|
|
Posted by asjbiotek on 01/23/07 21:59
Admit it, you hd-dvd nutjobs are getting desperate as Blu-ray sales
rocket past hd-dvd sales....
http://www.gizmocafe.com/blogs/gizmo_cafe_blog/archive/2007/01/23/104753.aspx
CONTENT CONTENT CONTENT
Blu-ray has it, Hd-DVD does NOT.
Zackman wrote:
> asjbiotek@gmail.com <asjbiotek@gmail.com> spake thusly:
>
> > Uh, Lionsgate, and Sony has control of both Columbia and MGM, both of
> > which have their own historical content. So, 5.
>
> I'll give you Columbia for their back catalog, but even tho Lions Gate puts
> out a decent amount of good movies, they're not one of the majors. They're
> basically a big indie distributor.
>
> > As to porn, hype. First, only Sony has said anything remotely
> > anti-porn, and Sony is NOT the only blu-ray backer.
>
> I'm not even talking about Sony's "no porn on Blu-ray" stance, which may or
> may not be true. The porn industry is about making and pressing movies
> quickly and cheaply, and HD DVD fills those needs far better than Blu-ray:
>
> http://p134.news.scd.yahoo.com/s/zd/199033
>
> "We still haven't negated Blu-ray, but it was much more cost effective to go
> with HD DVD." -- Wicked Pictures executive
>
> "For the adult industry, no one is really replicating on Blu-ray right now.
> The process is really difficult, obviously. The render times are two weeks
> or more and the costs associated with it are really high." -- Jenna
> Jameson's husband, who is also a porn producer
>
> And here's the really interesting one, re: Vivid Video (the porn giant,
> which has previously said it will use Blu-ray):
>
> "Steve Hirsch, who is head of Vivid, said he will also be using the HD DVD
> format due to its greater market saturation. But he also said the studio
> will begin burning to Blu-ray as soon as it's feasible (i.e. affordable)."
>
> > Secondly, porn will go where the money is, and where the population
> > base is
>
> Blu-ray is only barely just starting to edge HD DVD in sales -- Vivid Video
> believes HD DVD has greater market saturation, as you can see -- and it
> would cost them next to nothing to go with HD DVD first, then switch to
> Blu-ray later if that's where the market ends up being. Which is exactly why
> they'll probably back HD DVD first.
>
> > You have seen the graphs that show blu-ray sales catching up and now
> > pulling ahead of HD-DVD, right (even though HD-DVD had a head start)?
> > All in the space of several months time?
>
> Blu-ray will have to sustain that momentum for a year or more before it can
> be declared the winner.
>
> > It's not in the best interest of the studios to have two formats -
> > they'll go with the format that seems to be winning, and that's
> > Blu-ray, especially since 5 studios back it exclusively already.
>
> As has been pointed out several times, Disney, Paramount and Fox all backed
> DIVX exclusively at first. Where's DIVX now? Lots of studios released movies
> on UMD because the sales were so strong when the PSP first came out. Where's
> UMD now?
>
> > The backing of very large conglomerates like Samsung, Philips,
> > Panasonic, Sony, Apple, and others means Blu-ray has the money and
> > strength behind it to simply outlast HD-DVD, which is backed mainly by
> > a very much smaller Toshiba (which is losing money on each player it
> > sells, btw)
>
> Is there any reason why you keep mentioning Apple etc. as a Blu-ray backer
> yet neglect to mention Microsoft as one of the major HD DVD backers? You've
> heard of Microsoft, right? Obscure little company, very little capital or
> cash flow... Hell, the Xbox HD DVD add-on (which can ONLY be used for
> movies, meaning every single one of the 150,000 currently sold is
> essentially a stand-alone player, unlike the PS3) is one of the biggest
> contributors to HD DVD's success so far.
>
> > Ah, you fail to notice that it is indeed those PS3 owners who are
> > starting to buy Blu-ray
>
> Really? Show me those figures that break down Blu-ray movie sales into PS3
> owners and standalone player owners. And like I said, UMD was a huge initial
> success when the PSP first launched, because lots of people bought a few UMD
> movies out of curiosity. Then it died.
>
> > You
> > also miss the point that Blu-ray is NOT a proprietary Sony push, but
> > one backed most of the industry, another crucial factor.
>
> It's backed by a lot of the majors, sure. But there's nothing to stop any of
> them from making HD DVD players too.
>
> > Ah, I have a standard TV and use my PS3 Blu-ray on it....your point?
>
> My point is that's one of many PS3 that's not being used for Blu-ray movies,
> which is why it's inaccurate to say the PS3 installed base = Blu-ray player
> installed base.
>
> > However, because of our new Blu-ray, we are now going to buy an HDTV.
> > Evceryone wins (except for the idiots who buy hd-dvd dead boxes that
> > can't play disney movies, or spiderman, or james bond, or...)
>
> You've just shown once again that you've got a personal emotional stake in
> Blu-ray, tho I can't begin to fathom why. Sony doesn't care about you.
> Neither does Disney. They just want your money. And if enough people say,
> "Nah, I'm going to go with HD DVD because it's cheaper, or I have an Xbox
> 360, or I want a Toshiba or a HP notebook, or I'm a big fan of Hitchcock
> movies" or whatever, those studios will switch.
>
> > really? you need to take a look at the sales charts again
>
> You're looking at charts tracking a few months of sales of a format that
> doesn't even have 1% penetration of the home video market. The general
> public doesn't care yet.
>
> > 1. Larger number of studios exclusively using Blu-ray (Disney, Sony
> > (MGM/Columbia), Fox, Lionsgate)
>
> ... for NOW. Again, I refer you to the historical example of DIVX. If
> consumers decide they want the other format (don't forget, VHS was
> technically inferior to Beta), the studios will trip over one another to
> follow. Wanna make a bet that at least one of the Blu-ray studios decides to
> also release on HD DVD within the next six months?
>
> > 2. Much larger number of potential players for Blu-ray, which almost
> > surely means a larger consumer base.
>
> It means nothing of the sort. Do you think if Microsoft, Budweiser and Nike
> all suddenly started making sport cars that the market for sports cars would
> explode due to there being more manufacturers? More companies making the
> players means more selection (which is a small plus) but more competition
> for an already very, very small number of interested consumers.
>
> -Z-
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|