console for the next decade NT, posted on December 19, 2007 at 16:40:18
Jazz Inmate
Audiophile

Posts: 63589
Location: Bay Area, California
Joined: April 5, 2000

-------------

"I have found that if you love life, life will love you back." -Arthur Rubinstein (1887-1982)

 

"...let's stop engaging in what-ifs and talk about what is." - Author: Jazz Inmate, posted on December 19, 2007 at 20:28:03
.

 

Do you wear a little blue tunic to go with your pompoms?, posted on December 20, 2007 at 10:20:10
Audiophilander
Audiophile

Posts: 30200
Location: Fort Worth (D/FW Metroplex)
Joined: March 31, 2000
>>> "LMAO...so you care about hypothetical capacity but not real capacity. Too funny. HD DVD is already using a two-layer approach. And Blu-ray can theoretically hold a few hundred gigs--far beyond HD-DVD's theoretical limitations." <<<

As far as I can tell capacity isn't a critical issue for anyone but you, and that is very hypothetical since it isn't being utilized. What I presented was for your benefit, since YOU are so concerned about all that unused space. What do you plan on warehousing in all of that theoretical space anyway, ...SONY adverts?

>>> "We've been over this. The limitations of HD DVD are already affecting bitrates, audio content and other decisions that impact the quality of releases...unless you don't mind if a film is split over two discs." <<<

PROVE IT; list examples where this is the case. In other words, put up or shut up.

>>> "We've been over this before, auphl. Warner and other studios playing both sides are using the same content for both formats, dumbing down the capabilities of HD and refusing to capitalize on the advantages of Blu-ray. To then come along and say "I can't tell the difference" is silly." <<<

Another straw man argument. Regardless of the reasons that the studios do what they do I'm telling you that we will get the same basic products on both formats that we'd get if there were only one.

>>> "Then you've misrepresented your own opinion because you accused me of peddling snake oil in EXACTLY that context." <<<

Nope, it was relating to unused space (capacity), and you're still trying to sell the same snake oil, but with a slightly different label.

AuPh

 

RE: Do you wear a little blue tunic to go with your pompoms?, posted on December 20, 2007 at 11:41:49
Jazz Inmate
Audiophile

Posts: 63589
Location: Bay Area, California
Joined: April 5, 2000
>> As far as I can tell capacity isn't a critical issue for anyone but you, <<

That's interesting, considering multiple industries and thousands of products are developed to capitalize on increasing capacity on optical disc surfaces (including BD and HD DVD). But you're telling me it's not an issue for anyone except me. Either you're really stupid or you are lying.

>> and that is very hypothetical since it isn't being utilized. <<

That's a lie. It is being utilized.

>> PROVE IT; list examples where this is the case. In other words, put up or shut up. <<

I already have. I've posted examples and you responded by calling me a cheerleader. You're clearly not up for a rational discussion. In fact, your main argument against all my points is to ignore it and call me a cheerleader.


-------------

"I have found that if you love life, life will love you back." -Arthur Rubinstein (1887-1982)

 

"I've posted examples..." - Where? I'm not talking about anecdotal examples either, ..., posted on December 20, 2007 at 13:22:41
Audiophilander
Audiophile

Posts: 30200
Location: Fort Worth (D/FW Metroplex)
Joined: March 31, 2000
...show a widespread failure of HD-DVD to present high definition mastered single disc transfers of major films equal to that of Blu-ray (not including documentaries, bonus extras and the like which only has marginal importance to some viewers) and I'll graciously accept your point. Oh, and BTW, we'll ignore the Blu-ray Blade Runner work-print glitch for the moment just to give you time to recover from your last cheer-leader practice! ;0)

AuPh

 

I posted an example of a title that fit on one BD and required two separate HD DVDs, posted on December 20, 2007 at 13:57:40
Jazz Inmate
Audiophile

Posts: 63589
Location: Bay Area, California
Joined: April 5, 2000
Oscar has cited numerous examples of BDs that have much higher bitrates than their HD DVD counterparts. You continue to ignore all salient points and just focus on mind-numbing insults.

Just go back and look through any of our threads last week, the week before or the weeks before to find valid points I made that you systematically ignored and replied with dumbass taunts while swearing up and down the board that you really did adopt HD DVD because of Casablanca.
-------------

"I have found that if you love life, life will love you back." -Arthur Rubinstein (1887-1982)

 

I reiterate: show me the empirical data!, posted on December 20, 2007 at 14:43:40
Audiophilander
Audiophile

Posts: 30200
Location: Fort Worth (D/FW Metroplex)
Joined: March 31, 2000
>>> "Oscar has cited numerous examples of BDs that have much higher bitrates than their HD DVD counterparts. You continue to ignore all salient points and just focus on mind-numbing insults." <<<

Don't blame Oscar for your f*ck-up. We aren't talking about opinions in respect to bit-rates provided by second hand sources. I want FACTS. If you can't provide clear A/B comparisons that you yourself have conducted, then your advocacy of Blu-ray is as phony as your rhetoric.

>>> "Just go back and look through any of our threads last week, the week before or the weeks before to find valid points I made that you systematically ignored and replied with dumbass taunts while swearing up and down the board that you really did adopt HD DVD because of Casablanca." <<<

Valid points? ...! LOL! You have N-O-N-E. BTW, the exaggerated WHOPPERS you keep regurgitating must leave an awful taste in your mouth, but it can't be much worse than the Shinola you consume from SONY that keeps your pompoms waving in the breeze.

AuPh

 

you have access to the same info I do, auph, posted on December 21, 2007 at 14:06:44
Jazz Inmate
Audiophile

Posts: 63589
Location: Bay Area, California
Joined: April 5, 2000
If you really gave a shit about anything technical with these formats, you'd already know the differences. I've already clued you in as much as I'm going to and the fact that you haven't been paying attention as you peppered your replies with "pom pom" "blu chearleader outfit" and tons of other idiotic banter simply proves my point. By the way, can you PROVE casablanca and a couple other titles made it worth adopting an inferior format?
-------------

"I have found that if you love life, life will love you back." -Arthur Rubinstein (1887-1982)

 

LOL! The BS meter pegged maximum with your response this time., posted on December 22, 2007 at 02:07:01
Audiophilander
Audiophile

Posts: 30200
Location: Fort Worth (D/FW Metroplex)
Joined: March 31, 2000
>>> "you have access to the same info I do, auph" <<<

Isn't that sort of like the Bush WH spin about Congress having access to the same data they had in respect to WMD? We all know how truthful that one turned out! LOL!

What interests me are first hand visual comparisons; you've provided none, and the evidence you dole out is purely anecdotal. Sorry, but your credibility has just hit 'Iraq' bottom with me. ;0)

>>> "If you really gave a shit about anything technical with these formats, you'd already know the differences." <<<

I'm interested in PQ, format flexibility (region free play) & specific titles. You know what you can do with all that technical data, but maybe you should clean the seeds out of your bong first. ;0)

>>> "I've already clued you in as much as I'm going to..." <<<

I'm thankful for small favors, but this is more than I'd hoped. Since the impression that you are clueless has been growing steadily among patrons of this forum then maybe we can all look forward to a more peaceful page with less cheer-leading and bombast in the guise of your 'clues'. :o)

>>> "the fact that you haven't been paying attention as you peppered your replies with "pom pom" "blu chearleader outfit" and tons of other idiotic banter simply proves my point." <<<

If you can't stand the high resolution pepper spray (Ole` resonating capacity-sicum) then maybe you should quit providing pointless rhetoric which invites reciprocal banter that teases you mercilessly and challenges your veracity.

To mix a few metaphors: You've made your bed, persist in LYING in it, and have gotten up with fleas on numerous occasions. If SONY doesn't leave any money on your dresser for services rendered, then you're the sleeping dog. ;^D

>>> "By the way, can you PROVE casablanca and a couple other titles made it worth adopting an inferior format?" <<<

1. I can prove that there are more interesting titles on HD-DVD for me than there are currently from Blu-ray.

2. You haven't proven that HD-DVD is inferior to Blu-ray, except perhaps through anecdotal or theoretical evidence relating to capacity, which amounts to no evidence at all based upon PQ comparisons.

3. Blu-ray has had glitches and codec problems of it's own and has a worse record of meeting customer expectations regarding release dates. From a marketing standpoint Blu-ray would appear to be the inferior format; I don't need to make assertions because the facts speak for themselves.

I rest my case (*yawn* - literally, it's getting late, after all! -grin).

Ciao,
AuPh

 

Page processed in 0.078 seconds.