The sudden capitulation of Toshiba leaves many questions in my mind:
Was there an agreement between Sony and Toshiba that we don't know about?
Why did the preponderance of movie studios choose Blu-Ray, and do so
exclusively?
Technically speaking, is there some Blu-Ray advantage other than the higher
capacity?
I don't expect to buy into HD any time in the near future, but it appeared
to me, based solely on public information, that HD-DVD was definitely a
lower cost system, and entirely adequate as a movie carrier. I would have
guessed that technical advantages would lead to a victory by HD-DVD. Yet,
it didn't happen.
normanstrong@comcast.net wrote:
> The sudden capitulation of Toshiba leaves many questions in my mind:
> Was there an agreement between Sony and Toshiba that we don't know about?
Could be. Many speculate that it was Microsoft that urged Toshiba to
stick with HD-DVD even when they were ready to go with blu-ray way back in
2005, which would have avoided the whole format war altogether.
> Why did the preponderance of movie studios choose Blu-Ray, and do so
> exclusively?
The blu-ray camp (not just Sony) paid them.
> Technically speaking, is there some Blu-Ray advantage other than the higher
> capacity?
Blu-ray supports some better audio formats, but the reality is that most
folks won't notice or even realize this.
> I don't expect to buy into HD any time in the near future, but it appeared
> to me, based solely on public information, that HD-DVD was definitely a
> lower cost system, and entirely adequate as a movie carrier. I would have
> guessed that technical advantages would lead to a victory by HD-DVD. Yet,
> it didn't happen.
This format war wasn't decided by consumers - if it were, the war would
still be going since most consumers had been ignoring both formats because
they either didn't have HD, didn't care, or didn't want to get burned by
making the "wrong" choice (ala VHS/Betamax of 20 years ago). Instead, I
think retailers had a big say. Since blu-ray discs and players are more
expensive, they make more money per sale than HD-DVD did, so retailers
would favor blu-ray over HD-DVD simply for that reason - especially since
there are no significant technological differences between the formats.
> normanstrong@comcast.net wrote:
>
>>The sudden capitulation of Toshiba leaves many questions in my mind:
>
>>Was there an agreement between Sony and Toshiba that we don't know about?
>
> Could be. Many speculate that it was Microsoft that urged Toshiba to
> stick with HD-DVD even when they were ready to go with blu-ray way back in
> 2005, which would have avoided the whole format war altogether.
There's rumors that Toshiba had *already* been set to throw in the towel
after Warner, Bill Gates be darned, and Netflix and Wal-mart had gotten
wind of the pre-surrender ahead of time--
Effects, rather than Cause.
Paramount/Dreamworks, as we eventually learned, only "cho$e" HD because
A) Toshiba promised to pay the bills on the Star Trek: Remastered disks,
and B) had sold them a bill of goods that Warner's loyalty was "just
around the corner", and Paramount had been rather disgruntled to find
out it wasn't.
....Still, they believed that Toshiba believed it.
(<makes "coo-coo" ear-circle>)
> The sudden capitulation of Toshiba leaves many questions in my mind:
>
> Was there an agreement between Sony and Toshiba that we don't know about?
No, Toshiba had their heart broken over Warner:
After going dual, Warner had been playing hard-to-get about studio
loyalty, since they had so much of their future cash invested in their
abortive dual-format technology, without blabbing too much about their
patents to the rest of the industry--
Toshiba had certainly been throwing money their way, and bragged to all
the other studios in the locker room, like Paramount and Dreamworks,
that "Yeah, they dig us"...But Warner played it cagey, and Toshiba, like
the proverbial high-school geek one week before the prom, was naive
enough to think that No Meant Maybe, especially if it didn't *happen* to
sound like "no".
They didn't even happen to notice Warner and New Line execs complaining
*loudly* about those Dual-Factory Blues, and when Warner went out with
Blu...Toshiba, you been DUMPED.
And everything that the Dream Had Built went with it. -_-
> Why did the preponderance of movie studios choose Blu-Ray, and do so
> exclusively?
Disney chose Blu because of Apple, and Sony chose Blu because of Sony,
but they made it look good.
On Wed, 27 Feb 2008 11:53:50 -0800, <normanstrong@comcast.net> wrote:
>The sudden capitulation of Toshiba leaves many questions in my mind:
>
>Was there an agreement between Sony and Toshiba that we don't know about?
>
>Why did the preponderance of movie studios choose Blu-Ray, and do so
>exclusively?
>
>Technically speaking, is there some Blu-Ray advantage other than the higher
>capacity?
Capacity is a BIG factor. Media has typically moved to higher
capacity. What about the cost per GB?
>I don't expect to buy into HD any time in the near future, but it appeared
>to me, based solely on public information, that HD-DVD was definitely a
>lower cost system, and entirely adequate as a movie carrier. I would have
>guessed that technical advantages would lead to a victory by HD-DVD. Yet,
>it didn't happen.
>
>Norm Strong
>
I really don't think "Blu-ray" has won at all. There are so few
titles available in Blu-ray compared to regular DVD. Lower the cost
of Blu-ray to just a shade above regular DVD and chances are good it
will become a standard.
normanstrong@comcast.net wrote:
> The sudden capitulation of Toshiba leaves many questions in my mind:
>
> Was there an agreement between Sony and Toshiba that we don't know about?
yes, they agreed on the grassy knoll.
--
Outside of a dog, a book is a man's best friend. Inside a dog, it's too
dark to read. - Groucho Marx
On Wed, 27 Feb 2008 11:53:50 -0800, <normanstrong@comcast.net> wrote:
>The sudden capitulation of Toshiba leaves many questions in my mind:
>
>Was there an agreement between Sony and Toshiba that we don't know about?
>
>Why did the preponderance of movie studios choose Blu-Ray, and do so
>exclusively?
>
>Technically speaking, is there some Blu-Ray advantage other than the higher
>capacity?
>
>I don't expect to buy into HD any time in the near future, but it appeared
>to me, based solely on public information, that HD-DVD was definitely a
>lower cost system, and entirely adequate as a movie carrier. I would have
>guessed that technical advantages would lead to a victory by HD-DVD. Yet,
>it didn't happen.
>
>Norm Strong
>
Just a thought. Why didn't they make players that could use both
types? I know the Beta tapes of years ago were a different physical
size, but all DVDs are the same diameter.
I dont know the technical aspects of all of this, or for that matter
why they even developed two types, but I'd think that they could
incorporate both with the flip of a switch?????
It would seem to me that they just wanted to make more money by
selling the hd-dvd stuff and then making it useless.
In some ways, I cant even figure why they need any DVDs of the HD
type. Plain DVDs seem to work just fine for me, but then I just have
a standard tv and never saw a need for anything more. When they come
way down in price, I may consder both the HDTV and the DVD setup, but
at the prices they charge now, I would not even consider it. After
all, it's just a two hour movie, and then normal life carries on......
This makes me wonder what percentage of people even own the HD types.
It would seem to me it would only be a very small percentage of people
who take their tv watching really seriously.
<jerryaltman@invalid.com> wrote in message
news:qfhcs39g8132jg2h1rv59ot0olsfed118m@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 27 Feb 2008 11:53:50 -0800, <normanstrong@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>>The sudden capitulation of Toshiba leaves many questions in my mind:
>>
>>Was there an agreement between Sony and Toshiba that we don't know about?
>>
>>Why did the preponderance of movie studios choose Blu-Ray, and do so
>>exclusively?
>>
>>Technically speaking, is there some Blu-Ray advantage other than the
>>higher
>>capacity?
>>
>>I don't expect to buy into HD any time in the near future, but it appeared
>>to me, based solely on public information, that HD-DVD was definitely a
>>lower cost system, and entirely adequate as a movie carrier. I would have
>>guessed that technical advantages would lead to a victory by HD-DVD. Yet,
>>it didn't happen.
>>
>>Norm Strong
>>
>
> Just a thought. Why didn't they make players that could use both
> types? I know the Beta tapes of years ago were a different physical
> size, but all DVDs are the same diameter.
>
> I dont know the technical aspects of all of this, or for that matter
> why they even developed two types, but I'd think that they could
> incorporate both with the flip of a switch?????
> It would seem to me that they just wanted to make more money by
> selling the hd-dvd stuff and then making it useless.
>
> In some ways, I cant even figure why they need any DVDs of the HD
> type. Plain DVDs seem to work just fine for me, but then I just have
> a standard tv and never saw a need for anything more. When they come
> way down in price, I may consder both the HDTV and the DVD setup, but
> at the prices they charge now, I would not even consider it. After
> all, it's just a two hour movie, and then normal life carries on......
> This makes me wonder what percentage of people even own the HD types.
> It would seem to me it would only be a very small percentage of people
> who take their tv watching really seriously.
>
> Jerry
There are players that play both types. They cost more than two single
players......
On Wed, 27 Feb 2008 20:57:41 -0000, Doug Jacobs
<djacobs@shell.rawbw.com> wrote:
>This format war wasn't decided by consumers - if it were, the war would
>still be going since most consumers had been ignoring both formats because
>they either didn't have HD, didn't care, or didn't want to get burned by
>making the "wrong" choice (ala VHS/Betamax of 20 years ago). Instead, I
>think retailers had a big say. Since blu-ray discs and players are more
>expensive, they make more money per sale than HD-DVD did, so retailers
>would favor blu-ray over HD-DVD simply for that reason - especially since
>there are no significant technological differences between the formats.
Since Blu-ray is now the dominate format, wouldn't that mean more
players and movies would start coming out and flood the market,
driving the price down?
I'm not going to jump the bandwagon just yet, sticking with my 20 year
old CED player.
> The sudden capitulation of Toshiba leaves many questions in my mind:
>
> Was there an agreement between Sony and Toshiba that we don't know about?
Highly unlikely, but that doesn't stop the conspiracy theorists.
> Why did the preponderance of movie studios choose Blu-Ray, and do so
> exclusively?
They didn't until Warner Home Entertainment, the biggest disc
distributor, went Blu-ray exclusive in early January. The studios didn't
really care which format won, or even if there were two formats so long
as it didn't hurt disc sales. But it looked like the format war was
hurting sales, so the studios started trying to tip the balance and end
the war by going exclusive. And that's exactly what happened when Warner
went Blu.
> Technically speaking, is there some Blu-Ray advantage other than the higher
> capacity?
A higher transfer rate than HD DVD. Not important for watching video,
but of some significance, along with capacity, for a next-generation
data storage format. That's why most of the computer industry backed
Blu-ray early on.
> I don't expect to buy into HD any time in the near future, but it appeared
> to me, based solely on public information, that HD-DVD was definitely a
> lower cost system, and entirely adequate as a movie carrier. I would have
> guessed that technical advantages would lead to a victory by HD-DVD. Yet,
> it didn't happen.
At the retail level, HD DVD's lower costs showed up only in the prices
of players, which most observers believe Toshiba was selling below cost.
Consumers have become used to rapidly falling hardware prices for new
technology, and the typical DVD user spends as much on disc purchases
and rentals in a single year as he spent on his player, whatever its
price. So to consumers, player prices aren't as important as discs --
how much they cost, how long their format will be around, and what
content is available on them. The first was a draw, as was the second
for the duration of the format war. The third was in the control of the
studios.
Despite Toshiba's aggressive price cutting in 2007, only a pitifully
small number of stand-alone HD DVD players had been sold by the end of
the year, mostly in North America. (The rest of the world preferred
Blu-ray, although sales of stand-alone BD players were also pretty
feeble.) In worldwide disc sales, Blu-ray outsold HD DVD by about two to
one in 2007, even during Toshiba's last quarter player price offensive
-- something that now looks like the format war's Battle of the Bulge.
For titles, like Warner's, available in both formats, the Blu-ray
usually outsold the HD DVD version by a comfortable margin. Cheaper HD
DVD hardware was not helping HD DVD disc sales. It was those disc sales
figures, not some mythical secret payment from Sony, that induced Warner
to go Blu.
Format war over. Why? 
Linear Mode
