Posted by Richard C. on 01/30/07 15:10

"Geena Phillips" <gbeenie@comcast.netrosexual> wrote in message
news:d76dnaQ0Z98lUSPYnZ2dnUVZ_umlnZ2d@comcast.com...
> Richard C. wrote:
>> "Doug Jacobs" <djacobs@shell.rawbw.com> wrote in message
>> news:12rsoactnkift81@corp.supernews.com...
>>> In alt.video.dvd Ted <nospamforted@nospam.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Yes there was. It wasn't much of a fight because no one in their right
>>>> mind wanted DIVX to win that war, but it there was a question of
>>>> whether
>>>> or not the studios would successfully cram DIVX down the throat of
>>>> consumers. mInstead they successfully crammed DVDs down our throats, as
>>>> many a laserdisc enthusiast will tell you...
>>>
>>> Divx came out too late to be a serious threat to DVD. DVD had already
>>> started to accelerate in the market when Divx showed up abruptly one
>>> Christmas.
>>>
>> =========================
>> Not really true. Indeed DVD was a "good" seller from the start, but
>> Divx was a threat for quite some time.
>
> True, but it was only a threat because of the substantial amount of studio
> support Divx enjoyed (which, as I recall, is what the original poster of
> this thread claims "guarantees" Blu-Ray's victory). There was never any
> consumer demand for it.
>
>> DVD only really took off after the death of divx.
>
> Honestly, I don't really see that as a causal relationship.
>
=========================
I think it was a partial cause.
Divx actually caused a great deal of confusion to the consumers.
Most of them are not that aware of things in reality.

For instance, how many even know that OTA analog TV is going away?

[Back to original message]