Sony Calls Current Blu-ray/HD DVD Format War a 'Stalemate 547
unger814 writes "Sony CEO Howard Stringer says that Blu-ray and HD DVD are currently in a 'stalemate' and is 'playing down the importance of the battle.' Stringer addressed a crowd at Manhattan's 92nd Street Y cultural center Thursday, where he said that 'it was a matter of prestige' which format wins. Stringer pointed to the switch by Paramount from producing movies in both formats to only HD DVD as a turning point. 'We were trying to win on the merits, which we were doing for a while, until Paramount changed sides,' Stringer said."
If Sony's calling it a stalemate... (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Sounds like Surrender (Score:1, Informative)
So maybe they should try to TIGHTEN their money. You lazy fuck, learn some spelling and grammar.
Winning on its own merits (Score:3, Informative)
In other words, they want to call the other side names, make claims the other sides technology is inferior, but can't do it and remain professional.
Right now, in the DVD war the only thing BluRay has over HD is Disney. Thats the most important line they have which seems to be limited to BluRay.
Since HD DVD players have recently hit $99 on special deals, hell even regular price $199 versions can come with up to TEN movies, its only a matter of time before BluRay is just another Sony product unique to Sony.
Re:If Sony's calling it a stalemate... (Score:3, Informative)
Re:If Sony's calling it a stalemate... (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Chess (Score:5, Informative)
What a load of drivel. If this was true, then nobody would ever win a game of chess...yes, that would be exciting, wouldn't it.
Re:A pox on both their houses (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Not sure what he means. (Score:5, Informative)
http://www.tech.co.uk/home-entertainment/high-definition/news/toshiba-welcomes-paramount-hd-dvd-deal?articleid=734466306 [tech.co.uk]
First link that came up in google for "toshiba paramount deal"
This is just the cost of doing business.
Comment removed (Score:3, Informative)
The Blu-ray Advantage (Score:5, Informative)
But if you want to point to something that blu-ray has that consumers will care about, it's the Sony catalog. It is huge. And the crown jewel is the entire James Bond collection. Joe Six-pack WILL want to see those on his player.
Re:If Sony's calling it a stalemate... (Score:3, Informative)
For a current snapshot of Amazon, you can check the Product Wars site [eproductwars.com], which keeps current rankings of the two formats and comparison charts over time.
Re:It's actually worse than that (Score:5, Informative)
The laser diodes are identical for both BluRay and HD-DVD.
Too bad there isn't a (-1, Wrong)...
Re:If Sony's calling it a stalemate... (Score:3, Informative)
Frankly, I'd love to see actual sales numbers of HD-DVD vs. Blu-Ray discs.
Re:They should have known better (Score:3, Informative)
Re:If you want to win, lower the prices $29.99 (Score:2, Informative)
B&M is for losers and the impatient. There's tons of HD discs available for $19.95 on amazon, and there's probably similar deals on other sites.
In fact, recently there have been sales as low as $15 for catalog titles.
Re:Hmm (Score:2, Informative)
Re:The Blu-ray Advantage (Score:1, Informative)
The perceived lack of space on HD-DVD is, in reality, a complete non-issue.
Re:Hmm (Score:2, Informative)
I'm personally staying out of this mess until there's a single, industry-wide standard. And it doesn't look like Blu-Ray is going to be it. Take a look at this Gizmodo article http://gizmodo.com/gadgets/exclusive/the-state-of-blu+ray-320077.php [gizmodo.com] describing the THREE Blu-Ray ""Profiles". Holy crap. As if there wasn't enough confusion in the typical consumer's mind.
Re:A pox on both their houses (Score:3, Informative)
Re:A pox on both their houses (Score:3, Informative)
No offence, but you really need to get your eyes checked. I know it sounds mean, but the difference between a 30" SD CRT and a 30" HD CRT is
I have a 30" HD CRT, and I could tell the difference long before I had any HD programming (I got it specifically for DVDs and future development). My set can do 1080i, and believe me, the difference between even the junky overcompressed SciFi channel in SD and HD is very noticeable.
If you can't see it, I really do think you might have vision problems. And again, I know this sounds like I'm flaming/trolling, and I apologise for that, but I can't think of any other reason why you couldn't tell the difference.
One more... (Score:3, Informative)
Me.
The rootkit was the straw that broke the camel's back, though. I bought a Sony home theater system around five years ago. The DVD changer in it broke, so I sent it in for warranty repair. It took months for them to fix it and get it back to me, and when they finally did, it was still broken. They obviously hadn't checked to make sure it was working before sending it back. So I returned it again, and they fixed it that time. Just before the warranty expired, the DVD changer broke yet again, so I send it back again. They fixed it and sent it back after another month or so. Then around a year later, one of the speaker ports screwed up, causing the center channel to emit a constant high-pitched whistle. I wasn't about to pay to get something fixed that would probably break again soon anyway, so I cut my losses and threw the thing away.
Then, of course, there was the whole PS3 debacle. Sony was so nauseatingly arrogant about the whole thing, acting as if paying $600 for a gaming console that was a thinly veiled attempt at foisting their Blu-ray format on everyone would be a privilege. They didn't take any competition seriously, from a console gaming or a next-gen HD format point of view, and they got their clocks cleaned. That was extremely satisfying to watch. The reason I hate Blu-ray isn't because of its technical merits or lack thereof, it's because of how it was pushed on the public.
From what I hear, Sony used to be a really kick-ass company. Maybe someday they will be again after they learn some humility and what their place in the food chain is (i.e. under the wants and needs of its customers). But for now, they've just done too much wrong and lost my respect.
Re:A pox on both their houses (Score:3, Informative)
The difference between HD and SD is light and day. HD-DVD is blatantly superior to DVD, and the different is excruciatingly obvious to myself and any of my friends who watch movies with me (I've even had friends buy a version of a movie on HD-DVD just because they wanted to check it out on my HD setup).
A great way to notice the difference is ESPN. Wait for a game to air, and switch to the HD version of the channel. Then switch to the SD version (well, my cable company carries both... I'm assuming most others do, too). Channel switch a few times. If the difference isn't obvious, then I would argue that either you have very poor eyesight, awful cable company service, or an improperly setup configuration (running RCA cables to the TV instead of Component/HDMI, for instance).
Everybody I've shown my HD setup to has been bowled over. I just can't understand how someone can't tell the difference on a 50" TV. Even my grandparents, who are nearing 80 years old, could perceive the clarity.
Re:Hmm (Score:2, Informative)
1920x1080 video does fit on a DVD9... (Score:5, Informative)
Actually it can. The issue is (using the VC-1 Codec) it can only contain ~83 minutes of it, which discounts most "non-animated made for TV movies".
Re:Just Bought (Score:2, Informative)
Re:After the rootkit...... (Score:2, Informative)
A view from the inside... (Score:3, Informative)
Yet, from what I can tell, HD-DVD has the potential of being much cheaper than BR. (I realize this is like saying I have the potential to bone Natalie Portman, just saying.)
Two major factors:
First, licensing. While both are going to use AACS, I would guess that other licenses around HD-DVD would be cheaper. I could be completely wrong about that.
Second, DRM. HD-DVD can come without DRM, and some small studios are doing it. It means fewer features -- for example, no access to the 128 megs of flash memory that's on every player -- but it also saves you a licensing fee. BR not only requires AACS, they allow two additional standards: BD+ and BD-ROM Mark. The latter requires some data stored elsewhere on the disk -- I would guess this increases the cost of manufacturing.
From what I understand, in fact, it's relatively cheap to upgrade a standard DVD facility to support HD-DVD, and I know at least a few discs are coming that are literally two-sided -- one side DVD, one side HD. BR requires completely new equipment.
Also, the fact that HD-DVD has been $99 already suggests that it will win among non-gamers. The player will be cheaper, the discs are likely cheaper to produce (so can become cheaper), and the A2 is a damned good standard DVD player, too -- has a great upscaler, says my boss (who has a massive 1080p TV at home).
Now, the technical parts.
BR is the more flexible spec, it seems. Looking at a matrix between the two, on BR, secondary video and audio decoders (for picture-in-picture and, I guess, an overlayed audio commentary track), and Internet connectivity are all optional. It doesn't mention persistent storage, which is again, supported, but optional.
All of these things are mandatory on HD-DVD. Doesn't mean you need an Internet connection, but it means that every player must have an Ethernet port. Again, BR has more expensive players, but the cheapest ones aren't obligated to support any of these features.
The things that are mandatory on Blu-ray: more restrictions, and a bigger disc, always. By "more restrictions", there's the DRM, and also the region coding. (HD-DVDs are region-free.)
How many gamers are there, versus non-gamers who will want this? I've heard of stores that have stopped selling SD TVs, and for $99, with a decent upscaler, that A2 is not a bad SD DVD player. So for all the millions of Average Joes out there, who don't play games and don't care about the "format war", this is still a sensible upgrade if they're into DVDs at all.
Yes, they do, you just don't seem to care about it:
Well, first, the 300 HD-DVD appears to use more than a single layer for the main video alone. That's 15 gigs per layer. So "20 hours" could be made to fit, yes, but realistically, the space isn't entirely unused.
Second, even if you're convinced it is, HD-DVD, at least, supports red-laser discs. That means you can get an HD-DVD movie, with all the trimmings, on a dual-layer DVD disc, if it will fit.
As for the "PC-style navigation", that sounds like someone who hasn't used it. There are more than enough gimmicks to sell this concept, and remember, Joe User doesn't give a fuck about DRM; he didn't give a fuck about DRM when this was about DVD vs VHS and your argument might have been for Video CDs (but with MP
Re:Just Bought (Score:2, Informative)
So was DVD back in the mid-90s. That's why we have higher durability 4.7 GB DVDs instead of less reliable 5 GB discs (DVD format history [wikipedia.org]).
Also, there are people who use it exclusively for data storage. I would prefer using 50 GB Blu-Ray discs over 30 GB HD DVD discs (unless, of course, Toshiba's 51 GB triple-layer HD DVD format becomes popular and cheaper than dual-layer BD-Rs).