 
|
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 |
12.146.151.254
In Reply to: RE: Grasping at straws posted by racerguy on August 24, 2007 at 06:04:51
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)
Follow Ups:
.
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 ]
