# Could these HD-DVD Titles... help close the gap?



## Earl Bonovich

These two titles:

Star Trek Original Series Season 1:
http://www.engadgethd.com/2007/07/2...nal-series-hd-dvd-boxed-set-hits-november-20/

Heroes Season 1:
http://www.engadgethd.com/2007/07/26/heroes-season-1-seven-disc-hd-dvd-set-previewed-at-comic-con/

While I think the STOS is WAY overpriced (at first I thought it was for the ENTIRE series)...

The Heroes one... will be pre-ordered very soon.


----------



## RAD

As someone that have both BR and HD DVD, I don't think so, especially Star Trek not making a difference. As for Heros it would probably be showing up on Universal-HD as reruns in HD.


----------



## DogLover

I would have thought that was for the whole series as well. I don't think it even tempts me at that price for 1 season.


----------



## Stewart Vernon

Many of the HD-DVD releases I have seen are 50-75% higher than DVD releases. I see a lot of $19.99 DVDs and $29.99 HD-DVD releases of the same movie at the same time.

Back when Star Trek: TOS came out on DVD... the SRP for each season was somewhere around $125.00 and I remember paying $99.99 for each season as they came out. Sets can be had for much cheaper now, and especially once these HD versions come out... but originally they were quite pricey.

Jump to today... If SRP is around $200, expect places like Amazon to have this for $175.00 or so on preorder at some point.

Now... all that said... while I am not surprised at the high price... I am not rushing out to get these either. Firstly, I don't have HD-DVD (or Blu-Ray) because I don't want to sink money into a format that might be gone in a couple of years... and my HDTV doesn't have DVI or HDMI so if studios decide to enforce that downconvert option then I'd have to buy a new TV to watch things in HD... so I'm boycotting until things settle down.

Plus I'll save a bunch of money if I one-day do buy them when the price comes way down later.


----------



## dfergie

Only if they continue to put up HD DVD exclusive HD DVD's ... bring it on


----------



## Christopher Gould

How can it survive with only Universal?


----------



## ebaltz

HD-DVD is dead. RIP


----------



## allargon

They're both niche formats like SACD and DVD-A. 

In 3 years we will have dual-format players for $200 or less and think back humorously about this whole "format war".


----------



## machavez00

Christopher Gould said:


> How can it survive with only Universal?


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hd-dvd#Corporate_and_industry_support

In terms of major studios in North America, HD DVD is currently exclusively backed by Universal Studios (including subsidiaries Rogue Pictures, Focus Features and Polygram Filmed Entertainment), The Weinstein Company/Dimension Films (through Genius Products), and First Look Studios. The format is non-exclusively backed by Paramount Pictures, DreamWorks, Warner Bros. Pictures (it should be noted that a number of Warner's titles-Batman Begins, V for Vendetta, The Perfect Storm, Troy, Poseidon, Terminator 3: Rise of the Machines, The Matrix Trilogy-are HD DVD exclusive at the present), Warner Music Group, New Line Cinema, HBO, Studio Canal, and Image Entertainment (including the Discovery Channel),[34] Magnolia Pictures,[35] Brentwood Home Video, Ryko, Koch/Goldhil Entertainment.[36]* HD DVD does have more studio support worldwide, especially in Europe.* HD DVD is currently exclusively backed by several adult-movie/pornography studios/publishers, including Wicked Pictures, Pink Visual, Bang Bros, Digital Playground Inc. and ClubJenna Inc. (which on 22 June 2006 was acquired by Playboy Enterprises), and HD DVD is also non-exclusively backed by Vivid Entertainment.

Sources claim history as a reference, that the pornography industry may have a big influence in the HD DVD versus Blu-ray format war, at least when it comes to home rental and retail purchases or pressed movies as it generates multi-billion annual revenue worldwide, (with US$57 billion in annual revenue worldwide reported in May, 2006).[37] Although this was a major factor during the VHS/Betamax war, due to the fact of consumers previously not having any means of home viewing, it remains to be seen whether the current format war will be affected similarly.[38]

I have read that HD-DVD sales are much higher than Bluray in Europe.


----------



## ebaltz

machavez00 said:


> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hd-dvd#Corporate_and_industry_support
> 
> In terms of major studios in North America, HD DVD is currently exclusively backed by Universal Studios (including subsidiaries Rogue Pictures, Focus Features and Polygram Filmed Entertainment), The Weinstein Company/Dimension Films (through Genius Products), and First Look Studios. The format is non-exclusively backed by Paramount Pictures, DreamWorks, Warner Bros. Pictures (it should be noted that a number of Warner's titles-Batman Begins, V for Vendetta, The Perfect Storm, Troy, Poseidon, Terminator 3: Rise of the Machines, The Matrix Trilogy-are HD DVD exclusive at the present), Warner Music Group, New Line Cinema, HBO, Studio Canal, and Image Entertainment (including the Discovery Channel),[34] Magnolia Pictures,[35] Brentwood Home Video, Ryko, Koch/Goldhil Entertainment.[36]* HD DVD does have more studio support worldwide, especially in Europe.* HD DVD is currently exclusively backed by several adult-movie/pornography studios/publishers, including Wicked Pictures, Pink Visual, Bang Bros, Digital Playground Inc. and ClubJenna Inc. (which on 22 June 2006 was acquired by Playboy Enterprises), and HD DVD is also non-exclusively backed by Vivid Entertainment.
> 
> Sources claim history as a reference, that the pornography industry may have a big influence in the HD DVD versus Blu-ray format war, at least when it comes to home rental and retail purchases or pressed movies as it generates multi-billion annual revenue worldwide, (with US$57 billion in annual revenue worldwide reported in May, 2006).[37] Although this was a major factor during the VHS/Betamax war, due to the fact of consumers previously not having any means of home viewing, it remains to be seen whether the current format war will be affected similarly.[38]
> 
> I have read that HD-DVD sales are much higher than Bluray in Europe.


You just keep on dreaming. Blu-ray beats DVD-HD in every way possible, and anyone with a brain knows it. Let homeless people by the cheapo players at walmart and the rest of us enjoy the actual quality of Blu-ray and its superior format. In a year or so people will be asking what DVD-HD is. But you go ahead and enjoy your non-next gen format and your limited titles. The rest of us know the reality.


----------



## Stuart Sweet

I remember someone saying almost the same thing about Beta back in '86... Maybe this time you'll be right. I mean that respectfully, I hope Blu-Ray gains momentum and the format war ends in 2007. If Blu-Ray can't do it, then I hope HD-DVD can. I'm just tired of waiting to see who wins.


----------



## Stewart Vernon

My money is still on both Blu-Ray and HD-DVD losing. Not enough customers to help keep either format afloat, and the competition between them is killing both bottom lines.

Home users had to choose between VHS or Beta at that time... and they chose VHS. DVD took much longer to adopt over VHS because VHS was an established standard by then.

DVD really just picked up a few years ago, especially with all the TV show releases on DVD format. Many folks are just getting their DVD collections started and aren't looking to switch formats just yet.

Most of what is out there today is good enough on DVD for most of the consumers. I can tell a difference and I still buy DVDs myself because much of the time I am happy enough with the experience.

The only way to force consumers to adopt HD-DVD or Blu-Ray would be to stop making DVDs... and that isn't going to happen... so I fully expect a 3rd format to appear in the next 5 years that will drive the current HD product under. So I'm not buying into either format at this time.

Many things about Blu-Ray are better, at least in theory, than HD-DVD... but the stubbornness of both sides that resulted in this competition really only hurts both camps in the long run.


----------



## allargon

I don't get you guys. This stupid format war is why you can buy a standalone high def player for under $200 if you look around. If this format war were non-existant players would still be $1000 with first generation features and response time and most discs would look like the original Blu-ray of _The Fifth Element_.


----------



## Stewart Vernon

allargon said:


> I don't get you guys. This stupid format war is why you can buy a standalone high def player for under $200 if you look around. If this format war were non-existant players would still be $1000 with first generation features and response time and most discs would look like the original Blu-ray of _The Fifth Element_.


Perhaps... but if HD-DVD loses the war, then anyone who buys one of those $200 "deals" will be stuck with a dead product... Same goes for anyone who buys a Blu-Ray player if that format loses.... just like folks got stuck with Betamax players back in the day.

Without a format war, everyone would be buying the same type of HD player... and that would translate to lower prices for the hardware as well since the volume for the manufacturer would be higher.


----------



## RAD

HDMe said:


> DVD took much longer to adopt over VHS because VHS was an established standard by then.


IIRC, DVD had a much faster growth rate then VHS did. I found this 
http://www.dvdinformation.com/News/press/101700.html from back in 2000 which had this statement:

"Launch-to-date, more than 10 million DVD players have been shipped to retailers, a benchmark of success for any consumer electronics product. DVD-Video reached this milestone faster than any other home electronics product including the compact disc and VHS. If growth continues at this rate, there will be nearly nine million DVD-Video players shipped to retailers in calendar 2000, bringing the total units shipped since the format's inception to more than 14 million.".


----------



## RAD

HDMe said:


> Perhaps... but if HD-DVD loses the war, then anyone who buys one of those $200 "deals" will be stuck with a dead product... Same goes for anyone who buys a Blu-Ray player if that format loses.... just like folks got stuck with Betamax players back in the day.
> 
> Without a format war, everyone would be buying the same type of HD player... and that would translate to lower prices for the hardware as well since the volume for the manufacturer would be higher.


That's part of the reason that I got a PS3 when I decided to go format neutral, at least I'll have a nice game machine and something as a home media center.


----------



## Stewart Vernon

RAD said:


> IIRC, DVD had a much faster growth rate then VHS did. I found this
> http://www.dvdinformation.com/News/press/101700.html from back in 2000 which had this statement:
> 
> "Launch-to-date, more than 10 million DVD players have been shipped to retailers, a benchmark of success for any consumer electronics product. DVD-Video reached this milestone faster than any other home electronics product including the compact disc and VHS. If growth continues at this rate, there will be nearly nine million DVD-Video players shipped to retailers in calendar 2000, bringing the total units shipped since the format's inception to more than 14 million.".


I think that data may be misleading since there are more people buying these kinds of devices now than 20 years ago. Also the prices on DVD players dropped quicker than the prices on VHS players back in the day.

I wasn't so much referring to reaching a particular benchmark... but rather the surpassment and replacement of VHS by DVD. Even when DVD first started selling, people like myself always had a VHS player too... and when you went to video stores there was a lot more VHS on the wall than DVD. It took some time for DVD to regularly outsell VHS as a device and as a media and for the DVD section in stores to grow to a sizable variety of movies.


----------



## RAD

HDMe said:


> I think that data may be misleading since there are more people buying these kinds of devices now than 20 years ago. Also the prices on DVD players dropped quicker than the prices on VHS players back in the day.
> 
> I wasn't so much referring to reaching a particular benchmark... but rather the surpassment and replacement of VHS by DVD. Even when DVD first started selling, people like myself always had a VHS player too... and when you went to video stores there was a lot more VHS on the wall than DVD. It took some time for DVD to regularly outsell VHS as a device and as a media and for the DVD section in stores to grow to a sizable variety of movies.


Not saying your're totally incorrect with that you're saying, just that in your original post you said " DVD took much longer to adopt over VHS because VHS was an established standard by then." and everything I've seen has said DVD sold more units quicker then VCR's, and the link I provided was from 7 years ago and 2000 wasn't that far from when DVD's were introduced.


----------



## nfusion770

This debate is ridiculous really. I just bought an Toshiba HD DVD player for $230 and I firmly believe my only risk is the player itself (and even then I have a decent upscaling DVD player). Which ever format wins the war, you can rest assured that the smart hardware manufacturers are going to support both media in their inevitable $99 players, for at least a few generations. I will not be stuck with useless HD DVD's any way you look at it.

I don't really care who wins "the war" but no one should be foolish enough to underestimate the power of Walmart. If Walmart comes out in support of a format and offers an economical player, the "war" is over regardless of movie studio support. The scale of Walmart is just too massive to compete with. I'm pretty sure the stat is something like Walmart moves more stuff in a week than most of its competitors (by market segment) move all year.


----------



## Stewart Vernon

RAD said:


> Not saying your're totally incorrect with that you're saying, just that in your original post you said " DVD took much longer to adopt over VHS because VHS was an established standard by then." and everything I've seen has said DVD sold more units quicker then VCR's, and the link I provided was from 7 years ago and 2000 wasn't that far from when DVD's were introduced.


I'm going to have to backup a bit here... and re-state my position as I realize now what I initially said was not exactly what I meant to say.

Let me define first "critical mass" as being the time when product B overtakes product A and essentially wipes it out of the competition. VHS vs Beta was ultimately a 10-12 year or so battle before Beta officially handed in the towel, but the critical mass happened a few years earlier before Sony saw the light and threw in the towel.

DVD vs VHS is still technically going on because VCRs are still in the marketplace and manufacturers are still making consumer units... so we are in roughly year 10 of this battle. If things hold true to form, it may go another couple of years before manufacturers finally throw in the towel and stop making new VCRs. Of course part of this is due to TiVo and other PVR/DVR units, but that muddies the waters so I'll leave that out of this discussion.

Now... While the protracted Beta vs VHS battle was 10-12 years before Beta was formally wiped out... the actual overtaking happened before that, just as is the case now with DVD vs VHS, with DVD having overtaken a few years ago.

It also happens that DVD reaching "critical mass" happened sooner than VHS knocking out Beta so the statements about DVD reaching the controlling marketshare are true.

But what I was referring to was the time before that... When Beta and VHS came out, there was nothing else for the home user to buy... so immediately people who could afford either Beta or VHS bought one. But when DVD came out, VHS was a long-established consumer product so there was not the same drive for the customer to try a new product. DVD, aside from early adopters, sat around a bit in its first few years not getting a lot of shelf space or consumer adoption.

However, once people started really taking notice of all that DVD offered, it took off like gangbusters. So if we were plotting curves... Beta/VHS was a small spike then solid increasing volume over a long period of time... whereas DVD was semi-flatlined then a little growth then an explosion.

Folks were not resistant to VHS/Beta because they wanted this in the home... Those same folks were resistant to DVD because they already had a device that did what DVD offered, and DVD didn't let you record so you lost a feature! BUT once people took notice, DVD went nuts.

So... I believe it is both true that DVD took longer to initially adopt than VHS AND also true that it took over the market faster than VHS did.

Summarizing... VHS was adopted quicker as it had no opposition, DVD opposed VHS and it took a while to break-through... but once the breakthrough happened DVD penetrated the market much faster and more thoroughly than VHS did.

I hope that helps make my thoughts more clear and less conflicting with the sales data.


----------



## Stewart Vernon

nfusion770 said:


> This debate is ridiculous really. I just bought an Toshiba HD DVD player for $230 and I firmly believe my only risk is the player itself (and even then I have a decent upscaling DVD player). Which ever format wins the war, you can rest assured that the smart hardware manufacturers are going to support both media in their inevitable $99 players, for at least a few generations. I will not be stuck with useless HD DVD's any way you look at it.


History doesn't support this, though. There were no Beta/VHS combo units that helped Beta customers survive. Beta was dropped cold once it was dropped. There is no incentive for the winner in the war to support the "old" losing technology because you no longer have a choice but to buy the winner. IT wouldn't be cost-effective to try and support people's old already-bought movies once the war is won.

Also worth noting that some folks went for those LaserDisc players back in the day, and when that technology lost out people were left holding that bag too.

True, as long as you have your player you can play all your current stuff... but you'll have to buy a new player to play new stuff if your format loses, and it is unlikely that your future player will play your old stuff in the case of a format war.


----------



## JMCecil

HD-DVD had one advantage and that was price. But, when Warner decided to release primarily dual format disks that cost more than the BR equivalent, that pretty well did them in. I have an HD-DVD player, the Tosh XA2, and I like it as a DVD player. I won't buy the dual HD DVDs. That price is ridiculous. 

HD-DVD will be around a lot longer than the older format wars because it isn't just about stand alone players anymore. But, Tosh has done pretty much everything they can to lose other than release a really great initial product.


----------



## machavez00

one thing we overlook is the European market, and HD-DVD has the lead there.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19726219/
HD DVD outselling Blu-ray in Europe
Group claims 74 percent market share for stand-alone players

Updated: 6:16 a.m. MT July 12, 2007

FRANKFURT - HD DVD video players have outsold rival standard Blu-ray players by a three-to-one margin in Europe's main markets so far this year, according to a lobby group.


----------



## Stewart Vernon

One of the interesting things I've read about the European market... is that outside of the US, different corporations own rights to distributing movies than inside the US... So while a company in the US might be exclusively releasing their movies on Blu-Ray only... many of those movies in Europe are distributed by a different company, and in many cases those companies have embraced HD-DVD.

It makes things interesting, because unless Blu-Ray blows HD-DVD conclusively out of the water here in the US... HD-DVD sales in the rest of the world might demand that format continue.

I've seen things about both formats that I like, and wish there was one format settled with the best of both features. We didn't get that with Beta vs VHS, and in some ways an inferior product (VHS) survived and thrived. It is entirely possible history will repeat itself and the winner of this battle may or may not be the actual best product.


----------



## ebaltz

HDMe said:


> One of the interesting things I've read about the European market... is that outside of the US, different corporations own rights to distributing movies than inside the US... So while a company in the US might be exclusively releasing their movies on Blu-Ray only... many of those movies in Europe are distributed by a different company, and in many cases those companies have embraced HD-DVD.
> 
> It makes things interesting, because unless Blu-Ray blows HD-DVD conclusively out of the water here in the US... HD-DVD sales in the rest of the world might demand that format continue.
> 
> I've seen things about both formats that I like, and wish there was one format settled with the best of both features. We didn't get that with Beta vs VHS, and in some ways an inferior product (VHS) survived and thrived. It is entirely possible history will repeat itself and the winner of this battle may or may not be the actual best product.


Name one feature that HD-DUD has that blu-ray doesn't do or can't do. Blu-rays can hold 50GB of info compared to the measly amount HD-DUDs can, so which format is more future proof? Which has more capabilities? The only , and only advantage with HD-DUDs in the beginning was the promise of lower production costs. that is out the window already and so there is NO, not one advantage now. P.S. HD-DUDs scratch about 100 time more easily than Blu-rays.


----------



## ebaltz

machavez00 said:


> one thing we overlook is the European market, and HD-DVD has the lead there.
> 
> http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19726219/
> HD DVD outselling Blu-ray in Europe
> Group claims 74 percent market share for stand-alone players
> 
> Updated: 6:16 a.m. MT July 12, 2007
> 
> FRANKFURT - HD DVD video players have outsold rival standard Blu-ray players by a three-to-one margin in Europe's main markets so far this year, according to a lobby group.


Stand alone player numbers are meaningless. That is like saying one format is winning in gray colored machines. PS3s are selling very well world wide and all of course are blu-ray players, In fact the best blu-ray player on the market. Hot like the piece of crap 360 add-on HD-DUD thing.


----------



## Creeper04

ebaltz said:


> Stand alone player numbers are meaningless. That is like saying one format is winning in gray colored machines. PS3s are selling very well world wide and all of course are blu-ray players, In fact the best blu-ray player on the market. Hot like the piece of crap 360 add-on HD-DUD thing.


Jeeze, ebaltz, are you always this obnoxious? I'm fairly new the the forum here (second post actually) and frequently see a lot of good discussion. But your fanboy antics... yikes.

Taking one side of an issue can be done without continually insulting the other side. I totally get that you love the BR side of this argument. But the rhetoric is childish and annoying to the rest of us that can actually explore an issue without such behavior.

Feel free to flame me now... I'm sure that's a "Fanboy 101" requirement to getting called out. I probably won't be back for the colorful response; my loss I guess.

:nono2:


----------



## Cholly

HD DVD can hold 45 Gigabytes -- only 5 less than Blu-ray Disc. HD DVD players have interactive capability, something not available on present generation Blu-ray Disc players. HD DVD players have ethernet interfaces and can receive firmware updates from the internet, something not available from present generation Blu-ray players.
Regarding scratch resistance, in theory, HD DVD discs are more scratch resistant due to subsurface recording. Sony had to devise a protective coating to improve scratch resistance, which natively is inferior to HD DVD.

Blu-ray disc wins on number of studios supporting the format, with a huge advantage from Fox and Disney. Also, Blu-ray has more hardware manufacturers.
HD DVD is a more mature format (Blu-ray Disc standards are still not finalized).

As to the PS/3 --although playback quality is better than some standalone Blu-ray players, the control interface is primitive. 

At present, Blu-ray is winning most of tthe battles, but the format war is far from over.


----------



## ebaltz

Creeper04 said:


> Jeeze, ebaltz, are you always this obnoxious? I'm fairly new the the forum here (second post actually) and frequently see a lot of good discussion. But your fanboy antics... yikes.
> 
> Taking one side of an issue can be done without continually insulting the other side. I totally get that you love the BR side of this argument. But the rhetoric is childish and annoying to the rest of us that can actually explore an issue without such behavior.
> 
> Feel free to flame me now... I'm sure that's a "Fanboy 101" requirement to getting called out. I probably won't be back for the colorful response; my loss I guess.
> 
> :nono2:


No skin off my nose.

As for the facts Cholly, yours are just made up, totally not correct and trying to be skewed, so whose a fanboy, somebody who tells the truth or someone who lies to defend their inferior technology?


----------



## Amon37

Cholly said:


> HD DVD can hold 45 Gigabytes -- only 5 less than Blu-ray .


How many movies are using these Triple Layer HD-DVD's that haven't been finalized and are not in production?

Look at Blades of Glory for example.

The Blu-ray having a 50GB disc will get all the extras in HD AND lossless audio.
The HD-DVD having only a 30GB disc gets all the extras in HD but only Dolby Digital sound.


----------



## machavez00

Amon37 said:


> The HD-DVD having only a 30GB disc gets all the extras in HD but only Dolby Digital sound.


Is that a bad thing? (DD)


----------



## Christopher Gould

I think these guys sum up the war pretty good

http://www.thedigitalbits.com/articles/soapbox/soap060107.html

who's pay $217 for the trek HD-dvd

http://www.thedigitalbits.com/#mytwocents


----------



## nfusion770

HDMe said:


> History doesn't support this, though. There were no Beta/VHS combo units that helped Beta customers survive. Beta was dropped cold once it was dropped. There is no incentive for the winner in the war to support the "old" losing technology because you no longer have a choice but to buy the winner. IT wouldn't be cost-effective to try and support people's old already-bought movies once the war is won.
> 
> Also worth noting that some folks went for those LaserDisc players back in the day, and when that technology lost out people were left holding that bag too.
> 
> True, as long as you have your player you can play all your current stuff... but you'll have to buy a new player to play new stuff if your format loses, and it is unlikely that your future player will play your old stuff in the case of a format war.


I would consider DVD+r/rw, DVD-r/rw, DVD RAM (to a lesser extent)- etc as a more current and salient example. It won't be long before dual format drives are nearly as cheap and single format models. This trend will probably die out a few generations after the a winner is declared, but by that time- 5 years- most will have replaced their 10 loser media discs, with winner media discs via Christmas presents from aunt Martha and grandma.

I take the History lessons with a grain of salt, as electronics have never been so cheap and essentially disposable as they are today. Couple that with fact that hstory had nothing the likes of Walmart and the internet driving prices, and I think it's a fair bet my risk assessment is fairly reasonable.

I guess we'll see.


----------



## machavez00

Today's Arizona Republic shows BD sales of 300 ahead of HD-DVD sales of 300. these are just for the Phoenix area. (pre-orders?)


----------



## Christopher Gould

http://www.thedigitalbits.com/index.html#cema

here are some stats


----------



## ebaltz

Not sure where all those numbers come from exactly.

Amazon shows 429 Blu-ray titles and 382 HD-DVD, and MANY MANY more blu-rays announced. What should be compared is # of titles NOT available in a given format.


----------



## machavez00

60/40 BD. not too lopsided as one would think. 
TOTAL BLU-RAY DISC TITLES (7/27/07 - DVD Release Report): 274/63*
TOTAL HD-DVD TITLES (7/27/07 - DVD Release Report): 259/47*
*Net total of R1 discs released/announced. Discontinued & adult not included.

HIGH-DEF MARKET SHARE - BRD VS HD-DVD SOFTWARE SALES (7/22/07 - Nielsen/VideoScan):
Week Ending 7/22 Blu-ray Disc: 74 HD-DVD: 26
Year to Date Blu-ray Disc: 67 HD-DVD: 33
Since Inception Blu-ray Disc: 60 HD-DVD: 40	
Movie titles only (videogame titles not included) - Includes HD-DVD/DVD Combo Format

I have $500 burning a hole in my pocket, decisions decisions. or do I wait for Samsung's dual player?, Hmmm


----------



## DBS Commando

From where I stand, this war can end in many ways. Here are my top 3 choices:

1. (the long way) 3 out of 4 homes in America will have HDTV's. When this happens, studios are going to notice a dip in DVD sales as everyone waits for a HD format to win. They will put 2 and 2 together and figure out some sort of agreement.

2. Dual format players take off and the consumer gets to enjoy every movie in HD while the feuding between the studios will continue for years to come. The quicker the price for the dual format players to drop below $200, the better.

3. A major retailer (such as Wal Mart) declares a format as a winner and only stocks those types of players. Like it or not, Wal Mart is now plays a big part in the life of an average American. As soon as they get cheap players on the shelves, people will jump for them. If Wal Mart were to say Blu Ray is the winner tomorrow, then it would most certainly be so.


----------



## Stewart Vernon

One problem with HD-DVD vs Blu-Ray is the age-old chicken vs the egg situation that applies to technology that requires software.

Way back in the day the Amiga was a nice computer from the Commodore company... but it died in large part due to lack of software support. So if you bought an Amiga, it didn't matter how good it was, no software meant you got bored with it.

Similar thing happened with the 3DO video game console.. it was an early home gaming system that supported games via CD... but once Sega had a CD add-on and other companies, Sony with Playstation in particular, came out with similar systems the 3DO found itself without much software support and the customers went elsewhere.

So... which player are customers going to buy? HD-DVD or Blu-Ray? Until the customers speak by purchasing substantially more of one than the other... the movie studios will continue to hedge which one to release their movies for playing... and until customers choose, the war continues.

Personally, I see this as a big mess. I can't remember if CDs had anything similar competing as they tried to take over from vinyl... but in the early DVD days there was support for DIVX (not the same one now that is an encoder) and that caused some stalls in the early game... but folks quickly saw DIVX as a dead-end as customers went towards normal DVD.

Thus far, no clear winner has surfaced... and personally, the longer this drags out the greater chance there is of another competing technology to come about that will beat both formats.

Think about TVs... Used to be just CRTs, but now we have LCDs, Plasmas, DLPs, and some new formats on the horizon. From the customer perspective all of these TVs "work" the same in that they display a picture.. and you don't have to buy a certain TV for Dish or another for DirecTV.. just buy your TV and plug it in... so these other TV technologies can flourish until the best/cheapest one wins out in the long run.

But HD-DVD and Blu-Ray are mutually exclusive. You can't play one on the other... you have to choose. Those multi-format players are mega-bucks and sacrifice some of the features of the formats in trying to be universal so it's not really a good answer either.

This is just a big mess, and I'm waiting to see how it settles out before I put any money into a potentially dead format.


----------



## ebaltz

ComputerBox said:


> From where I stand, this war can end in many ways. Here are my top 3 choices:
> 
> 1. (the long way) 3 out of 4 homes in America will have HDTV's. When this happens, studios are going to notice a dip in DVD sales as everyone waits for a HD format to win. They will put 2 and 2 together and figure out some sort of agreement.
> 
> 2. Dual format players take off and the consumer gets to enjoy every movie in HD while the feuding between the studios will continue for years to come. The quicker the price for the dual format players to drop below $200, the better.
> 
> 3. A major retailer (such as Wal Mart) declares a format as a winner and only stocks those types of players. Like it or not, Wal Mart is now plays a big part in the life of an average American. As soon as they get cheap players on the shelves, people will jump for them. If Wal Mart were to say Blu Ray is the winner tomorrow, then it would most certainly be so.


1. As DVD sales drop-off it may lead to the new format, or...it may bring about the era of downloaded movies and disc are irrelevant.

2. Maybe. But they are very expensive now, and that probably won't change because of the royalties involved, and besides MOST manufactures support Blu-ray, and there is really no incentive for them to add a fading format like DVD-HD

3. This has already happened. Target will only stock and sell Blu-ray players. Blockbuster will only stock and rent Blu-rays from its stores. Another recent retailer has also made the decision to go Blu-ray only. The pieces are falling into place and Blu-ray is winning every one of them. On top of that the majority of manufacturing support, a superior gaming machine with built in blu-ray, the vast majority of studios supporting Blu-ray, including the most important for sales, in my opinion, Disney, since they do so well in DVD sales. Kids have to have the movies they want, and if they are only in Blu-ray, guess which player mom and dad are buying.


----------



## Tom Robertson

HDMe said:


> I'm going to have to backup a bit here... and re-state my position as I realize now what I initially said was not exactly what I meant to say.
> 
> Let me define first "critical mass" as being the time when product B overtakes product A and essentially wipes it out of the competition. VHS vs Beta was ultimately a 10-12 year or so battle before Beta officially handed in the towel, but the critical mass happened a few years earlier before Sony saw the light and threw in the towel.
> 
> DVD vs VHS is still technically going on because VCRs are still in the marketplace and manufacturers are still making consumer units... so we are in roughly year 10 of this battle. If things hold true to form, it may go another couple of years before manufacturers finally throw in the towel and stop making new VCRs. Of course part of this is due to TiVo and other PVR/DVR units, but that muddies the waters so I'll leave that out of this discussion.
> 
> Now... While the protracted Beta vs VHS battle was 10-12 years before Beta was formally wiped out... the actual overtaking happened before that, just as is the case now with DVD vs VHS, with DVD having overtaken a few years ago.
> 
> It also happens that DVD reaching "critical mass" happened sooner than VHS knocking out Beta so the statements about DVD reaching the controlling marketshare are true.
> 
> But what I was referring to was the time before that... When Beta and VHS came out, there was nothing else for the home user to buy... so immediately people who could afford either Beta or VHS bought one. But when DVD came out, VHS was a long-established consumer product so there was not the same drive for the customer to try a new product. DVD, aside from early adopters, sat around a bit in its first few years not getting a lot of shelf space or consumer adoption.
> 
> However, once people started really taking notice of all that DVD offered, it took off like gangbusters. So if we were plotting curves... Beta/VHS was a small spike then solid increasing volume over a long period of time... whereas DVD was semi-flatlined then a little growth then an explosion.
> 
> Folks were not resistant to VHS/Beta because they wanted this in the home... Those same folks were resistant to DVD because they already had a device that did what DVD offered, and DVD didn't let you record so you lost a feature! BUT once people took notice, DVD went nuts.
> 
> So... I believe it is both true that DVD took longer to initially adopt than VHS AND also true that it took over the market faster than VHS did.
> 
> Summarizing... VHS was adopted quicker as it had no opposition, DVD opposed VHS and it took a while to break-through... but once the breakthrough happened DVD penetrated the market much faster and more thoroughly than VHS did.
> 
> I hope that helps make my thoughts more clear and less conflicting with the sales data.


Interesting concept taking the VHS/Beta war and extending it then into a VHS/DVD war. While it seems to be true that DVDs are the fastest technology to go from zero to mass acceptance, you're points about replacing an older technology are intriguing.

But... just as you state that Beta lost years before it actually stopped, VHS could be said to have lost several years ago as well. When Blockbuster, walmart, and studios stopped selling or renting VHS recordings. I completely disagree that DVD vs. VHS is still ongoing; that war is definitely over. VHS is not going to regain popularity. 

Just so, HD-DVD and Blu-ray is still an active war. While both claim to have won, neither really has done so--either still can make a sudden run yet.

Cheers,
Tom


----------



## RAD

Back to the OP's question, will it help sell HD DVD's. From http://www.thedigitalbits.com/mytwocentsa140.html#snyder

_"At once point, I asked the audience for a show of hands to see how many people would be interested in purchasing the set at that price. Out of the entire 500-strong audience (and keep in mind, these were not just casual Trek fans but major Trek über-fans), just THREE people raised their hands. Just three. CBS/Paramount is going to eat this release if they stick to the $217 price tag. Given that many Trek fans already have mixed feelings about the whole Remastered effort, $217 is just crazy - it'll be a poison pill for this release if it doesn't change between now and November. Ouch!"_

I think there's his answer.


----------



## DawgLink

If anything, I see Blu-Ray expanding their lead in the next year or two.

The PS3's are really going to take off in the next 2 years, imo, and its only going to help the Blu-Ray Sales.


----------



## Christopher Gould

RAD said:


> Back to the OP's question, will it help sell HD DVD's. From http://www.thedigitalbits.com/mytwocentsa140.html#snyder
> 
> _"At once point, I asked the audience for a show of hands to see how many people would be interested in purchasing the set at that price. Out of the entire 500-strong audience (and keep in mind, these were not just casual Trek fans but major Trek über-fans), just THREE people raised their hands. Just three. CBS/Paramount is going to eat this release if they stick to the $217 price tag. Given that many Trek fans already have mixed feelings about the whole Remastered effort, $217 is just crazy - it'll be a poison pill for this release if it doesn't change between now and November. Ouch!"_
> 
> I think there's his answer.


yeah i read that too. thought that was funny.


----------



## Cholly

DawgLink said:


> If anything, I see Blu-Ray expanding their lead in the next year or two.
> 
> The PS3's are really going to take off in the next 2 years, imo, and its only going to help the Blu-Ray Sales.


Sony is going to have to pull off some magic in order to make this happen. Price has hurt them tremendously, and until they get the price down, sales aren't going to take off. Further, the PS/3 suffers from a lack of software titles. Major publishers are avoiding the system due to low sales potential as compared to the Wii and XBox360.

Regarding dual format players: If I were to go for both formats, I'd get two separate players -- probably the Toshiba HD-A20 for HD DVD, and the Sony BDP-S300 for Blu-ray Disc.

:listenup: Please note: The proper names for the two formats are *HD DVD* (no hyphen) and *Blu-ray Disc* (lower case "R", and includes the word "Disc").


----------



## DawgLink

Cholly said:


> Sony is going to have to pull off some magic in order to make this happen. Price has hurt them tremendously, and until they get the price down, sales aren't going to take off. Further, the PS/3 suffers from a lack of software titles. Major publishers are avoiding the system due to low sales potential as compared to the Wii and XBox360.
> 
> Regarding dual format players: If I were to go for both formats, I'd get two separate players -- probably the Toshiba HD-A20 for HD DVD, and the Sony BDP-S300 for Blu-ray Disc.
> 
> :listenup: Please note: The proper names for the two formats are *HD DVD* (no hyphen) and *Blu-ray Disc* (lower case "R", and includes the word "Disc").


Magic won't be needed. Since the $100 price drop for the 60-gig, sales have picked up quite nicely for the PS3. In addition, the next 6-10 months are going to be very good to the PS3 game wise as most of the critics point to the lack of PS3 games and many exciting titles are soon to be released. I expect this Christmas and early 2008 to be a very productive selling period for it.

Once the 60-gigs sell out, the 80-gigs will drop down to $499 with the game/controller leaving the deal hence the $100 price drop.

With all that said, the 360's continual problems with the RROD is going to only get worse, imo, and I have nothing against the 360 as many of my friends have it. Microsoft has stated their newer models will fix the problem....we will see. I don't buy it. Neighbor has had to return his 360 for the 5th time...I repeat...5th time.

I think 2008/2009 will be very good years for Blu-Ray and Sony. PS2 sales are still quite good.


----------



## Amon37

machavez00 said:


> Is that a bad thing? (DD)


It is a bad thing compared to a lossless audio track such as LPCM or Dolby TRUE HD audio.

If you have never heard a lossless audio track compared to a normal DD or DTS, find someone with blu-ray or HD-DVD and the ablilty to decode such a track and listen, you will be amazed at the difference. Hopefully I will be getting an HDMI home theater receiver in the next week so I will finally be able to listen to them at my own place.


----------



## Amon37

Cholly said:


> Major publishers are avoiding the system due to low sales potential as compared to the Wii and XBox360..


Completely false.


----------



## ebaltz

DawgLink said:


> Magic won't be needed. Since the $100 price drop for the 60-gig, sales have picked up quite nicely for the PS3. In addition, the next 6-10 months are going to be very good to the PS3 game wise as most of the critics point to the lack of PS3 games and many exciting titles are soon to be released. I expect this Christmas and early 2008 to be a very productive selling period for it.
> 
> Once the 60-gigs sell out, the 80-gigs will drop down to $499 with the game/controller leaving the deal hence the $100 price drop.
> 
> With all that said, the 360's continual problems with the RROD is going to only get worse, imo, and I have nothing against the 360 as many of my friends have it. Microsoft has stated their newer models will fix the problem....we will see. I don't buy it. Neighbor has had to return his 360 for the 5th time...I repeat...5th time.
> 
> I think 2008/2009 will be very good years for Blu-Ray and Sony. PS2 sales are still quite good.


Exactly, price doesn't hurt the PS3 because it is a far superior machine. It has a BUILT IN advanced Blu-ray Disc player which also upscales regular DVDs. What does the 360 have? A plain old DVD player. Oh wait you can get an add-on HD DVD players for $200, so how much does that make your non-even-yet comparable system? PS3 isn't just a gaming machine like the 360 is. What percentage of PS3 have had to be returned for repair? MS has said that perhaps ALL of their 360 are flawed, already 33% have failed in about a year or less of operation. You get what you pay for. How many game titles can you play at one time? Do people really buy 100 game titles? I think most people buy a handful of their favorites and rent the rest and there will be plenty of titles to keep PS3 users busy, but most probably didn't buy it to just play kid games, they bought it as a Blu-ray Disc player, web browser and AVCHD disc player, Mp3 player....etc.... If you just want to play last generation games and don't mind your cheaper player breaking down in a year, then get a 360. If you want next generation games, sold player with tons of other features, then you'll buy quality and a PS3. Call me a fanboy of PS3s and of Blu-rays, but they are just the better options, so I prefer to call myself an intelligent boy grounded in facts not hype.


----------



## Christopher Gould

http://www.hollywoodinhidef.com/blog_detail.php?id=106

on the orginal topic this guys says the trek maybe released on Blue-ray later

quote
Paramount did announce last week what initially appeared like a potential HD DVD exclusive -- the first season of the original "Star Trek" TV series. But Paramount execs quickly noted that while the series will initially be released only on HD DVD, a Blu-ray version is in the works as well.


----------



## Cholly

ebaltz said:


> No skin off my nose.
> 
> As for the facts Cholly, yours are just made up, totally not correct and trying to be skewed, so whose a fanboy, somebody who tells the truth or someone who lies to defend their inferior technology?


I suggest you read some articles in industry publications before you criticize other peoples' posts. Everything I said has come from industry websites, AVSForum, and newspaper or magazine articles. You should also note that I've NOT badmouthed Blu-ray Disc. In all probability, I'll buy a Blu-ray player when they are more affordable.
One of my sons has a PS/3 and complains bitterly about the fact that it doesn't come with a remote for playing Blu-ray Disc media (it's an aftermarket option  ). This is the same kind of dumb thing that Microsoft did with the original XBox.

Amon37 -- I stand by my comment about publishers concentrating on the Wii and XBox 360 rather than the PS/3. Electronic Arts, for example, has postponed development/release of several titles. Once again, I got this information from several online sites -- not from Sony. By the way -- Dolby True HD is supported by both formats, and as you implied, a surround receiver with HDMI inputs and True HD decoder is required so you can appreciate the sound quality offered by that format.

Before you gents throw stones, check a little further.


----------



## machavez00

ebaltz said:


> Exactly, price doesn't hurt the PS3 because it is a far superior machine. It has a BUILT IN advanced Blu-ray Disc player which also upscales regular DVDs. What does the 360 have? A plain old DVD player. Oh wait you can get an add-on HD DVD players for $200, so how much does that make your non-even-yet comparable system? PS3 isn't just a gaming machine like the 360 is. What percentage of PS3 have had to be returned for repair? MS has said that perhaps ALL of their 360 are flawed, already 33% have failed in about a year or less of operation. You get what you pay for. How many game titles can you play at one time? Do people really buy 100 game titles? I think most people buy a handful of their favorites and rent the rest and there will be plenty of titles to keep PS3 users busy, but most probably didn't buy it to just play kid games, they bought it as a Blu-ray Disc player, web browser and AVCHD disc player, Mp3 player....etc.... If you just want to play last generation games and don't mind your cheaper player breaking down in a year, then get a 360. If you want next generation games, sold player with tons of other features, then you'll buy quality and a PS3. Call me a fanboy of PS3s and of Blu-rays, but they are just the better options, so I prefer to call myself an intelligent boy grounded in facts not hype.


One of my coworkers has both a PS3 and an XBox 360 with the HD DVD add on. In his opinion the Xbox is a better game console and HD movies look better on the 360 than they do on the PS3. Again his opinion, not mine. I don't play game enough to buy either one, and am averse to anything Microsquash.


----------



## harsh

allargon said:


> They're both niche formats like SACD and DVD-A.
> 
> In 3 years we will have dual-format players for $200 or less and think back humorously about this whole "format war".


Do such players exist for SACD and DVD-A? Did either format offer a clearly discernible difference versus CD?

Until such time as a full-featured dual format player is available at a price that isn't more than the cost of two full-featured standalone units, I think it unsafe to suggest that it will be the future.


----------



## RAD

harsh said:


> Do such players exist for SACD and DVD-A? Did either format offer a clearly discernible difference versus CD?


Yes, Pioneer had a combo SACD/DVD-A/DVD player, I got one at BB for $150 and they threw in two free SACD's. They really sounded great but the selection sucked, got tired of trying to find something I wanted to purchase again in one of the new formats, finally gave up and the player is sitting in a closet somewhere.


----------



## DawgLink

machavez00 said:


> One of my coworkers has both a PS3 and an XBox 360 with the HD DVD add on. In his opinion the Xbox is a better game console and HD movies look better on the 360 than they do on the PS3. Again his opinion, not mine. I don't play game enough to buy either one, and am averse to anything Microsquash.


Right now, I don't think it is any question the 360 is and has been the best "Game Console" and in terms of variety...will be for another year. They have had more games out then any other console for their newer console and been doing a good job getting the games out to the market. I credit Microsoft for that. Big question rests on whether the 360 will last over/under 6-12 months before you get a RROD.

With that said, I find that my PS3 is a much better home-console for my DVD needs. That is just my opinion though. I think the Blu-Ray titles and others play perfectly on my 1080p TV.

It will be an interesting next 6 months in the video game world.


----------



## Cholly

Update on audio streaming over HDMI from HDTV Magazine today:
http://www.hdtvmagazine.com/articles/2007/08/hi-def_dvd_-_au.php

If I read the article correctly, none of the current players support streamed Dolby Digital Plus pass through (the current crop isn't HDMI 1.3 compatible). However, they support DTS-HD. Further, to play Dolby Digital Plus, you have to have a surround receiver that has HDMI 1.3 input and decoder. 
So, it's left to next generation players to support Dolby Digital Plus in all its glory.


----------



## ebaltz

Cholly said:


> I suggest you read some articles in industry publications before you criticize other peoples' posts. Everything I said has come from industry websites, AVSForum, and newspaper or magazine articles. You should also note that I've NOT badmouthed Blu-ray Disc. In all probability, I'll buy a Blu-ray player when they are more affordable.
> One of my sons has a PS/3 and complains bitterly about the fact that it doesn't come with a remote for playing Blu-ray Disc media (it's an aftermarket option  ). This is the same kind of dumb thing that Microsoft did with the original XBox.
> 
> Amon37 -- I stand by my comment about publishers concentrating on the Wii and XBox 360 rather than the PS/3. Electronic Arts, for example, has postponed development/release of several titles. Once again, I got this information from several online sites -- not from Sony. By the way -- Dolby True HD is supported by both formats, and as you implied, a surround receiver with HDMI inputs and True HD decoder is required so you can appreciate the sound quality offered by that format.
> 
> Before you gents throw stones, check a little further.


And where did these "facts" come from (please document):

"HD DVD can hold 45 Gigabytes -- only 5 less than Blu-ray Disc"

To my knowledge BD holds 50 (at present, in the works is a BD that holds 200+) and HD DVD holds 30. That would be 20GB less or 60% less. Gaming developers and studios are already claiming they are running up against the size limitations of HD DVD.

But lets drop the discussion for now, and return to it 1/1/2008 and see where things are. I'll bookmark this thread for then.


----------



## Stewart Vernon

ebaltz said:


> To my knowledge BD holds 50 (at present, in the works is a BD that holds 200+) and HD DVD holds 30. That would be 20GB less or 60% less.


Actually... I thought HD-DVD single layer was 15 GB. Then dual layer came out and held 30 GB. I thought triple layer was going to get to 45 GB, but have not heard if that is feasible or available yet.

Blu-Ray single layer is 25 GB for single layer, and 50 GB for dual layer. I am not sure if there is a triple layer Blu-Ray in the works.

FYI, I edited this post after researching Blu-Ray. I had originally posted Blu-Ray was 50 GB from the start, but realized I was incorrect after researching single vs dual layer.

End result... Blu-Ray has more capacity per layer than HD-DVD, though HD-DVD has tried to leap-frog and close the gap.


----------



## msmith198025

ebaltz said:


> You just keep on dreaming. Blu-ray beats DVD-HD in every way possible, and anyone with a brain knows it. Let homeless people by the cheapo players at walmart and the rest of us enjoy the actual quality of Blu-ray and its superior format. In a year or so people will be asking what DVD-HD is. But you go ahead and enjoy your non-next gen format and your limited titles. The rest of us know the reality.


I have both and really the PQ is identical in both IMO. Really, being insulting doesnt help does it?


----------



## msmith198025

ebaltz said:


> Exactly, price doesn't hurt the PS3 because it is a far superior machine. It has a BUILT IN advanced Blu-ray Disc player which also upscales regular DVDs. What does the 360 have? A plain old DVD player. Oh wait you can get an add-on HD DVD players for $200, so how much does that make your non-even-yet comparable system? PS3 isn't just a gaming machine like the 360 is. What percentage of PS3 have had to be returned for repair? MS has said that perhaps ALL of their 360 are flawed, already 33% have failed in about a year or less of operation. You get what you pay for. How many game titles can you play at one time? Do people really buy 100 game titles? I think most people buy a handful of their favorites and rent the rest and there will be plenty of titles to keep PS3 users busy, but most probably didn't buy it to just play kid games, they bought it as a Blu-ray Disc player, web browser and AVCHD disc player, Mp3 player....etc.... If you just want to play last generation games and don't mind your cheaper player breaking down in a year, then get a 360. If you want next generation games, sold player with tons of other features, then you'll buy quality and a PS3. Call me a fanboy of PS3s and of Blu-rays, but they are just the better options, so I prefer to call myself an intelligent boy grounded in facts not hype.


While you may believe that you arent a fanboy, you come across as one.
Not trying to argue with ya, just thought you might want to know.


----------



## chopperjc

msmith198025 said:


> While you may believe that you arent a fanboy, you come across as one.
> Not trying to argue with ya, just thought you might want to know.


+1. I enjoy opinions and facts. I do not enjoy insults. It only hurts your argument.


----------



## Cholly

Here's the info on Blu-ray Disc capacity: 25 GB single layer, 50 GB double layer. No mention of a 3 layer disc as yet. Note: this is not the official Blu-ray Disc Association web site. I've had trouble trying to load that site this evening. (blu-raydisc.com) 
http://www.blu-ray.com/info/

Here's info on HD DVD specs: 
http://www.thelookandsoundofperfect.com/

And finally, here's Toshiba's press release, announcing a triple layer disk with up to 51 GB capacity.
http://www.toshiba.co.jp/about/press/2007_01/pr0801.htm

Interestingly, the double layer Blu-ray Disc can conceivably hold more data -- up to 200 GB in eight layers as proposed by Sony. See the following link:
http://www.emedialive.com/articles/readarticle.aspx?articleid=11420#ivc

Regarding the Playstation 3: Sony admitted recently that PS 3 sales have been disappointing, with first quarter sales worldwide at 710,000. 
http://www.shacknews.com/onearticle.x/48157
Granted, Sony predicts they'll sell 11 million units by March, 2008 -- but based on performance to date, they'd have to have a huge holiday season.
Also, their prediction of sales of 250 million software titles is just that -- a prediction. That wold mean that the average PS 3 owner would have purchased over 22 PS 3 games. Highly unlikely.


----------



## djlong

Respectfully, I think you're missing the point..

Family titles drive sales the most. Are the most popular movies going to be available on the format of choice? Disney's Pirates trilogy, all their Pixar movies and, good grief, wait until they open the vaults.. All Blu-Ray. HD-DVD had a big chronological lead, getting their stuff out first but first doesn't mean you win (see Betamax).

So if you're looking for a high def player for that new rear-projection widescreen you bought at Wal-Mart (and more will be sold there than in the shops that cater to techies) what are you looking for? TITLES. What good does a $150 HD-DVD player do you if you can't get the titles you want? It's all about the *software*.

I originally thought there was no way that the HD-DVD camp could lose this 'war' but it certainly seems like they're doing that. Universal is the only holdout that doesn't produce Blu-Ray. If they see that Warner is making big bucks on both formats, why would Universal leave all that money on the table by not producing Blu-Ray. And if Universal starts pressing Blu-Ray, why would I ever want an HD-DVD player at ANY price?


----------



## ebaltz

djlong said:


> Respectfully, I think you're missing the point..
> 
> Family titles drive sales the most. Are the most popular movies going to be available on the format of choice? Disney's Pirates trilogy, all their Pixar movies and, good grief, wait until they open the vaults.. All Blu-Ray. HD-DVD had a big chronological lead, getting their stuff out first but first doesn't mean you win (see Betamax).
> 
> So if you're looking for a high def player for that new rear-projection widescreen you bought at Wal-Mart (and more will be sold there than in the shops that cater to techies) what are you looking for? TITLES. What good does a $150 HD-DVD player do you if you can't get the titles you want? It's all about the *software*.
> 
> I originally thought there was no way that the HD-DVD camp could lose this 'war' but it certainly seems like they're doing that. Universal is the only holdout that doesn't produce Blu-Ray. If they see that Warner is making big bucks on both formats, why would Universal leave all that money on the table by not producing Blu-Ray. And if Universal starts pressing Blu-Ray, why would I ever want an HD-DVD player at ANY price?


I totally agree. Disney titles are what will matter most. And Disney is Blu-ray


----------



## Cholly

ebaltz said:


> I totally agree. Disney titles are what will matter most. And Disney is Blu-ray


Here, we are in total agreement. :grin: Disney and Fox pretty much rule the roost when it comes to popular titles. MGM also is a big contributor.

If, indeed, there comes a time when only one of the two present formats survives, I believe it will be Blu-ray Disc. As I've said in prior posts, when Blu-ray players become more affordable, I'll probably get one.


----------



## ebaltz

Recent Nielson numbers show what's happening:

WEEK: BD-66% HDD-34% 
YTD: BD-67% HDD-33% 
SinceInception: BD-60% HDD-40%

2-1 for the year, my guess is 3-1 by Christmas.


----------



## Earl Bonovich

Didn't Disney fully 100% support the DIVX platform?

While I am in 100% agreement that content (not necessarily the root technology), is what will drive the consumer market.

But for someone to enjoy that content.. the technology has to be availalble.


----------



## Amon37

Cholly said:


> Amon37 -- I stand by my comment about publishers concentrating on the Wii and XBox 360 rather than the PS/3. Electronic Arts, for example, has postponed development/release of several titles. Once again, I got this information from several online sites -- not from Sony.
> 
> Before you gents throw stones, check a little further.


There is no stone throwing happening, just a friendly debate. 

EA currently has no titles announced for the 360 only and all EA titles are being released on the 360 and PS3 at the same time except for MOH:Airborne.

Rockstar has delayed GTA:IV for both systems

Capcom/Konami/ are releasing their Multi-platform titles at the same time.

On the flip side.

Epic is releasing UT3 on PS3 before the 360 version, Ubisoft is releasing HAZE on the PS3 before the 360 version. 
Rockstar has confirmed that L.A. Noire is exclusive to the PS3.
There is talk that Bioshock is in development for the PS3.
Burnout Paradise has been developed with the PS3 as the lead platform.
Bizzare Creation has said the DVD-9 has limited what they can do with weather effects on PGR4 for the 360

With better development tools being released to devs. from Sony it is becoming less of a hassle to develop for the PS3.(which by the way has not even been out a year yet)

See what "Gems" the 360 had in it's first year of release, not much.


----------



## CCarncross

There were lots of universal players. They could playback SACD, DVD-A, DVD-V, and CD. There are still several manufacturers making universal players. Both formats when done right, absolutely made the cds sound like 128k mp3s....plus add to th efact that a large percentage of them are/were in 5.1 surround. M/C high-res audio absolutely blows away cds.


----------



## CCarncross

Well of course Disney backed BR -since its Sony. The other large piece of the pie noone seems to have commented on was Steve Hirsch and Vivid backed BR IIRC. Vivid back in the day also backed VHS and not BETA. Dont underestimate the effects of the porn industry on media..


----------



## cnmsales

Amon37 said:


> Completely false.


Actually this is somewhat true, more so in the WII market as publishers see the popularity of the console and the fact that they can develope two games for the price of one PS3 game.


----------



## Stewart Vernon

CCarncross said:


> Both formats when done right, absolutely made the cds sound like 128k mp3s...


You say this as if it was a good thing... but standard CD audio is something like 1400k bitrate. I don't know about SACD, but I have to think it is even higher since it is supposed to be of better quality.

If a format makes your CD sound like a 128k MP3, then that is a bad thing. MP3 can sound good by itself at certain levels, but with a side-by-side comparision to a CD it will produce noticable lack of quality.


----------



## ebaltz

CCarncross said:


> Well of course Disney backed BR -since its Sony. The other large piece of the pie noone seems to have commented on was Steve Hirsch and Vivid backed BR IIRC. Vivid back in the day also backed VHS and not BETA. Dont underestimate the effects of the porn industry on media..


Its not going to matter this time because its freely available online this time around, whereas back in the VHS/Beta days, that was basically the only way people could get it. So don't over-estimate it.


----------



## ebaltz

cnmsales said:


> Actually this is somewhat true, more so in the WII market as publishers see the popularity of the console and the fact that they can develope two games for the price of one PS3 game.


Well I don't know anyone who owns a Wii, they take Wees, but don't own one. But virtually everyone I know either has a PS3 or an X-box 360, and none of the Wii games are every checked out from my local BB. Frankly its a toy, not a next generation media device like the PS3.


----------



## msmith198025

ebaltz said:


> Well I don't know anyone who owns a Wii, they take Wees, but don't own one. But virtually everyone I know either has a PS3 or an X-box 360, and none of the Wii games are every checked out from my local BB. Frankly its a toy, not a next generation media device like the PS3.


Must be a regional thing. I have all three and it is MUCH harder to get games for the Wii than ps3 or 360.
And sure the graphics arent as cutting edge, but the game play is much more so. And vastly more entertaining at this point. Im sure that will die down some as People get used to it, but for now its the one that i recommend they purchase. And thats not a knock on any of the systems, they all have strong points.


----------



## machavez00

full article at:http://news.digitaltrends.com/news/story/13788/toshiba_announces_3rd-gen_hd_dvd_players
Toshiba Announces 3rd-Gen HD DVD Players

Monday, August 6th 2007 @ 10:30 AM PDT

By Geoff Duncan
Staff Writer, Digital Trends News
Add to your Del.icio.us account Del.icio.us

Toshiba has announced its third generation of HD DVD players, and puts pressure on the Blu-ray camp by starting prices at $299.99.

Electronics maker Toshiba is ratcheting up competition with the Blu-ray high-definition video camp again, announcing its third generation of its HD-A HD DVD players for the U.S. market. The three new units are timed to hit retailers just as the end-of-year holiday buying season ramps up, and all three units will be priced under under $500, and with low-end pricing starting at just $299.99.

Keeping up with Toshiba's non-stop claims that the HD DVD format is dominating the high-definition market, the VP of Marketing for Toshiba's Digital A/V Group, Jodi Sally, stated: "With a majority market share in unit sales of next generation DVD players, consumers are speaking loud and clear, and they are adopting HD DVD as their HD movie format of choice. Because of the proven manufacturing efficiencies of the HD DVD format, Toshiba can bring this level of innovation in technology to a new generation of players with cutting-edge functionality at affordable prices."


----------



## Cholly

ebaltz said:


> Well I don't know anyone who owns a Wii, they take Wees, but don't own one. But virtually everyone I know either has a PS3 or an X-box 360, and none of the Wii games are every checked out from my local BB. Frankly its a toy, not a next generation media device like the PS3.


Perhaps the Wii doesn't have next gen graphics, but it has attracted huge sales since it came on the market, lagging behind first place Xbox 360 by only a few percentage points -- and the Xbox 360 has been on sale for a year longer. See:
http://www.vgchartz.com/ for total sales figures of all console systems in the U.S. and Japan.
The Wii has attracted a whole new group of buyers - people who hadn't in the past bought videogame consoles. It's great fun to play for all age groups. The only reason the Wii hasn't sold more units is that Nintendo can't crank them out fast enough. Just go to your neighborhood store and try to find one.


----------



## ebaltz

machavez00 said:


> full article at:http://news.digitaltrends.com/news/story/13788/toshiba_announces_3rd-gen_hd_dvd_players
> Toshiba Announces 3rd-Gen HD DVD Players
> 
> Monday, August 6th 2007 @ 10:30 AM PDT
> 
> By Geoff Duncan
> Staff Writer, Digital Trends News
> Add to your Del.icio.us account Del.icio.us
> 
> Toshiba has announced its third generation of HD DVD players, and puts pressure on the Blu-ray camp by starting prices at $299.99.
> 
> Electronics maker Toshiba is ratcheting up competition with the Blu-ray high-definition video camp again, announcing its third generation of its HD-A HD DVD players for the U.S. market. The three new units are timed to hit retailers just as the end-of-year holiday buying season ramps up, and all three units will be priced under under $500, and with low-end pricing starting at just $299.99.
> 
> Keeping up with Toshiba's non-stop claims that the HD DVD format is dominating the high-definition market, the VP of Marketing for Toshiba's Digital A/V Group, Jodi Sally, stated: "With a majority market share in unit sales of next generation DVD players, consumers are speaking loud and clear, and they are adopting HD DVD as their HD movie format of choice. Because of the proven manufacturing efficiencies of the HD DVD format, Toshiba can bring this level of innovation in technology to a new generation of players with cutting-edge functionality at affordable prices."


Wow, they really drink their own koolaid don't they. Its almost comical. They probably wouldn't sell any more if they gave them away.


----------



## Christopher Gould

lets see how much Toshibas loosing on each one of those players. bet they aren't making any profit.


----------



## Christopher Gould

DVD & HD FORMAT STATS 

TOTAL U.S. PLAYER SALES (5/4/07 - CEA): 126,586,654* 
TOTAL CANADIAN PLAYER SALES (5/4/07): 12,658,665* 
*Sales to dealers since 3/97. DVD/VCR combination players included, but not DVD-ROM drives & game systems. 
TOTAL DVD TITLES (8/2/07 - DVD Release Report): 76,384* 
*Net total of R1 DVD-Video discs released/announced. Discontinued & adult not included. 
TOP 10 SELLING DISCS (7/29/07 - Nielsen/VideoScan): 
1) Zødiac
2) The Number 23
3) Premonition
4) The Hills Have Eyes 2
5) Stargate SG-1: Season 10 6) Shooter
7) The Bourne Files
8) Weeds: Season 2
9) The Contract
10) The Last Mimzy 

TOP 10 RENTAL DISCS (7/29/07 - Home Media Research): 
1) The Number 23
2) Zødiac
3) Premonition
4) The Hills Have Eyes 2
5) The Contract 6) Shooter
7) Slow Burn
8) Black Snake Moan
9) Perfume
10) The Last Mimzy 

TOTAL BLU-RAY DISC TITLES (7/31/07 - DVD Release Report): 278/77* 
TOTAL HD-DVD TITLES (7/31/07 - DVD Release Report): 266/55* 
*Net total of R1 discs released/announced. Discontinued & adult not included. 
HIGH-DEF MARKET SHARE - BRD VS HD-DVD SOFTWARE SALES (7/29/07 - Nielsen/VideoScan): 
Week Ending 7/22
Year to Date
Since Inception
Blu-ray Disc: 66
Blu-ray Disc: 67
Blu-ray Disc: 60 HD-DVD: 34
HD-DVD: 33
HD-DVD: 40 

Movie titles only (videogame titles not included) - Includes HD-DVD/DVD Combo Format 

NUMBER OF AFI TOP 100 FILMS ON DVD (7/9/07): 98 (2)* 
( ) *Number of additional films announced or believed in development for DVD release. 

from the digital bits


----------



## machavez00

Christopher Gould said:


> DVD & HD FORMAT STATS
> 
> TOTAL U.S. PLAYER SALES (5/4/07 - CEA): 126,586,654*
> TOTAL CANADIAN PLAYER SALES (5/4/07): 12,658,665*
> *Sales to dealers since 3/97. DVD/VCR combination players included, but not DVD-ROM drives & game systems.
> TOTAL DVD TITLES (8/2/07 - DVD Release Report): 76,384*
> *Net total of R1 DVD-Video discs released/announced. Discontinued & adult not included.
> TOP 10 SELLING DISCS (7/29/07 - Nielsen/VideoScan):
> 1) Zødiac
> 2) The Number 23
> 3) Premonition
> 4) The Hills Have Eyes 2
> 5) Stargate SG-1: Season 10 6) Shooter
> 7) The Bourne Files
> 8) Weeds: Season 2
> 9) The Contract
> 10) The Last Mimzy
> 
> TOP 10 RENTAL DISCS (7/29/07 - Home Media Research):
> 1) The Number 23
> 2) Zødiac
> 3) Premonition
> 4) The Hills Have Eyes 2
> 5) The Contract 6) Shooter
> 7) Slow Burn
> 8) Black Snake Moan
> 9) Perfume
> 10) The Last Mimzy
> 
> TOTAL BLU-RAY DISC TITLES (7/31/07 - DVD Release Report): 278/77*
> TOTAL HD-DVD TITLES (7/31/07 - DVD Release Report): 266/55*
> *Net total of R1 discs released/announced. Discontinued & adult not included.
> HIGH-DEF MARKET SHARE - BRD VS HD-DVD SOFTWARE SALES (7/29/07 - Nielsen/VideoScan):
> Week Ending 7/22
> Year to Date
> Since Inception
> Blu-ray Disc: 66
> Blu-ray Disc: 67
> Blu-ray Disc: 60 HD-DVD: 34
> HD-DVD: 33
> HD-DVD: 40
> 
> Movie titles only (videogame titles not included) - Includes HD-DVD/DVD Combo Format
> 
> NUMBER OF AFI TOP 100 FILMS ON DVD (7/9/07): 98 (2)*
> ( ) *Number of additional films announced or believed in development for DVD release.
> 
> from the digital bits


Posted 7/31 http://www.dbstalk.com/showpost.php?p=1027670&postcount=37


----------



## Christopher Gould

machavez00 said:


> Posted 7/31 http://www.dbstalk.com/showpost.php?p=1027670&postcount=37


 duh I posted the link in post #35 plus this one has an update 7/31/07 on the total Blue-ray HD DVD releases


----------



## Amon37

cnmsales said:


> Actually this is somewhat true, more so in the WII market as publishers see the popularity of the console and the fact that they can develope two games for the price of one PS3 game.


Tell me which publishers are releasing Wii games that are not releasing any games on the PS3.


----------



## Cholly

Amon37 said:


> Tell me which publishers are releasing Wii games that are not releasing any games on the PS3.


Why don't you just take a look at one of the gaming sites instead of spending your time defending the PS/3 (which is a great gaming system, don't get mw wrong). Fact is, you could buy a Wii plus extra controllers and five games for the price of a 60 meg PS/3.
I was at my local Wal-Mart today -- they had PS/3 and XBox 360 systems in stock. They can't get enough Wii systems to meet demand.
Tell most people the PS/3 costs so much because it has a Blu-ray Disc player, and you'll get a blank stare in return.


----------



## ebaltz

How well does the Wii play Blu-rays? Oh right it can't plus it can't do about a million other things the Ps3 does. On a poll at another site, the majority of PS3 users use it for the Blu-ray player more than 50% of the time, and it plays games. How much does a Blu-ray stand alone and a Wii cost together? Now which is cheaper?


----------



## Stewart Vernon

Some of this Wii vs PS3 is a lot like comparing my refrigerator to a washing machine.

My washing machine cleans clothes... put your clothes in a refrigerator and see if they get clean!

Oh yeah? Well, put some ice cream in your washing machine and watch it melt!

The Wii and the PS3, from the video game perspective, are marketed to different audiences really. One may or may not appear to be more popular, but it could simply be different demographics. The PS3 and X-Box are competing with each other more directly as they are more comparable machines. I wouldn't compare a Wii to either as I think they want and are getting a different part of the customer base.


----------



## msmith198025

ebaltz said:


> How well does the Wii play Blu-rays? Oh right it can't plus it can't do about a million other things the Ps3 does. On a poll at another site, the majority of PS3 users use it for the Blu-ray player more than 50% of the time, and it plays games. How much does a Blu-ray stand alone and a Wii cost together? Now which is cheaper?


that is the most ignorant thing i have ever read.
how well does the ps3 work with wii controlers? its just as relevant....


----------



## ebaltz

msmith198025 said:


> that is the most ignorant thing i have ever read.
> how well does the ps3 work with wii controlers? its just as relevant....


Huh? Stop smoking weed. Which HD format does the Wii play? None? That's my point, if you want a toy that plays games and are short on cash, get a Wii, if you want a complete multimedia machine which upconverts DVDs, plays Blu-rays, browses the internet etc...etc... etc... then get a PS3.


----------



## ebaltz

HDMe said:


> Some of this Wii vs PS3 is a lot like comparing my refrigerator to a washing machine.
> 
> My washing machine cleans clothes... put your clothes in a refrigerator and see if they get clean!
> 
> Oh yeah? Well, put some ice cream in your washing machine and watch it melt!
> 
> The Wii and the PS3, from the video game perspective, are marketed to different audiences really. One may or may not appear to be more popular, but it could simply be different demographics. The PS3 and X-Box are competing with each other more directly as they are more comparable machines. I wouldn't compare a Wii to either as I think they want and are getting a different part of the customer base.


Right a Wii is more like a PS2 or Pong.


----------



## Cholly

Enough Videogame console wars, already! :beatdeadhorse: :backtotop


----------



## Stewart Vernon

I own a PS2... never used it to watch movies. I have a DVD player for that. I am not a fan of bundling various technologies to the degree some companies do today. So for me, I would choose a gaming console based on which one I enjoyed playing the most. Nothing about playing movies would enter the equation.

Back to topic... I see way too much fanboy in the HD-DVD vs Blu-ray arguments to believe much of what either side hypes... so I am happy to sit on the sidelines and wait to see what happens. Eventually there will be a winner, or a new technology, and I can enjoy that when the time comes.


----------



## msmith198025

ebaltz said:


> Right a Wii is more like a PS2 or Pong.


no, no fanboyism at all here...... Sorry guys, right, back to topic.


----------



## Virginian

Very nice topic, folks, but nobody mentioned the real kicker, online downloading. A lot of developments going out there and early adopters are already enjoying storing their content on the media servers. Despite the number of obstacles (DRM, MPAA greed and legal issues) it’s definitely a way to go. With FIOS downloading of the HD content becomes real, why on Earth waist shelve space for the stockpiles of HD/BR DVDs?

More over, going even further, you don’t need to store all you HD movies on your home server, they can be available through the central repository, so instead of buying a DVD you just buy a license for a one time or unlimited download.


Sometimes the war can be over before it starts.


----------



## Christopher Gould

Virginian said:


> Very nice topic, folks, but nobody mentioned the real kicker, online downloading. A lot of developments going out there and early adopters are already enjoying storing their content on the media servers. Despite the number of obstacles (DRM, MPAA greed and legal issues) it's definitely a way to go. With FIOS downloading of the HD content becomes real, why on Earth waist shelve space for the stockpiles of HD/BR DVDs?
> 
> More over, going even further, you don't need to store all you HD movies on your home server, they can be available through the central repository, so instead of buying a DVD you just buy a license for a one time or unlimited download.
> 
> Sometimes the war can be over before it starts.


Because hard drives die. Is why I'd rather have a disc.


----------



## Christopher Gould

http://www.thedigitalbits.com/#mytwocents

thoughts on Universal


----------



## ebaltz

Christopher Gould said:


> Because hard drives die. Is why I'd rather have a disc.


How big would your hard drive have to be if you owned say 100 Blu-ray quality movies. 50GB x 100 = Big Ass hard drive. So in addition to the cost of downloading the movie there would be the storage space cost. Now someday maybe that will all be moot and I do think that downloads will do some damage to the market, but its not going to replace media in the near feature. MP3s although huge, haven't replaced CDs yet.


----------



## Cholly

ebaltz said:


> How big would your hard drive have to be if you owned say 100 Blu-ray quality movies. 50GB x 100 = Big Ass hard drive. So in addition to the cost of downloading the movie there would be the storage space cost. Now someday maybe that will all be moot and I do think that downloads will do some damage to the market, but its not going to replace media in the near feature. MP3s although huge, haven't replaced CDs yet.


Exactly! Furthermore, HT computers are just now beginning to be able to provide 7.1 surround and streaming video. Personally, I'd much rather have separate HD DVD *and* Blu-ray Disc players feeding my home theater TV and 6.1 sound system. This despite the fact that I'm typing this on a HTPC with Windows Media Center. Sure, you can have Terabyte hard drives, but I'd much rather have the movies on individual discs.

As to having a PS/3 as my Blu-ray player. Not likely, with three grandkids who are avid videogame players, it would monopolize the home theater. I'd feel the same way about the Xbox 360 with HD DVD drive. It would be different if I were young, single and really into console games. I'm none of the three. :nono: :lol:


----------



## Virginian

Well, thanks for the feedback. 
Now, some points:

1.HTPC is a very fast growing segment of the entire PC market.

2.Computers with the 7.1 surround and streaming video were available at least 3 years ago.

3.Yes, hard drives do die, ever heard about RAID5?

4.You don’t need the whole 50GB to store one HD movie. 
5GB usually enough to provide the picture quality comparable to the current satellite HD videostream.

5.Finally, there is no need to keep all your movies locally, you can always download it from the central repository as long as you hold a legally purchased license. I understand, it’s going to take a while to adopt new technology, but it’s just our so called “not so distant future”. It won’t replace HD/BR DVDs completely, just make them a niche product for the undeveloped countries.


----------



## Stewart Vernon

Virginian said:


> Well, thanks for the feedback.
> Now, some points:
> 
> 1.HTPC is a very fast growing segment of the entire PC market.


Perhaps... but most people do not have an internet connection near fast enough to handle the necessary bandwidth for HD... and many still do not have enough to handle high-quality SD. Also, computer screens are much smaller than average TV screens and lots of people find the larger screens a more enjoyable experience.



Virginian said:


> 2.Computers with the 7.1 surround and streaming video were available at least 3 years ago.


When I bought my 5.1 surround receiver there were 6.1 already in existence... and 7.1 was right on the horizon. That said, there are only a handful of 6.1 movies in existence right now, with most being 5.1 or less. I'm also not convinced that anything above 6.1 adds meaningful to the sound experience.



Virginian said:


> 4.You don't need the whole 50GB to store one HD movie.
> 5GB usually enough to provide the picture quality comparable to the current satellite HD videostream.


MPEG2 HD is prime at 19.2 MBps... we typically see from 9-14 Mbps depending on the channel for HD via satellite. At those rates 10GB per hour is typical for a movie.. so a typical movie should be around 15-20GB give or take.

MPEG4 HD requires less bandwidth... but is still in the neighborhood of 6GB per hour... so you'd be talking 9-12GB or so for a comparable MPEG4 movie.

So you are correct that 50GB is not required for the typical movie... but more than 5GB is required for optimum quality. Again, if only watching on a 22" computer monitor or smaller, this may not matter.. but for most consumers the larger TV screen is a more enjoyable experience and the smaller file size definately shows the lack of quality at the file size you are talking about.



Virginian said:


> 5.Finally, there is no need to keep all your movies locally, you can always download it from the central repository as long as you hold a legally purchased license. I understand, it's going to take a while to adopt new technology, but it's just our so called "not so distant future". It won't replace HD/BR DVDs completely, just make them a niche product for the undeveloped countries.


The entire internet would need to be upgraded/overhauled to make this happen... and while it may happen in the future, it will be a while in coming. Consider that I have a 6Mbps connection DSL but many Web sites I connect to cannot sustain that entire bandwidth just to me because their connection is not fast enough and/or they have to serve multiple customers simultaneously.

Some FiOs folks are getting 20-30+ Mbps download capacity... but almost no Web sites they can connect to at anywhere near that rate.

The infrastructure of the internet at all points would have to go through pretty much entire replacement to make this viable. Consider the recent Simpsons movie promos, and they ran a commercial where you could go to a Web site and "simpsonize" a picture of yourself as a cartoon character. The first time that commercial ran, if you tried to go to the Web site... most folks got a timeout error because the server was overloaded.

Too many weaknesses at this point to provide IPTV and HTPC kind of scenarios on a broad scale, and too expensive to upgrade overnight.


----------



## Virginian

HDMe,

You are right about infrastructure, FIOS and other similar high speed networks are in there infancy, but they all have a great potential and demonstrate exponential growth. Anyway, let me comment on the couple of your points.

First, nobody ever suggested watching HD content on the computer screen. You either connect computer directly to the HDTV through the computer’s HDMI output or (and this is a preferable way) run media server software on you computer and use media players connected to the local home network. Each media player has HDMI output connected to the corresponding TV and you can use as many of them as you want to watch movies/shows simultaneously across your entire household.

Second, instead of direct video stream you can download your “weekly” load at night (let’s call it “phase one”) before infrastructure is ready for the uninterrupted direct stream.

And believe me, I’m not a fortune teller, just technology is already there and by all means provides much better functionality, flexibility and convenience comparing to the soon become obsolete BR/HD toys.


----------



## Stewart Vernon

Virginian,

By the way... if I wasn't clear, I apologise... I think Internet TV could very well be the future, I'm just not sure how far away that future could be. Satellite is a much better way to deliver TV, except for folks that have line-of-sight problems... but for 2-way communication like On-demand or interactive stuff, some kind of broadband connection is a necessity.

I hadn't thought fully about the media distribution angle... and connecting the computer to a TV directly. I suppose there are some folks that do that, I just don't personally know anyone who does it right now.

I like the possibilities of this sort of thing... just don't know how long before it could be realistic. That being the case, I think some form of standard (either HD-DVD, Blu-ray, or perhaps a 3rd entry) will likely become the standard for high-quality HD content in homes before satellite has to worry about an Internet-based option for most consumers.


----------



## Virginian

While not a typical home configuration...it works.










At least one similar system is available off the shelf:

• Stores up to 1,340 DVDs or 15,000 CDs

• Multiple Servers can be clustered to provide over 100 terabytes of seamless storage

The Kaleidescape System










http://www.kaleidescape.com/products/


----------



## Stewart Vernon

Revisiting this thread for a moment... I wonder how the new announcement from Paramount that they will be HD-DVD exclusive changes things as far as, for instance, the already announced Star Trek in Blu-Ray? Does that mean it will not come out in Blu-ray after all?


----------



## djlong

Star Trek was announced in HD as I recall... ...and checking the announcements, yes, it's HD-DVD. Yes, it means no Blu-Ray.


----------



## machavez00

From the Sony boardroom "*性交のパラマウント!*"


----------



## Cholly

:soapbox: Just to set the record straight:
It isn't HD-DVD, it's HD DVD
It isn't Blu-Ray, it's Blu-ray Disc or BD
:rant: :grin:


----------



## msmith198025

Cholly said:


> :soapbox: Just to set the record straight:
> It isn't HD-DVD, it's HD DVD
> It isn't Blu-Ray, it's Blu-ray Disc or BD
> :rant: :grin:


ummm what diff does it make?


----------



## machavez00

Asked this in the VS thread. with Samsung's duo player coming out, does that make the buyer eligible for 10 free movies?


----------



## Virginian

I'm reviving this old thread just to show how world changed over the last five years. Read where we were 5 years ago and where we are now.

Could somebody make projection for 5 years from now?


----------



## Scott Kocourek

I'm going to kill this one, if you would like to start a new prediction thread please do so.

Thanks.


----------

