Posted by Zackman on 01/23/07 08:16

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 which have their own historical content.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-

[Back to original message]