Warner Announcement Could Alert the Watchdog?

[Elven6]

Im not asking any of you to sign it, Im just bringing it to light. I know what Consumer soveringty is, read the fricken article the guy posted, it outlines how.

Secondly, I didn't post this in the PS3 forum, it was moved their, and Im not trying to start a flame war, IF I wanted a flame war I would have made the original post much harsher.

F9zDark, your the Beta VHS "war" was different, times have changed, people are more connected, things don't stay hidden for long.

And you talk abou tletting companies do business when you bring up comments about how Microsoft gets sued. Well check why they get sued, they get sued for stupids things like bundling Windows Media Player, Internet Explorer, etc Apple does the same thing with Safari, does anyone sue them? No because companies know if they sue Microsoft for stupid $#@! and win they will get more money then if they sue Apple.

Everything you used in defense of Blu Ray/HD DVD your using to bash Microsoft, inturn it just cancels out your argument, it dosen't make any sense.

And Microsoft hasen't done crap for HD DVD which pisses me off, they want HD-i in Blu Ray, they don't want to create a 360 with a internal HD DVD drive, they don't even want to bundle it in with a 360, and VC1 compression is used in both HD DVD and Blu Ray. Other then that they have very little to do with HD DVD.

I wouldn't mind seeing Blu Ray in the next Xbox, I don't have a problem with it, news is news, if HD DVD was in the same boat id still post it, im hoping HD DVD will pull through, but im not gonna go all greenpeace on Blu Ray.

[F9zDark]

Im not asking any of you to sign it, Im just bringing it to light. I know what Consumer soveringty is, read the fricken article the guy posted, it outlines how.

Secondly, I didn't post this in the PS3 forum, it was moved their, and Im not trying to start a flame war, IF I wanted a flame war I would have made the original post much harsher.

F9zDark, your the Beta VHS "war" was different, times have changed, people are more connected, things don't stay hidden for long.

And you talk abou tletting companies do business when you bring up comments about how Microsoft gets sued. Well check why they get sued, they get sued for stupids things like bundling Windows Media Player, Internet Explorer, etc Apple does the same thing with Safari, does anyone sue them? No because companies know if they sue Microsoft for stupid $#@! and win they will get more money then if they sue Apple.

Everything you used in defense of Blu Ray/HD DVD your using to bash Microsoft, inturn it just cancels out your argument, it dosen't make any sense.

And Microsoft hasen't done crap for HD DVD which pisses me off, they want HD-i in Blu Ray, they don't want to create a 360 with a internal HD DVD drive, they don't even want to bundle it in with a 360, and VC1 compression is used in both HD DVD and Blu Ray. Other then that they have very little to do with HD DVD.

I wouldn't mind seeing Blu Ray in the next Xbox, I don't have a problem with it, news is news, if HD DVD was in the same boat id still post it, im hoping HD DVD will pull through, but im not gonna go all greenpeace on Blu Ray.

Microsoft got taken to court in the US for anti-trust because the US legal system had reason to believe that Microsoft was a monopoly. (They damn near are). Intel would have been there in court with Microsoft had it not been for AMD having as much market share as it had.

The US court, for some reason, ruled in favor of Microsoft (I am guessing Microsoft had deep enough pockets to buy out the judge or something).

To indicate what happens when a company is taken to court for being a monopoly, I'll tell you of what happened to AT&T which is a phone company that DID have a monopoly. The US court mandated that AT&T split into 2 unaffiliated companies (the second company became Bell Atlantic, which is now Verizon...).

Had the courts did that Microsoft, there would be no Xbox (because the courts stipulated that, should any action be taken against microsoft, they'd have to divide their software and hardware divisions into 2 different companies.)

And again, if you truly knew what Consumer Sovereignty was, you wouldn't have posted it here. Consumer Sovereignty is nothing more than a utopian economic principle that has no bearing on our economy as it exists currently.

[Elven6]

Microsoft has never had a full Monopoly, it has about 90% or so, sueing a company for making a product that people use and losing isn't a big suprise. Every PC you buy will come with a copy of Windows, why? Because its the only OS you can legally sell on a PC. Its compatible with business systems, etc which is why people buy it.

Filing a Anti trust law suit for this reason is just the suers way of admiting their product sucks and they are unable to make one that could compete in a market.

Look at Apple, they only have a share of under 10%, but their not complaining, infact their using that to make their product better. In the late 90s Microsoft had the chance to have a 100% monopoly, because Apple was on the verge of bankrupcy, did they take it? No, instead they decided to work out an arrangment with that company so they could continue making their software.

Im not a lawyer, im just posting the news, I didn't have anything to do with how the article was typed up, ask him your questions not me, he obiously knows more about the issue then I do.

[F9zDark]

Microsoft has never had a full Monopoly, it has about 90% or so, sueing a company for making a product that people use and losing isn't a big suprise. Every PC you buy will come with a copy of Windows, why? Because its the only OS you can legally sell on a PC. Its compatible with business systems, etc which is why people buy it.

Filing a Anti trust law suit for this reason is just the suers way of admiting their product sucks and they are unable to make one that could compete in a market.

Look at Apple, they only have a share of under 10%, but their not complaining, infact their using that to make their product better. In the late 90s Microsoft had the chance to have a 100% monopoly, because Apple was on the verge of bankrupcy, did they take it? No, instead they decided to work out an arrangment with that company so they could continue making their software.

Im not a lawyer, im just posting the news, I didn't have anything to do with how the article was typed up, ask him your questions not me, he obiously knows more about the issue then I do.

People don't "sue" for anti-trust. The US legal system handles the case (like a criminal case for instance).

And Apple is rather pissed off about it, hence why they started making the new Macs with Intel chips and have made patches to make their operating systems work on PCs.

[Elven6]

Well use the other examples then,

Anyways Apple could only hate them so much, its a publicly stated fact that the 2 companies admire each other. I haven't heard of Mac OS working on a PC, Ive heard of the opposite though.

[F9zDark]

Well use the other examples then,

Anyways Apple could only hate them so much, its a publicly stated fact that the 2 companies admire each other. I haven't heard of Mac OS working on a PC, Ive heard of the opposite though.

I am quite certain their newest OS (Tiger? or Leopard? one of those) can work on a PC. I'll have to look around for it.

[Elven6]

I doubt that, since Mac OS uses custom drivers that aren't found in PC's. Emulating those drivers would probably take up alot of resources meaning you won't have much left afterwards.

Wow we went off topic, anyways if you have a problem with it, contact the guy who runs the site, not me, I just posted the news, I didn't have anything to do with the writing of the article itself.

[Accordion]

I doubt that, since Mac OS uses custom drivers that aren't found in PC's. Emulating those drivers would probably take up alot of resources meaning you won't have much left afterwards.

Wow we went off topic, anyways if you have a problem with it, contact the guy who runs the site, not me, I just posted the news, I didn't have anything to do with the writing of the article itself.

off topic and wrong

Mac OS X does run on 'PC's even if it is against the user agreement. Intel Macs are the same hardware as PCs.

As for HD-DVD here are some facts that make it a waste of effort to continue:

Lower production costs dont equal lower consumer cost

Lessor technical format

Canceling the CES conference

Putting HD-DVD components [the DVD upscaler] into new DVD players

Releasing new versions of the format you are trying to improve.

No news of HD-DVD products at CES. Toshiba has simply cut all the HD-DVD part from its show, giving no sign of hope from the company.

most of all:
When the consumer chooses the higher priced player there is a very big problem.
Even when the player is $200 with 5 free movies, Blu ray sales are higher.

[quzar]

I don't understand why people are "trying" to defame Blu-Ray and get "watchdog groups" on its case. Format wars hurt consumers and always have. Did the government step in when Beta-Max failed? No. And at the time, Beta-Max WAS SUPERIOR to VHS. Poor business decisions and vastly more expensive than VHS is what killed it.

But no one came onto the defense of Beta-Max and took down VHS.

Wrong wrong right wrong. The government was the biggest reason the Beta format failed in the consumer market. Universal filed suit against Sony for the format, and successfully injoined them from selling the technology for years while VHS took off. At the end, the courts realized that they had simply no clue about the technology to begin with and ended up protecting Sony's right to produce such technology. By the time that happened VHS had a huge chunk of the market share (in America) and Beta was unable to recover.

Now the playing field is different. Blu-Ray isn't that much more expensive than HD-DVD and most Blu-Ray movies I have seen at stores and online sell for around the same price if not less than HD-DVD movies (so Blu-Ray being more expensive doesn't affect us who buy movies and games; Xbox360 games on DVD are the same price as PS3 games on ...snip... the likes of Nintendo and Sony and we won't be allowed to buy their next-gen consoles? Or vice versa. That would be very, very bad for us.

Yes and no. As far as I've ever seen, the average price for blu-ray movies is higher than for HD-DVDs. At the same time, most HD-DVDs can be bought as hybrids, which means you don't need to own an HD DVD player to use them.

The problem that this guy is pointing out is that publicly held companies like Warner Studios require a sense of public consensus to make decisions like this. If they're telling shareholders "our movies on HDDVD weren't selling, so we're going to only go with blu-ray from now on", but in actuality Sony is paying them off to make the decision, it's a big deal.

Even when the player is $200 with 5 free movies, Blu ray sales are higher.

I never saw that figure anywhere, or I would have bought the thing. As to some of your other things:

Toshiba didn't have the dual format player ready for CES or they would have probably shown it off.

The formats are technically identical. The difference is only in density and is relatively slight. The biggest thing BR had going for it in all tech demos are it's crazy menu systems. The interactive online content and silly things like that. Of course, during the first year, they made multiple specifications updates, all of which required improved hardware. Some older players flat out don't play new movies, most will simply not be able to access that content.

AFAIK the only BR player out there (that is even reasonably priced) that can do the highest version is the PS3, after bios updates.

But lets stop being general. So here's some actual tech talk.

Both discs have the same maximum capacity (around 50GB). Practically, most BluRay releases are single layer (25GB), and most HD-DVD releases are dual layer (30GB).

Both discs use the exact same video codecs (MPEG-2, MPEG-4 AVC, and Microsoft's VC-1), with comparable specifications and limitations. Using either AVC or VC-1, 25GB is overkill for a high-def movie - throwing any more at it will not improve video quality in the slightest. Video quality between the two formats is exactly equivalent.

Yes, you can fit more special features onto a larger disc. I really doubt that's going to happen though - DVDs used to frequently have a second 9GB disc filled with special features. I haven't seen a new one in years, but I have plenty of them from 4 or 5 years ago. Studios have abandoned doing extra features on DVDs - what makes anyone think they'll start back up just because they have a bit more space to work with.

Nowadays most DVDs will just be the movie along with an equally long "making of" style feature, which is generally crap. I remember my first DVD was "The Matrix" one of the early popular DVD releases. If anyone else remembers the DVD, it allowed you to jump into the making of featurettes of each special effects heavy scene by pushing the alternate angle button when an icon appeared in the corner of the screen. Have you seen any DVD in the past 5 years use the angle button (that isn't a niche thing, like instructional videos, porn, or as a hack to have internationally localized things on the same disc) ?

Back to actual specifications.

Both disc formats use the same audio codecs as well - a choice between linear PCM, lossless compressed LPCM (with a couple of different codecs, but the details don't matter because the end result is identical), Dolby AC-3 and DTS. Again, audio quality between the two formats is exactly equivalent.

Both discs use the exact same copy protection system.

Both disc formats have comparable interactivity. In theory, BluRay is better because there are different levels of interactivity, with the highest being better than HD-DVD. However, there are no players (except the PS3, which would still need a firmware update) out there right now that will handle it. HD-DVD's support is better than BluRay's baseline support, and this is actually being used right now, while BluRay is still stuck at baseline, and probably will be for years.

Blu-Ray has two things going for it right now.

First is the PS3. Quick way to push the format into homes.

Second is that the media is making it seem like they are winning by a landslide. The poorest statistics I've seen for HDDVD say that it has 35% market share. By no means is this a faliure (even if this number is true, as most things I've seen say between 45 and 40). Things like LaserDisc, CED, DVHS, WVHS, VCD, LVD, whathaveyou NEVER had that high a share of their respective markets. THOSE are faliures (specifically in the US market, VCD, LD, LVD were all popular elsewhere). The PS3, having only (at best) 1/6th of the market for this "generation" of consoles, is a faliure. Having over a third of the market, even in a two way struggle, isn't a faliure.

[Elven6]

I lerned this from a Toshiba rep on Facebook, aparently the fact that its outselling HD DVD dosen't mean it will have the huge profit margins everyone is saying they will, since the disc cost more to make and stuff like that their is a very small difference between profit margins from the 2.

I heard a few weeks ago that Sony had signed a 5 year deal that stated they will take the production costs for those companies who produce on Blu Ray, meaning the companies will only make a profit.