|
|
Posted by Jay G. on 09/30/05 12:07
Jeff Rife <wevsr@nabs.net> wrote:
>
>Jay G. (Jay@tmbg.rg) wrote in alt.video.dvd:
>> Can you give a reference to this "rule of thumb" of yours?
>
>Personal experience with people who build electronics from parts. It's
>also pretty much the rule of thumb for food service markup (except for
>cash cows like soft drinks) at normal (i.e., not captive audience) venues.
I'm sorry, I'm looking for more that your word that it is true. If it's
such
a common rule of thumb, why can I find no reference to it online?
>> >There is no way to know if the PS3 will play BluRay movies without some
>> >additional hardware. It might just have the drive so that game makers
>> >can put HD content (or lots of SD content) into the games. Additional
>> >hardware to play back BluRay would be an additional reason that Sony would
>> >be willing to eat the cost of the drive at first sale.
>>
>> This reasoning would apply to DVD on the PS2 as well, yet Sony chose
>> not to go that route in the past, to its apparent benefit.
>
>The PS2 was released *after* DVD had already been out for quite a while,
>unless I am really getting the date wrong. PS2 was 2001-2002 timeframe,
>and DVD had been out for nearly 5 years.
As has been pointed out, DVD was released in the US 1997, with PS2
out in 2000. That has little to do with your reasoning that Sony would make
extra money by making movie playback seperate. Again, Sony would've
made more money on the PS2 by making DVD movie playback a seperate
option requiring additional hardware, such as the X-Box did. They didn't
however.
>Also, to actually play DVDs as if it were a real player, you did need
>an add-on remote for the PS2, didn't you?
I don't know what you mean by "a real player," as PS2 played back
DVDs just like a real player out of the box, with all the major playback
options.
The only additional hardware available is an optional wireless DVD
remote, which is nice, but not necessary.
>> > Sony wants to
>> >sell $500+ standalone BluRay players, too, so I suspect that they will
>> >pull a stunt like this.
>>
>> You're the only one to mention the $500 price tag, a number you made
>> up.
>
>You're right, I did. The first release players for both formats seem to
>have price tags around $1000 based on announcements.
Can you give a link to these announcements?
>If the MSRP of standalone
>BluRay players is closer to $1000, and the PS3 plays BluRay out of the
>box for $300, which do you think will sell?
PS3, which was my point.
>> >Otherwise, everybody would just buy a PS3 (and
>> >no games, which is where Sony makes their money) instead of any other
>> >BluRay player.
>>
>> And why wouldn't they buy video games as well, seeing as they already
>> have the system?
>
>Well, anybody who doesn't really care about games. At $300, I would
>very likely pick up a PS3 to play HD movies instead of spending $500-1000
>on another player.
Yet you later admit to possibly buying some PS2 games to play on it.
>> >Now, which is what counts, because unless you have an HD display, the
>> >new format won't be any better than DVD. This is exactly unlike DVD, where
>> >even on relatively crappy displays it was far better than VHS.
>>
>> Actually, it's exactly like anamorphic video on DVD, which has won out
>> on the format despite the majority of people being unable to use it.
>
>No, that's just a red herring. It costs the studios nothing to make the
>DVD "enhanced for 16:9 TVs", doesn't hurt people with regular TVs (unless
>they have a truly crappy player), and helps people with 16:9 TVs. It's
>a win-win for everybody.
Anamorphic video transfers don't "cost nothing." They require an entirely
new transfer than the ones used for Laserdisc and VHS, letterboxed or
not. This is why many early DVDs were *not* anamorphic, because studios
didn't want to pay for a new transfer if they didn't need to, but market
demands
soon made it preferable to release an anamorphic version. Granted,
nowadays
the price of an anamorphic transfer is mitigated by the reality that
studios have
to make a HD transfer anyway and can then just downconvet to anamorphic,
but this still costs more than "nothing".
>On the other hand, HD-DVD (of whatever sort) will look no better than DVD
>to people who don't have HD displays, will cost more, and won't play in
>their existing DVD player. There is zero reason to buy the player if
>you don't have an HD display, and there is zero reason to buy the disc if
>you don't have the player.
This was exactly the point I made in my first post on this thread,
congratulations for finally catching up. Note that this reason has nothing
to do with number of titles available, something you previously claimed
would be a problem.
Actually, I can think of *one* reason for buying a Hi-Def player and discs
without a HD display. Namely that for no ill effect on your current system,
you would have discs that will greatly benefit from an eventual upgrade.
It is a bit pricey an option though, so there probably won't be many
adopters
who do as such, especially as their discs will only work on the Hi-Def
players,
so they won't be able to loan them out to friends and family...actually,
that
may make it *more* appealing to some.
>HD-DVD will have only one distinction over the previous entrenched medium:
>better picture *if* you have the right display, which most people don't.
I believe it will also have better audio quality, at least as an option. Of
course, that would require the purchase of a new audio system for most.
>If you add the requirement for a constant Internet connection, players
>are going to sell like Yugos (or Divx discs, or decaying DVDs, or...).
*If* that requirment is added, yes.
>> >> People always seem to forget that DVD has DRM too.
>> >
>> >No, it doesn't.
>>
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_rights_management
>>
>> "An early example of a DRM system is the Content Scrambling System
>> (CSS) employed by the DVD Forum on movie DVD disks"
>
>I really don't care what some bozo typed into a glorified blog.
Allan has pointed out other websites that state the same thing.
http://www.info-mech.com/drm_standards.html
Meanwhile, you are just "some bozo" posting to usenet, why should
your opinion weigh more?
>> >Every player can decode the encryption with no check of
>> >whether it is allowed to or not.
>>
>> Actually, there are checks. CSS encryption is used to restrict playback
>> on only authorized players,
>
>This is true, but *every* single hardware DVD player is "authorized" by
>definition.
They are authorized because they've paid to be so, and have agreed to
certain rules regarding decoding and playback of DVDs. These rules
place restrictions on users, namely copy restrictions.
>> >Likewise, there is no way to make a "pay for play" model for DVD.
>>
>> That's not a requirement for DRM, although it's certainly an option.
>
>Actually, that's the whole point of "digital rights management".
No, the point is to manage the digital rights, in the manner that the
owner allows. Not every example of DRM is "pay for play," many
offer unrestricted playback on authorized devices, and can well
offer limited copying options.
> Being
>able to *manage* the user's ability to exercise their part of copyright
>rights. CSS doesn't do this, because it is either "on" or "off", and
>the setting is determined at the time of pressing.
CSS restricts the DVDs to authorized playback devices, and restricts
unauthorized use of the DVDs, namely copying or playback on
unauthorized devices, such as unlicensed players, either hardware
or software.
-Jay
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|