A few weeks ago when I was in the BB near me (Gresham, OR), one of the sales reps was giving a new rep the rundown on BD and HD DVD. He was telling the new rep that BD did true 1080p and HD was only 1080i. He said only BD was backward compatible with DVD and that HD DVD couldn't play regular DVD's. He also said the BD's could hold more info, BD had 50 gig and HD was only 25. BD was hdmi compatible and HD could only use component.

There was a bunch more that I don't recall now. Of course, I had to jump in there and set them straight. The rep wanted to argue with me and kept telling me I was wrong. I told him I had both BD and HD and he stopped arguing with me and they both walked away.

You're about a few weeks too late. Do search over at AVS.

A launch is a launch is a launch. This may be considered a "soft" launch (i.e. not a lot of marketing behind it), but it's not a "fake" launch. It's a real launch and it has consequences. Sony has turned a lot of people away from BD with this launch, including me. Now I've got a vested interest in HD, and BD has to overcome that to win me back again. It's more difficult to obtain new customers than retain old customers, and it's twice as hard to bring back old customers that you lost.

Spoken like a true supporter of BD. Both DVD-A and SACD sounded significantly better than CD or MP3, even if you're only talking about mono or stereo. I've got several Bowie SACDs and they sound a million times better than the CDs, which I've heard a million times. But no, CDs and MP3s are good enough, right? Pssh. No wonder you like BD. Bad image quality and no extras must be the next-gen version of choosing CDs over DVD-A or SACD.

Sony wanted it to succeed, that's for sure. No company just "takes a chance" on a new format. They either do it and spend money on it, or they don't do it. They did it, they spent money, and now they're losing money on it.


See, that's the problem. HD-DVD was ready to go in April. To even catch up, Sony had to rush an inferior product to the market that cost more to make. It just doesn't make any sense. Either they stay silent and people think BD is failing, or they release a terrible product and people KNOW BD is failing. And now, because they're trying to match the quality of HD-DVD, they're rushing again, and that is going to hurt them during the holiday season.

It's one thing to say "Sony hasn't had a chance to prove themselves, and I'm not getting in to either format until they've matured a little." Most people are saying that. What you're saying is "Sony has proven that their product right now is nowhere near ready for release, but I still think that no matter what their product will be aw3s0m3~!" But no matter what, this launch (call it soft or fake or whatever you want) has hurt Sony, and the PS3 launch may hurt them even worse. Win the battle, lose the war. No matter what, the PS3 will sell out this holiday season. But in doing so, Sony will be losing a lot of money ($300 per system), and may actually be taking parts away from Pioneer and other companies who planned to release standalone systems. And since PS3's aren't exclusively BD players, a lot of people who buy them won't even get BD. So while the PS3 could in theory win the war for Sony, it could also lose them both BD and the video game market.

I talked to my friend today who works at BB. I asked him "Who's going to win the format war?"
Him: Blu-Ray.
Me: Why do you say that?
Him: Because we are promoting it 100 times more than HD-DVD."
Me: :rolleyes:

Granted, he usually has no clue about anything anyway. :)

what I think Sony should do is just release a few hundred PS3s into retail stores and then put the rest on ebay themselves. that could definately help them cut their losses on the costs of building it. instead, since Sony is run by idiots they would rather sell them at a loss just so everyone else can make atleast 2x the total cost in sales. ;)

Well, in Japan the PS3 is being sold with open pricing, which lets retailers charge whatever they want. I don't know if Sony is asking for a percentage of profits for that or what.

I wonder if it will be cheaper to import? :lol:

There was, is, and will be a need for acceptable audio. If you think MP3 is great, you probably need hearing aids. I'll get you my dad's number.

Ive never been an audiophile and never will be. I use JBL PC speakers and im more then happy with the sound. Its just never been important to me or anyone else i know. Video is of course a much bigger deal. Even when i show my family HD content, they know its a huge difference from what they traditionally watch.

You don't have to be an audiophile to tell the difference between MP3 and SACD. It's like watching a movie on a 19" B&W and then watching it in HD on a 100" screen.

Theres just no desire. And im sure i speak for J6P on this one. If high end audio was a big deal, DVD-Audio/SACD would be household names. I dont know a single person in my life that has a disc in either format. This cannot be said for HD Video. This is a huge deal to a lot of people, and the difference is apparent to almost anyone. There might be a similar difference in the audio formats, but no one really cares. In fact, im shopping for a new home audio receiver right now, but the only specs im looking at is audio/video inputs and switching.

One thing to mention is that people in general do not understand what sounds good. If you do a test with most people I bet they will pick the louder of two choices regardless of which actually has the clearer, fuller sound. Look at the success of Bose, some of the worst speakers you can buy in their price range but because they use a lot of audio trickery with their speakers people convince themselves they sound better.

That is what doomed SACD and DVD/A. People simply don't know good sound when they hear it and many people have damaged hearing and can't hear all the extra range of sound you get with SACD anyway. When the story came out about the kids using a special ringtone only they could hear so their parents wouldn't catch them I downloaded the sound clip and played it at work. I could hear the tone easily, but the majority of people at my work could not hear it at all.

Visual things are just much easier for people to pick up on. Granted I know people that can't calibrate a TV properly and so forth but in general you show a person a DVD and an HD DVD and they will easily be able to tell the difference. The same is not true of SACD and CD.

Apparently Josh Z is a Microsoft employee now, so congrats on the new gig. :)

Someone should tell Microsoft, so that they can start sending me paychecks.

I don't know whether I'm more offended that he lied about me being a Microsoft employee, or that he calls me a "blogger".

Can I sue?

I hear this a lot and wanted to point out something.

Let's say a BD costs .20 more to make than an HD DVD. Warner Brothers currently burns on the order of a billion discs a year (according to amirm at AVS). That's $200,000,000 that someone is losing to keep the retail price competitive.

Now, we could argue about those two variables (cost difference per disc and number of discs burned per year), but the end result is a lot of money is being eaten somewhere. And, BTW, I completely made up the .20 figure.

This is the cost that will make a difference. Every penny counts especially when you're getting the same quality.

Wow.....the author and Sony must be fucking.

Josh, he is referring to a ZD Net blog post which, in turn, quoted your review:

http://blogs.zdnet.com/carroll/index.php?p=1579

You had posted on the avs thread discussing it, so you should know.

By the time they are pressing a billion discs per year, the costs will literally be the same if not within 1-2 cents of dvd now. This is just the baby steps portion.

I'd forgotten about that, just speaking for myself.

Still, it's clear in the blog entry on ZDNet that the quotes in question are coming from Josh's review, and the itWire author should not be attributing them to a Microsoft employee.

Yeah, because companies dont care about production costs. :rolleyes:

I guarantee you that if this was reversed, you would be adding it to your hd-dvd gripes.

So what? Stan Beer incorrectly (and quite deliberately so) attributed the quotes. He attributed them to the blogger even though he knew that they were taken from Josh's review, since they were very clearly attributed in the blog.

All Beer has accomplished is the spreading of FUD itself in a vain attempt to "prove" that FUD is being spread by others. His bias is painfully obvious, based on the vitriolic tone of his article.

I loved this quote in the itwire article...

"As a result, the best thing for consumers to do is give both highly over priced technologies a wide berth until there is an excuse to buy a high definition player. "

He basically is putting them in the same boat in regards to price. Ridiculous!

This seems to be the BD Sony fanboy default claim right now...

"They are both way overpriced, so just wait until the format war is decided to buy BD...I mean a high def player."

And, of course, his definition of "an excuse" to buy a player will be the presence of a Sony player (e.g., the PS3) in the marketplace.

For a new technology, getting the A1 for under $500 (at most places...I got mine for $440) AND the movies for between $18-25 (most titles on amazon which is about the same as regular dvd special editions)....how can he say this is over priced?? This is much cheaper than DVD was when it was released in 1997.

This is the cheapest entry technology that Ive ever early adopted. haha.

Isn't that the same thing Blu Hunt said? ;)