Topic: The War Begins...

[Clondalkin]

instead of hd-dvd, they could have called it "red ink"

I believe the ink is still more bloody red on the BD side yet.  sub $200 BD player...WHEN?  Hopefully, the "alleged fire-sale" of Toshiba HD DVD players would somehow bring down the price of BD players.

They can call it Uni/Para/Dreamwork HD Player for now, and it's not totally over yet until the Japanese Emperor surrenders.    

Don't underestimate Toshiba.  That company has nuclear technology.   

I find it amusing that the HD DVD boxer got hit with a heavy Warner punch right on the face by the BD boxer, and then all BD fans including the ring announcer, round lady, towel boys, and simpleng miron seem to have rushed inside the ring to do the pummeling themselves.        Got to wait for the Uni/Para/Dreamworks haymaker yet.

[juneaki]

I believe the continuation of the HD war benefits more the consumers.  With the war continuing, competition not only push the manufacturer to make better product to outsell the competition but also tend to lower the price to appeal to the consumers to buy their poduct. But once for example the Sony and the blu ray camp won, they can now dictate a higher price for their player.  Baka lalo na hindi ko ma-experienced manood ng 1080p HD video  :'(

[barrister]

Good observation. 

But it's now genearally accepted that Blu-ray has already won, so Blu-ray prices have nowhere to go but up.

[Clondalkin]

But it's now genearally accepted that Blu-ray has already won, so Blu-ray prices have nowhere to go but up.

PS3 prices have nowhere to go but down, or at least remain at their current levels for a while.  They can't increase the price of "The BD Player" that can play games.   Sony had to actually introduce the cheaper PS3 option in order to compete with the Xbox360.  But that is another war.

Makes me wonder what could have happened if the 15M+ (or is it 17M now?) Xbox360s had built-in HD DVD playback?

[Clondalkin]

Ok, the momentum is really on the side of the BD camp right now.  But it's not like the BD camp has actually flooded the industry with bazillions of new titles since the Warner announcement.  Fox still remains nothing more than a studio with "release dates."   BD players are still expensive.  HD DVD players are really cheap.   There are more than 300 titles already released in HD DVD, and many of them are really worth buying.   Toshiba may be in desperate position but if they can somehow manage to keep Universal, Paramount and Dreamworks, and they can flood the market with cheaper HD DVD players, they can probably protract the war.  1M HD DVD user base may pale in comparison against the millions of PS3 owners, but let's not forget that HDM is still very much a niche market when viewed in the overall home entertainment world.

Perhaps Toshiba should consider concentrating in India or China as well?

I did sound desperate didn't I?   


 

[barrister]

PS3 prices have nowhere to go but down, ...  They can't increase the price of "The BD Player" that can play games.  

Why not? 

PS3 initial production cost is estimated to have been US$805.85 for the 20 GB model and US$840.35 for the 60 GB model, but they were priced at US$499 and US$599, respectively.  The high manufacturing costs meant that every unit was sold at a loss of approximately $250, contributing to Sony's games division's operating loss of ¥232.3 billion (US$1.97 billion) for the fiscal year ending March 2007. 

http://ps3.ign.com/articles/746/746482p1.html

In April 2007, soon after these results were published, Ken Kutaragi, the head of gaming at Sony, announced plans to retire. Various news agencies, including The Times and The Wall Street Journal reported that this was due to poor sales, while SCEI maintained that Kutaragi had been planning his retirement for six months prior to the announcement.  (Wikipedia)

Price cuts continued mainly because of the HD war, while Sony continued to absorb losses.

It's hard to imagine that these guys won't try to recover those losses this time, now that the competition is out of the way.

[Clondalkin]

Why not? 

Price cuts continued mainly because of the HD war, while Sony continued to absorb losses.

It's hard to imagine that these guys won't try to recover those losses this time, now that the competition is out of the way.

Well they have to compete against Toshiba on one side, and an even more powerful MS Xbox on the other.  So they might be winning the hi def movie war, but on hi def gaming console side, I don't think so.   But regardless, has there been any precedence of "hardware price increase" in the consumer electronic world???   I think the common thinking is that Sony would try to recover losses from software sales, but given the amount of losses already incurred, it's gonna take years of dramatically increasing content sales in order to achieve that.

I tend to believe that article which mentioned something like BD may have won the hi def war but could lose in the end.  Even at the moment, they are already losing some significant ground from downloadable hi def rips...and granted you only get to enjoy those 4.5GB-8.5GB high def contents using a PC, they are pretty darn awesome quality images even if you put your face next to the monitor.   I plead guilty on that.

[et414]

when, in the history of gaming consoles has there ever been a price increase? the $800+ manufacturing cost was a year ago. if you read the next paragraph of that wikipedia article, it states that:

Since the system's launch, production costs have been reduced significantly as a result of phasing out the EE chip and falling hardware costs. The cost of manufacturing Cell microprocessors has fallen dramatically as a result of moving to the 65 nm production process and Blu-ray diodes being cheaper to manufacture. As of January 2008, each unit costs around $400 to manufacture.


and anyway, winning over hddvd is only half the battle. the bda still has a lot of work to do to replace dvd as the dominant format.

[barrister]

I think the common thinking is that Sony would try to recover losses from software sales, but given the amount of losses already incurred, it's gonna take years of increasing content sales in order to achieve that.

I think that would be the better approach.  Sony could be aware of this, and it's good if they move in the right direction.

It's also widely specualted that PS3 game titles are few because of the difficulty involved in authoring a complex format.

Is PS3 Programming Really More Difficult?        
Written by nblachford    
Thursday, 14 June 2007  

http://www.ps3coderz.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=127&Itemid=54

I didn't understand much of it , but it's still worth a read.


But Sony is still trying to figure out a solution.  They recently reduced fees for a PS3 kit to encourage third party game designers.

Sony halves fees for PlayStation 3 software development to encourage outside game designers
By YURI KAGEYAMA
Nov. 19, 2007

http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/GadgetGuide/story?id=3885881&page=1
 

[Ctlim]

ive been in consumer goods marketing for 10 years now and I would have never approached an evolutionary approach with dvd's. these are high involvement products and there will always be more hype in evolution.

do you think it would have made a difference had xbox just built in an hddvd player? like blu-ray on the ps3?

[barrister]

No.  The clincher was content.

As long as all or nearly all future releases of movie titles will be released exclusively on Blu-ray, then Blu-ray would win, regardless of whether or not HD DVD had been built into the XBox.

Content is king. 

[Clondalkin]

do you think it would have made a difference had xbox just built in an hddvd player? like blu-ray on the ps3?

I think yes.  If the HD DVD were built-in into the 360, there would have been at least 5M more HD DVD user base than that of BD.   15M+ current owners of the 360 against about 1M HD DVD owners, that's quite a giant leap in numbers of potential media buyers even if you consider that many Xbots may not be interested in movies.

At the very least, I think Warner would have maintained neutrality with that number of HD DVD players.   Unfortunately, Microsoft's support has always been half-hearted.

[Ctlim]

^ total opposite sa comment ni barrister.

i think even content providers will take the existing base of early adopters into consideration before they decide on which format to support short term and long term, studio's shifting from hd-dvd to blu-ray probably tells us that, content cannot be king forever. ultimately, its the consumers that are king.

[pchin]

content cannot be king forever. ultimately, its the consumers that are king.

Majority of consumers buy HD based on the contents. Without good studios supporting it's very hard for a format to prevail.

I'm neutral but initially started with HD DVD = 50 & Blu-ray = 0. Now look at my total collections. 

[Clondalkin]

Majority of consumers buy HD based on the contents. Without good studios supporting it's very hard for a format to prevail.

I'm neutral but initially started with HD DVD = 50 & Blu-ray = 0. Now look at my total collections. 

Pchin you are at a virtual tie until Warner's announcement, and it was not that difficult to imagine that both these formats could have eventually co-existed peacefully.  Everybody knows that it wasn't exactly BD media outselling HD DVD by 2 to 1 or 3 to 1 because they have better contents or more studios.  In fact, it can be easily argued that HD DVD have the better contents even up to now, and their studio support was decently productive .  However, the number of PS3 owners are simply too massive compared to that of HD DVD.

He who's willing to spend gold, has the rules.

[pchin]

The point I try to illustrate is I started HD DVD in Jan 2007 but Blu-ray in Nov 2007. But within such a short time blu-ray collection simply catch up. Prior to WB's announcement it's a tie na on both formats. I'm still a HD DVD supporter at heart. But what tempted me to try Blu-ray was the vast available titles.

Speaking PS3 owners, I'm one of them (the cheapest blu-ray player I can afford) In a way, I'm also hoping both formats can co-existed.

[Ctlim]

Pchin you are at a virtual tie until Warner's announcement, and it was not that difficult to imagine that both these formats could have eventually co-existed peacefully.  Everybody knows that it wasn't exactly BD media outselling HD DVD by 2 to 1 or 3 to 1 because they have better contents or more studios.  In fact, it can be easily argued that HD DVD have the better contents even up to now, and their studio support was decently productive .  However, the number of PS3 owners are simply too massive compared to that of HD DVD.

He who's willing to spend gold, has the rules.

thats actually what I was pointing to. the number of ps3 owners that have direct access to a BD player compared to that of the xbox360 which has an optional hd-dvd player.

was the base of ps3 owners too large to ignore? compared to that of the difference between those with an xbox but does not have an add on hddvd player?

whether hd-dvd of blu-ray; i was always for having just one format. (probably because i havent seen electronic companies seriously developing dual format players) to force consumers to just go for high def, regardless of the format and just buy the content that they like.

and since I bought a ps3, its only logical to buy bluray discs... had i gotten an xbox 360, i would have contemplated if I were to spend the extra cash on an hddvd add on... and I could have gone either way. which is exactly what happened to hddvd in xbox.

[Mouldingo]

If Microsoft waited and included a permanent HD DVD drive, they would not have this unsurmountable lead in the console wars. Their thinking was since no one uses a PS2 as a DVD player, why should anyone use a Xbox as a HD DVD player. The PS3 however proved to be a different class since it is easily the cheapest  blu ray and it multimedia functions are awesome...

[pchin]

the number of ps3 owners that have direct access to a BD player compared to that of the xbox360 which has an optional hd-dvd player.

Yes in a way but not enitirely. PS3 costed more than Xbox 360 + Addon combined. Many serious AV consumers prefer PS3 as their Blu-ray player. In fact, stand alone HD DVD players are much cheaper than PS3. Many of my friends that own PS3 use it to watch Blu-ray movies as their primary purpose. 

The PS3 however proved to be a different class since it is easily the cheapest  blu ray and it multimedia functions are awesome...

Yes I hate to agree....that's what made me got the PS3 tho initially I was totally against a game console. But with the great BOGO promo...dam I just can't resist anymore...

[tonedeaf]

Blu Ray craps on customers

http://www.hdtv-news.co.uk/2008/01/16/blu-ray-craps-on-customers/

The recent announcement that Blu Ray may have effectively won the HD format wars over HD DVD took a bizarre twist today.

According to a report on the BBC, continued development of Blu-ray technology will leave all existing Blu-ry customers behind - because their machines are not built to upgrade.

The problem arises because Blu-ray are pushing for a range of new features for Blu Ray machines which are simply not accessible for most existing customers.

Blu-ray developers intend to release an upgraded version later this year, called BD Live, which allows Blu-ray players to connect to the internet and download content, not least video and images.

However, internet connectivity was never built into most Blu-ray players to date, making the ability to upgrade to the new features difficult at best.

The only Blu-ray player built with internet connectivity as mandatory is the Sony Playstation 3.

While Blu-ray are trying to play down the impact on consumers, citing the fact that people were looking for a HD experience first, the fact of the matter is that customers are likely to feel left behind, and let down.

It’s patently ridiculous that the Blu-ray camp appear to have lacked any long-term vision at the start, which could have enabled them to provide further features to all customers at a later date by equipping hardware to upgrade along with such a plan.

Instead, it seems that Blu-ray have put all their effort into beating the HD DVD format, and only then decide what would come next if they looked like winning.

The result is that there are now expected to be no less than three different Blu-ray profile machines is use this year - the original profile 1.0, an updated profile 1.1, and now the development of profile 2.0 with the net-enabled features.

All along we were told that the DVD format war was between two rivials: Blu-ray and HD DVD.

Now it looks as though consumers may feel justified in feeling misled, as the facts of the matter suggest it was HD DVD vs three different levels of Blu-ray format.

Frank Simonis, of Philips and the European chairman of the Blu-ray Disc Association, basically states in the BBC article that Blu-ray wasn’t ready to compete with HD DVD at the start of the format war, so they effectively rushed something out just to get a presence on the market.

The result, as we’re seeing now, is that the early adopters who built the original Blu-ray momentum are to be left behind. Mr Simonis is even quoted as making a rather snotty comment:

“The guys that bought the first Blu-ray players are the guys who bought the first laser discs. They know the risks.”

In other words - thanks for pushing our profile, now buy new or get lost.

Not the best message to send to your customers.

[tetablanco]

No.  The clincher was content.

As long as all or nearly all future releases of movie titles will be released exclusively on Blu-ray, then Blu-ray would win, regardless of whether or not HD DVD had been built into the XBox.

Content is king. 

Your statement that "content is king" is only partly true since the type of content available for a particular format would eventually determine the winner of the format wars. 

Some observers argue that what tipped the scales in favor of VHS in the Betamax / VHS format wars is the porno industry.  In contrast to Sony's earlier decision to ban "independent" studios from publishing pornographic content in Betamax format, VHS embraced the porno industry wholeheartedly by allowing porno films to come out in VHS format.  Presently and partly due to its alliance with Disney (a family-oriented studio), Sony maintains its official stand against porno content being published in Bluray format.  However (and mindful of its painful Betamax experience), Sony is being very hypocritical in this regard since it chooses to look the other way when other manufacturers of Bluray disks come out with pornographic titles in Bluray format.  One fellow PDVDer earlier posted that a major pornographic studio has dumped its support for HD-DVD in favor of exclusively publishing its videos on DVD and Bluray formats.  Clearly, Sony has learned its lesson.   

 

[barrister]

thats actually what I was pointing to. the number of ps3 owners that have direct access to a BD player compared to that of the xbox360 which has an optional hd-dvd player.

That issue has already been discussed to death.

PS3 included Blu-ray in the hope that PS3 will drive Blu-ray into the mass market, in the same way that PS2 was allegedly responsible for the DVD's success.  

Sony's idea that the DVD was successful because of PS2 would be scoffed at by many observers as a conceited revision of history, but believe it or not, Sony CEO Howard Stringer officially said so:

"The people who like Blu-ray are the people who play PlayStation 3, just as people who play PS2s were the early proponents of the DVD format. It drove the DVD format."

http://www.news.com/Sonys-brave-Sir-Howard/2008-1041_3-6150661.html

In contrast, XBox 360 did not include an HD DVD player because they wanted the consumer to have a choice.  In their view, PS3's inclusion of a Blu-ray player was forcing the consumer to also buy Blu-ray.

But did the inclusion of a Blu-ray player on PS3 actually push Blu-ray into victory?

I highly doubt it, because the average gamer cares about games, not movies.  And my opinion is backed by data:


Report: Gamers largely clueless about
next-gen console media capabilities
By Ben Kuchera
Published: August 09, 2007

http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20070809-report-gamers-largely-clueless-about-next-gen-console-media-capabilities.html

and since I bought a ps3, its only logical to buy bluray discs... had i gotten an xbox 360, i would have contemplated if I were to spend the extra cash on an hddvd add on... and I could have gone either way.

That's just you, because you're more knowledgeable than the average person.  But the same is not true of the vast majority of console buyers.



=========================================================


2006:

The Cymfony survey (first posted by sir Munskie) showed in late 2006 that the consumer preferred HD DVD:

http://www.cymfony.com/Blu-ray.pdf

If the consumer is king, then why didn't the tide turn in favor of HD DVD at that time?


2007:

As of November 2007, Blu-ray held an approximately 2:1 media-shipment lead over HD DVD, month after month, since the war started.  If the consumer is king, and consumer preference was clearly in favor of Blu-ray at the time, then why was nobody declaring Blu-ray as the winner during that time?

Remember that even Sony (via Sony CEO Howard Stringer) admitted that the situation was a "stalemate", despite the fact that Blu-ray sales exceeded HD DVD sales 2 to 1:

http://gamer.blorge.com/2007/11/11/bad-news-for-the-ps3-sony-admits-loss-sorry-stalemate-in-format-war-with-microsoft/


2008:

When did the tide turn in favor of Blu-ray? Not when consumer preference was in favor of HD DVD in 2006...  Not when Blu-ray was outselling HD DVD 2:1 in 2007...  But when Warner announced Blu-ray exclusivity in January 2008.

With Warner's announcement, Blu-ray will effectively corner about 70% of HD releases.  Who would buy HD DVD if very few titles will be available on that format?

That's the only time when the overwhelming opinion was that HD DVD was doomed.




As I said, content is king.

[barrister]

Some observers argue that what tipped the scales in favor of VHS in the Betamax / VHS format wars is the porno industry. 

This topic has also been previously discussed to death here.

Porn was not the cause of VHS' victory.

VHS won because initially, Beta recorded at 60 mins. maximum, while VHS recorded at 120 mins. maximum.  You couldn't even record a full-length movie on Beta. 

A time war ensued, with VHS always having a longer recording time than Beta.  By the time Beta's recording time was long enough, it was too late.  VHS was already the consumer's choice.



I agree with John C. Dvorak's view.

Dvorak says that while it's commonly stated that VHS won against Beta because of porn, nobody can cite any evidence to prove it.

"I've gotten into more debates over the notion that all advances in technology are due to porn than any other topic. And there is zero evidence to support this assertion. With Beta versus VHS, the deal breaker was the fact that you could record a sporting event on VHS while it was impossible to do so on Beta. The 4 hours of recording time on VHS (which was extended to 6) made the difference. And here's a breakthrough notion: The VHS-based products were cheaper to buy and use."

http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2704,2112479,00.asp

[darkwing]

to those who wish to see the writing on the wall (on Amazon at least  )

http://www.eproductwars.com/dvd/

at least 17 BD titles on the Top 100, only 3 for HD-DVD and oh #13 is Planet Earth BD and #36 is Planet Earth HD-DVD 

[pchin]

But did the inclusion of a Blu-ray player on PS3 actually push Blu-ray into victory?
I highly doubt it, because the average gamer cares about games, not movies.  And my opinion is backed by data:

As I said, content is king.

Well said barrister. That's why I don't buy it that HD DVD fans put the blame on Xbox 360 failure to include a HD DVD player. Content is indeed king! 

[bachwitz]

This topic has also been previously discussed to death here.

Porn was not the cause of VHS' victory.

VHS won because initially, Beta recorded at 60 mins. maximum, while VHS recorded at 120 mins. maximum.  You couldn't even record a full-length movie on Beta. 

A time war ensued, with VHS always having a longer recording time than Beta.  By the time Beta's recording time was long enough, it was too late.  VHS was already the consumer's choice.



I agree with John C. Dvorak's view.

Dvorak says that while it's commonly stated that VHS won against Beta because of porn, nobody can cite any evidence to prove it.

"I've gotten into more debates over the notion that all advances in technology are due to porn than any other topic. And there is zero evidence to support this assertion. With Beta versus VHS, the deal breaker was the fact that you could record a sporting event on VHS while it was impossible to do so on Beta. The 4 hours of recording time on VHS (which was extended to 6) made the difference. And here's a breakthrough notion: The VHS-based products were cheaper to buy and use."

http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2704,2112479,00.asp

Agree. 

as stated in wikipedia


   "Betamax was widely perceived at the time as the better format, as it offered a slightly higher horizontal resolution (250 lines vs. 240 lines in PAL & NTSC), lower video noise, and less luma-chroma crosstalk than VHS, and was marketed as providing pictures superior to VHS's.
   Betamax held an early lead in the format war — but by 1981, U.S. Betamax sales had sunk to only 25% of all sales.[3] VHS was gaining market share due to its longer tape time (9 hours maximum, compared to just 4 hours for Betamax in USA) and JVC's less strict licensing program. The longer tape time is sometimes cited as the defining factor in the format war, allowing consumers to record entire programs unattended (recording time between VHS and Betamax were similar in areas where VHS entered the market several years after introduction, such as the UK in 1978). Sony ultimately conceded the fight in 1988, bringing out a line of VHS VCRs of its own.

The format war and the "marketing over technology" claims have taken on a life of their own, and continue to be used as analogies in battles within the computer industry, including Apple vs. IBM, Macintosh vs. PC, Microsoft Internet Explorer vs. Netscape/Mozilla Firefox, and HD DVD vs. Blu-ray Disc."


Eventhough BD has not officially won... yet.  I see the same scenarios.

-HD-DVD is being marketed as the better technology because of the well established standards (iHD, VC1 etc).
-BD is Bigger in capacity (just like longer recording and playing time of VHS). I remember Transformers HD-DVD is not in lossless audio, rumor is that its a capacity issue.
-HD-DVD has an early lead in the war.

[darkwing]

Nielsen has just said its 85-15 in HD disc sales in favor of BD last week, looks like Warner's decision made a big impact

[Munskie]

Nielsen has just said its 85-15 in HD disc sales in favor of BD last week, looks like Warner's decision made a big impact

Nielsen?  wala ba daya yan?  hehehehe joke 

[barrister]

I posted a link here: http://pinoydvd.com/board/index.php?topic=75175.msg774097#msg774097

Please vote on that thread's poll.

[Clondalkin]

Apple’s iTunes Store movies outsell HD DVD, Blu-ray titles

And dont forget the absolutely free torrent sites.   Availability of 720p BD and HD DVD rips is pretty awesome and in some cases, even precede the official release dates of the disks.