 
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
|
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
208.176.105.98
In Reply to: RE: I didn't see where 25G disks would be used for the movies posted by oscar on August 23, 2007 at 09:35:44
.
Follow Ups:
They want to make 720p downloads the industry standard. They can't let blu-ray win with its 50 GB capacity. The NYT already reported that Microsoft is behind the Paramount deal with $150 million worth of cash and incentives to convince Paramount to drop Blu-ray.Doesn't any of this make you the least bit uncomfortable? Isn't MS enough of a software monopoly that cares little about quality or delivering what the consumer wants without sinking its fangs all the way into gaming and movies?
I just don't understand why you HD DVD guys would gladly sell your souls to MS like this. If they can truly control the future formats for HD movies and manipulate studios so easily, we're really in deep sh*t. To Microsoft, $150 million is nothing--and certainly worth manipulating the studios in their favor.
-------------"I have found that if you love life, life will love you back." -Arthur Rubinstein (1887-1982)
I've been sixty-five years old since I was about nine. I hate cell phones, I hate Microsoft, and I hate cars that tell me when to turn right. I always knew that I was saving myself a lot of grief, I just never knew how much.
And now here I find this enormous flame-war going on, that will never affect me personally. I have a mountain of 480p DVD's that I can watch quite happily on my up-converting DVD player, half of which I've never seen, and none of them is ever, ever, EVER going to be Spiderman-II.
Flame on, people!
I guess the Paramount move got to you.
So, Sony waving replication fees of BD doesn't bother you? Buying their way into Target, BB? Are you comfortable with the fact that the company that has a huge studio and the most common BD player/game console, has complete control of BD-50 production?
BTW, Sony is one of the few companies that's even more consumer unfriendly than M$. Rootkit anyone?
Jack
Sony consistently brings quality products and formats to market so, no, I don't have a problem with it. Just as consistently, Sony loses out because of ingorant consumers and questionable business practices of competitors.It's not just about Paramount. If MS had their way, they'd control other studios too. You support that?
Sony deserves to be financially rewarded and to receive certain exclusive rights, just as any company bringing a useful technology to market deserves the same. Otherwise, where is the incentive for R&D? You want a marketplace where the richest bully can come along and dictate business practices in things like HD movie distribution, or do you want a marketplace where the consumer can choose and help the best technology win?
-------------"I have found that if you love life, life will love you back." -Arthur Rubinstein (1887-1982)
> > > Sony loses out because of ingorant consumers < < <
So, now its the consumers fault.
> > > It's not just about Paramount < < <
True, but they may have realized, that the BD business model isn't working.
Just wait until Warner goes back to being HD DVD exclusive.
> > > If MS had their way, they'd control other studios too. < < <
As apposed to Sony, who has already started buying them up? You support that?
> > > Sony deserves to be financially rewarded and to receive certain exclusive rights, just as any company bringing a useful technology to market deserves the same. Otherwise, where is the incentive for R&D? < < <
So, you think they should be able to control the distribution of their competitor's products? Not to mention, they are shutting out independents.
> > > You want a marketplace where the richest bully can come along and dictate business practices in things like HD movie distribution, < < <
That's EXACTLY what Sony is doing. Thank you for admitting that.
> > > do you want a marketplace where the consumer can choose and help the best technology win? < < <
Yup, that's why I support the format war. Its giving us better quality products at better prices than anyone expected this soon.
Jack
> > > Sony loses out because of ingorant consumers < < <
So, now its the consumers fault. < <Try quoting my whole sentence next time. But as for that, what would you blame on VHS's win over beta? Sony lost for idiotic reasons.
> > > > > It's not just about Paramount < < <
True, but they may have realized, that the BD business model isn't working. < <BD is outselling HD DVD two-to-one and appears to be gaining increasing support (or at least it did until MS bought Paramount for $150 million). How in the world does that translate in your mind into "BD business model isn't working"?
> > Just wait until Warner goes back to being HD DVD exclusive. < <It will cost MS a lot more than $150 million. But that's chump change to Microsoft. How can you condone this kind of business behavior?
> > > > > If MS had their way, they'd control other studios too. < < <
As apposed to Sony, who has already started buying them up? You support that? < <Good point, but I repeat, Sony brings to market products that bring unique value to the consumer. I don't see that commitment from MS and above all, I want the consumer to decide what to buy, not MS.
> > > Sony deserves to be financially rewarded and to receive certain exclusive rights, just as any company bringing a useful technology to market deserves the same. Otherwise, where is the incentive for R&D? < < <
So, you think they should be able to control the distribution of their competitor's products? Not to mention, they are shutting out independents. < <Nope. Each studio distributes its own BDs, including small studios like Tartan which is realeasing Oldboy on BD in early November.
> > > You want a marketplace where the richest bully can come along and dictate business practices in things like HD movie distribution, < < <
That's EXACTLY what Sony is doing. Thank you for admitting that. < <Sony isn't making underhanded deals with studios. Microsoft is. I'm not sure why you think that's ok or are afraid to acknowledge it.
> > > do you want a marketplace where the consumer can choose and help the best technology win? < < <
Yup, that's why I support the format war. Its giving us better quality products at better prices than anyone expected this soon. < <Well that won't happen if MS has its way, and you are supporting MS in this war.
-------------
"I have found that if you love life, life will love you back." -Arthur Rubinstein (1887-1982)
.
All conspiracies, aside, of course.
-------------"I have found that if you love life, life will love you back." -Arthur Rubinstein (1887-1982)
Which is what a publicly-traded corporation is supposed to do. But that's probably way too simplistic a concept for your conspiracy theory. Never mind.
Whose much larger rival?
Would it kill you to stop being sarcastic--maybe that's why I'm having a hard time deciphering your post.
-------------"I have found that if you love life, life will love you back." -Arthur Rubinstein (1887-1982)
-------------"I have found that if you love life, life will love you back." -Arthur Rubinstein (1887-1982)
NTTAWWT
-------------"I have found that if you love life, life will love you back." -Arthur Rubinstein (1887-1982)
.
"Doesn't any of this make you the least bit uncomfortable? Isn't MS enough of a software monopoly that cares little about quality or delivering what the consumer wants without sinking its fangs all the way into gaming and movies?"
Surely you don't think that the Blockbuster and Target Blu-Ray deals came about without certain...incentives? This is how the game is played. Every time you see Blu-Ray or HD DVD featured prominently in Sunday sales flyers; every "Intel Inside" sticker you see on a PC: Someone got paid cash or other incentives to do that. This may seem strange for a product that bears the touch of Microsoft, but HD DVD is actually the freer and opener standard: It has no region codes, and neither does it support them. And there's no provision for additional copy protection beyond the basic AACS.
The Blockbuster "deal" was the result of executives at Blockbuster looking at both formats and seeing twice as many sales and rentals for Blu-ray and making a decision about shelf space. The Target thing is about an agreement where Sony puts in kiosks at its own expense so customers will be able to try out the system. I'm sure Microsoft could have made a similar deal if they had their shit together and gave a crap what consumers want.
But this briefcase-under-the-table routine to a movie studio to control the product the studio releases makes me ill.
-------------"I have found that if you love life, life will love you back." -Arthur Rubinstein (1887-1982)
"The Blockbuster "deal" was the result of executives at Blockbuster looking at both formats and seeing twice as many sales and rentals for Blu-ray and making a decision about shelf space."
Yes, and Paramount chose HD DVD because the spec was in a more finished state and it was easier to develop for. At least that's what the press release says. ;-)
"The Target thing is about an agreement where Sony puts in kiosks at its own expense so customers will be able to try out the system."
So...Target got paid? Sounds about right to me.
Relax, this is plain ole marketing.
MS gave Paramount $150 million.
What did big bad Sony give Blockbuster? Not a rhetorical question. I genuinely don't know. Enlighten me.
Yes, target got paid. Target is a RETAILER. Paramount is a STUDIO. Do you not see the difference? If a customer doesn't like Target's decision, they can go to another retailer. If I want Transformers on Blu-ray (I don't, but my point is still valid), I can't go to a different studio because Paramount owns the movie.
Do you not see my point? It's very simple.
-------------"I have found that if you love life, life will love you back." -Arthur Rubinstein (1887-1982)
I don't have details about all that went on with Blockbuster, but didn't it strike you as interesting that we heard about both Blockbuster's and Target's move from the Blu-Ray group PR machinery rather than Blockbuster or Target themselves? Not what I'd expect if Blockbuster's had been entirely their own internal business decision.
You can post a link to whatever MS-related article you want, but it ultimately doesn't matter where the $150M came: Microsoft, Toshiba, Intel, whatever: They are all Hollywood outsiders, so who cares? OTOH, The Blu-Ray group's hands are tied because Sony is both a major player in the Blu-Ray consortium and the motion picture industry. It'd be ironic as hell if Sony Pictures were forced to go format-neutral in order to keep the B-D consortium out of legal trouble.
> > I don't have details about all that went on with Blockbuster, < <
Then maybe you shouldn't insinuate Blockbuster's decision was motivated by anything other than sales/rental numbers and shelf space. Frankly, all of Blockbuster's decisions are motivated by that.
> > but didn't it strike you as interesting that we heard about both Blockbuster's and Target's move from the Blu-Ray group PR machinery rather than Blockbuster or Target themselves? < <
I don't know what you mean. Corporate PRs go out across the wire and are picked up by all kinds of news agencies. The fact that groups promoting Blu-ray trumpeted the news louder is an obvious consequence of this particular news. I think the original news source I saw for this was Associated Press.
-------------"I have found that if you love life, life will love you back." -Arthur Rubinstein (1887-1982)
> > > But this briefcase-under-the-table routine to a movie studio to control the product the studio releases makes me ill. < < <How do you think the BDA got Paramount in the first place?
Remember, before either format was launched, they were HD DVD exclusive, along with Warner.
Face it, you got out Sonyed.
Jack
Jack, this is getting ridiculous. You can't admit BD has advantages even though it has superior capacity, and now you can't admit Microsoft is being predatory on studios--all because you're obsessed with hating Sony. Wake up and take a look at what you're supporting.
-------------"I have found that if you love life, life will love you back." -Arthur Rubinstein (1887-1982)
You've proudly told us how Sony is deliberately taking a loss on hardware to gain control of the player market, then you proudly told us how Sony is making deals with distributors and buying their way into retailers in order to gain control of the channel, and then you accuse Microsoft of being "predatory." Can you not see the hypocrisy in your position? Who is the obsessed one? I don't think it's Jack G.
Yeah, anyone who refers to Microsoft's business practices as "preditory" must be crazy. It's a sad day when customers who care about quality are ridiculed for complaining about MS business practices.
"For a long time now -- and, if Microsoft's actions to maintain its monopoly are not halted, for well into the future -- personal computer consumers are locked into a Microsoft world, one in which a single company essentially controls the configuration of desktop computing. The evidence detailed in these Proposed Findings establishes both the anticompetitive tactics Microsoft employed and the harm to competition and consumers those tactics caused. What can never be fully known, of course, are (i) the innovative products that would have come to market had developers not been deterred by Microsoft's illegal assault on potential competitors; and (ii) the benefits that consumers would have realized if Microsoft's operating systems monopoly had been eroded. Such products and consumer benefits are inevitable wherever market competition flourishes."
-------------"I have found that if you love life, life will love you back." -Arthur Rubinstein (1887-1982)
Jazz, you're not doing much to bolster your argument by posting allegations...let me repeat that...allegations...that are nearly a decade old, especially since most of them were thrown out by the Appeals court.There's no doubt that Microsoft has engaged in some overly aggressive business practices in the past, and may still be doing so now (albeit less noticeably), but your use of unrelated allegations from the past to support your conspiracy theory graphically illustrates the weakness of your position.
From where I sit it looks like you have made a big emotional investment in a format, and you are making emotion-based efforts to defend your choice. You've gone from defense of your emotional investment on technical merits to concocting a conspiracy theory. Perhaps you should take a step back and re-evaluate your motivations.
I think you're a little out of touch or maybe just choosing to look the other way.
I've said MS is interested in controlling the way HD content is shared and downloaded. This was true of web content. It was true of multimedia content. It stifled innovation and created problems for customers.
If you do not believe MS is interested in controlling the way HD content is shared and downloaded (which you've never come right out and said, but instead chose to make personal attacks), you have not said why you believe this. Why else would MS be making multilane inroads into gaming and movie studios? You can ignore the question and make more personal attacks but it will not help your case.
As for Sony, OF COURSE it is pushing a format that SONY DEVELOPED at great expense to the company, and OF COURSE they hope to capitalize on it. As an electronics company that is its major business objective. MS is not an A/V company and has no interest in delivering quality A/V content or product to customers.
So why are you rushing to defend Microsoft?
-------------"I have found that if you love life, life will love you back." -Arthur Rubinstein (1887-1982)
.
Oh well.
-------------"I have found that if you love life, life will love you back." -Arthur Rubinstein (1887-1982)
Which invectives were those? That I think you've created a bogus conspiracy theory? That I think you don't understand how/where/why MS and Sony are competitors? That I think you have emotionally invested yourself in a format? I don't see those as invectives. I see those as the reasons why you are mounting a flawed and unsupportable argument, and why you are attacking me by attempting to paint me as some sort of Microsoft supporter. This is the problem with format cheerleaders - if someone questions a format cheerleader's beliefs in any way, the cheerleader automatically assumes that the questioner is a cheerleader for the "other team."
Jazz, I didn't go down the path of conspiracy theory - you did. If you stuck to arguing based on technical merits, or provable facts and events, I never would have said a thing. When you started ranting about suspicions of skullduggery, you left yourself open to question. If you want to call that "invectives," have at it. I'll just point out again that it was you who put forth an unsupported conspiracy theory, and I'll say as my final word that arguing the finer points of your construct is not worth my time.
Best regards,
racerguy
Yes, invectives, e.g., "Business knowledge is obviously not one of your strengths" and "Jazz, you're losing it" and then offering no "business knowledge" that counters what I posted.
The fact is that I have been supporting my argument with reasons that you have consistently ignored, instead replying with thinly veiled insults. Do you dispute that Sony is an A/V company and Microsoft is not? Do you dispute that MS is pursuing a strategy that will dictate how HD content is handled in our homes--not just with the limited HD DVD format but with software like Windows Media Player--despite having next to no experience in bringing A/V products to market?
It goes w/o saying that everyone who posts here is open to question, but you didn't question, you attacked. You're still doing it. The fact is that Paramount received $150 million in cash and incentives to drop blu-ray. This is all I have talked about in this thread. It is a fact. There is no "suspicion of skullduggery" about it. A studio was bought off and you have been defending that business practice ever since while calling Sony a "march larger rival" of Microsoft. Strange indeed.
-------------"I have found that if you love life, life will love you back." -Arthur Rubinstein (1887-1982)
> > The fact is that I have been supporting my argument with reasons that you have consistently ignored < <No, I have not ignored them - I have dismissed them as being baseless.
> > Do you dispute that Sony is an A/V company and Microsoft is not? < <
If this is the basis of your argument, then I stand by my statement that you are lacking in business knowledge. Your assumption is totally wrong. Perhaps you ought to study both company's offerings more thoroughly.
> > Do you dispute that MS is pursuing a strategy that will dictate how HD content is handled in our homes--not just with the limited HD DVD format but with software like Windows Media Player--despite having next to no experience in bringing A/V products to market? < <
Again, you are showing a lack of knowledge/understanding, and you are making some huge leaps of logic from there. Please educate yourself.
> > The fact is that Paramount received $150 million in cash and incentives to drop blu-ray. < <
This has been alleged by the New York Times ; however, from the NYT article:
===================================
“We provided no financial incentives to Paramount or DreamWorks whatsoever,” said Amir Majidimehr, the head of Microsoft’s consumer media technology group.
===================================
So where's the big Microsoft conspiracy, Jazz? Are you convinced they are lying, despite the absence of any proof to support such a supposition?> > This is all I have talked about in this thread. It is a fact. There is no "suspicion of skullduggery" about it. A studio was bought off < <
It does appear that Toshiba, and perhaps others in the HD DVD camp, offered incentives to Paramount, just as Sony has done to its partnering studios. It seems that it's OK with you if Sony does it - it's just Sony promoting its format - but if someone does it for HD DVD it's bribery. Again - can you not see the hypocrisy in your position? Apparently not.
> > and you have been defending that business practice ever since < <
Any such defense is completely in your imagination, Jazz. That's a fact, not an insult.
> > while calling Sony a "march larger rival" of Microsoft. Strange indeed. < <
Actually, what is said is "much," not "march," but I think you meant "much." Anyway...
Strange? How so?
Sony's 2006 Revenue: $70 Billion
Microsoft's 2006 Revenue: $51 BillionDoesn't that make Sony larger? My finger-counting says: Yes. $19 Billion (that's with "B") more is Much Larger. So how is this strange?
Jazz, I'm really not deliberately trying to insult you. I am telling you that you are wrong. I am telling you that your argument is without foundation. I am telling you that I believe you are allowing your emotional involvement to interfere with the development of a coherent, logical position. Your emotional involvement makes it impossible to have a reasoned debate with you, because you are approaching everything with a sense of outrage. I can't argue facts with you, because you aren't presenting any - you are only presenting assumptions, most of which I know to be incorrect or unsupported.
Please, Jazz - stick to facts, not assumptions.
Of course you stand by your statement that I am lacking in business knowledge, but again you offer nothing to explain why it is wrong to categorize Sony as an A/V company and MS as a software company. Their core business models are exactly that and they use the business units they have attained to support it...except for Microsoft going off into the gaming/HD DVD arena with the XBox. They should stick to their core businesses which for Microsoft means staying out of A/V formats and electronics.
I did mean much, not march.
Sony is not a rival of Microsoft's. Their businesses only intersect in one area: the XBox vs PS3 arena, and that is a brand new arena for MS that has nothing to do with their core business. HD DVD vs Blu ray is an outgrowth of that arena and this is my beef with MS joining that fray, as anyone who has followed my posts can easily glean. For the upteenth time, MS has virtually no good experience bringing A/V gear to market.
The MS executive you quoted from the Times has a reputation for being underhanded. Do you really think Toshiba gave the $150,000,000 to Paramount? What's your speculation based upon?
-------------"I have found that if you love life, life will love you back." -Arthur Rubinstein (1887-1982)
Or did you just go by Bill the Shill's word?
here's a direct cut and paste from the article:
"The incentives will come in a combination of cash and promotional guarantees. Toshiba, for instance, will use the release of “Shrek the Third” as part of an HD DVD marketing campaign."
They aren't getting $150M in cash. while I'm sure they are getting cash for the BDs that were about to hit the shelves, they will also be getting alot of free advertising and PR.
Jack
You know, that they should stick to computing and not muck about with music players and phones?
And had to win out over many competing MP3 players by designing something more elegant, i.e., competing fairly, not buying out record labels. Apple has a passion to design products with consumers' needs and interests as the inspiration.
Microsoft has no such passion; just a drive to leach and achieve maximum market share through predatory business practices.
-------------"I have found that if you love life, life will love you back." -Arthur Rubinstein (1887-1982)
Jazz - you are either trolling me, or you are totally clueless.
And yes, that was officially an insult.
This harkens back to the days when SACD adopters were ridiculed for what amounts to chosing the better format.
And you are essentially attacking the idea that Microsoft uses predatory strategies. I don't think anyone sane would dispute that.
Your only salient point is that it could have been Toshiba, not Microsoft, that bought off Paramount with $150,000,000. Although you have zero evidence--which is supposedly the reason you began attacking me in the first place. Now you're doing what you say I did. If I'm "trolling" what you're doing is worse.
-------------"I have found that if you love life, life will love you back." -Arthur Rubinstein (1887-1982)
> > This harkens back to the days when SACD adopters were ridiculed for what amounts to chosing the better format. < <
Really? Show me where I've done that. I don't really care which format you prefer. Neither format looks better to me at this point. But you are now attempting to play the martyr by claiming I'm persecuting you for your format choice, which makes you appear even more silly.
> > And you are essentially attacking the idea that Microsoft uses predatory strategies. I don't think anyone sane would dispute that. < <
Really? Early yesterday, I posted in this thread, "...There's no doubt that Microsoft has engaged in some overly aggressive business practices..."
So, Jazz - tell me how that statement squares with your claim? In order for you to be right, I couldn't possibly have said anything like that. Again, you are making yourself look silly.
> > Your only salient point is that it could have been Toshiba, not Microsoft, that bought off Paramount with $150,000,000. < <
Well, since I never said that ANYONE "bought off" Paramount, your claim is again completely off-base.
Jazz, you are making yourself look foolish. You really ought to stop now before you dig yourself deeper into the hole.
> > > > This harkens back to the days when SACD adopters were ridiculed for what amounts to chosing the better format. < <
Really? Show me where I've done that. < <Cut the crap. You've repeatedly attacked me for being "emotionally invested" in Blu-ray as a pretext to bashing me for what amount to valid observations.
> > I don't really care which format you prefer. < <
You seem to care.
> > Neither format looks better to me at this point. < <
Even though one delivers greater capacity on the order of a dozen gigs? It just boggles the mind that this significant feature doesn't matter to some of you.
> > But you are now attempting to play the martyr by claiming I'm persecuting you for your format choice, which makes you appear even more silly. < <
I'm not playing anything. I'm having a discussion with you in which you've been in attack mode ever since you joined the thread and have labelled me in a hostile, deragotory manner repeatedly, including this latest rant where you've said I'm a "martyr", "foolish" and "silly". You've also labelled me troll and conspiracy theorist.
Hey man, I'm just making observations and sharing my opinion. And now my observation is that you're hostile. I don't see how you can even dispute that. I've been trying to figure out why, but clearly that was the wrong strategy, and at this point I don't care.
> > > > And you are essentially attacking the idea that Microsoft uses predatory strategies. I don't think anyone sane would dispute that. < <
Really? Early yesterday, I posted in this thread, "...There's no doubt that Microsoft has engaged in some overly aggressive business practices..." < <Yeah, that was after I posted a scathing quote from the DOJ to counter your attacks that I was engaging in conspiracy theories about MS' business practices.
> > So, Jazz - tell me how that statement squares with your claim? < <
It doesn't even begin to make up for your previous posts in which you acted like Microsoft was a fair player in its pursuit of market share.
> > In order for you to be right, I couldn't possibly have said anything like that. Again, you are making yourself look silly. < <
Have a look at the thread yourself, if you're unclear as to what you "possibly have said", it's all above in black and white.
> > Well, since I never said that ANYONE "bought off" Paramount, your claim is again completely off-base. < <
But someone did buy off Paramount. Or are you now going to tell me the New York Times got its facts wrong.
> > Jazz, you are making yourself look foolish. You really ought to stop now before you dig yourself deeper into the hole. < <
Ya know, I don't look foolish, I don't feel foolish, and I haven't said anything foolish. It's just another attack of yours. And now you really don't need to reply because it's just going to be another "who, me?" post in which you claim to not be attacking me while doing exactly that. Not that it particularly bothers me, but you're supposed to have logical, fact-based reasons for going into attack mode that can be clearly articulated. Your reasons (assuming you even have any) aren't.
You've posted a lot of nonsense in this thread, but this last post was your personal best!
As much as I'd love to continue this, I don't think it can be topped. I think it's better to leave your confused, paranoid rantings as they are. Anything further would sully the work of art you've created.
Add "confused" and "paranoid" to the barking mouth of your attack dog.
Funny indeed.
-------------"I have found that if you love life, life will love you back." -Arthur Rubinstein (1887-1982)
| FAQ |
Post a Message! |
Forgot Password? |
|
||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Top of Page ]
[ Contact Us ]
[ Support/Wish List ]
[ Copyright © 2025, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]
