Could Warner Bros. Abandon HD DVD in 2008?

[TheMoose]

Originally Posted by Lotus

Dude, as politely as I can say this: Get a Life.

This isn't the AVS forum where you can get away with saying such nonsense. I could go over all your posts, but it's obvious YOU ARE in the BD camp.

I'm in neither. Quit attacking people and get your paranoia under control.

It's really hard to take you seriously when you say things like that.
It seems obvious to me you are a HD-DVD backer all the way, you are spouting all the HD-DVD propaganda & have nothing good to say about Blu-Ray.

And you are right this isn't the AVS forum, I would like to see links to prove your "facts" & since your 10% yield story has seemed to be shown as wrong with out any rebuttal from you how about some facts to back your point up other than you may be a month out of date with your info.

[Lotus]

Originally Posted by TheMoose

It's really hard to take you seriously when you say things like that. It seems obvious to me you are a HD-DVD backer all the way, you are spouting all the HD-DVD propaganda & have nothing good to say about Blu-Ray.

And you are right this isn't the AVS forum, I would like to see links to prove your "facts" & since your 10% yield story has seemed to be shown as wrong with out any rebuttal from you how about some facts to back your point up other than you may be a month out of date with your info.

So I back HD DVD by pointing out that they're the least expensive?

ALL OF YOU:

Take a deep breath. Just because someone points out that something is less expensive and that the public likes cheap doesn't mean they have an agenda.

I can point to links from REPLICATORS stating why they haven't invested in the BD DL lines yet and they speak of the low yields. To me the point is it's been discussed at BD events, HD DVD events, etc. LOW YIELDS. Official numbers are never released and I believe after strolling through hundreds of posts on other sites that 98% of all data is FUD. People are blatantly lying on BOTH sides.

It's disgusting. The fact that there are people PAID to lie on those boards is even more disgusting. It's SICK.

I stand firmly by the statement:

HD DVD is less expensive than BD in manufacturing and replication.

I will not point to anymore links about it. It's a fact, and people can attack points of the arguement all they want. Doby Blue can go blue in the face while doing it for all I care. It doesn't alter the point that HD DVD is less expensive.

The ONLY agenda I may have is to see HIGH DEFINITION CONTENT available on a disc at a reasonable price in tons of homes, and more software for me.

You BD people and HD DVD people really need to calm down. Seriously calm down. It doesn't matter what I post you guys attack it, and that's not HEALTHY. Please calm down and realize I mean it: I TAKE NO SIDE. Accept the facts and move on and support your "side," by buying more discs. Quit feeling the need to attack posters on forums over things you can't control. It's not healthy.

The mere fact that you claim I never mention the positives of BD shows just how blinded you are by the subject matter. I'm sorry for pointing out that changing standards isn't good business practice and hurts your most faithful customers: The Early Adopter. That is to some an opinion, but to me it's a fact. You just don't do it. Firmware updates are not a good thing (for either side). There are just too many consumers incapable of getting that update without beind "hassled." Firmware updates to make something less obsolete like a Reciever or Pre/Pro when a new tech comes out is GREAT. Firmware updates needed to keep a product doing what it should have done from the begining: not so good.

I just also don't see the need of pointing out that BD has lately provided a better picture on average than their HD DVD counterparts. Why? Because the difference is almost negligable it's like comparing a car with a top speed of 155 to a car with a top speed of 150 but otherwise are nearly identical. The point I've been standing by is that car with a top speed of 150 is less expensive.

The Pros of BD PQ, etc. just aren't part of a discussion of why Warners would go exclusive and why I believe they'll go exclusive to one camp over the other. Don't make the mistake of believing things about me by what I don't say. You're assuming way too much.

Again, please calm down. I don't have a side on this. I wish that Samsung would release their Dual Format player at $98 then everyone could shut up on both sides and everyone could just enjoy HIGH DEFINITION.

[DaViD Boulet]

I stand firmly by the statement:

HD DVD is less expensive than BD in manufacturing and replication.

That isn't being contested. Just the 38% yeild percentage figure, among a few other lower-than-generally-reported figures.

I just also don't see the need of pointing out that BD has lately provided a better picture on average than their HD DVD counterparts. Why? Because the difference is almost negligable it's like comparing a car with a top speed of 155 to a car with a top speed of 150 but otherwise are nearly identical. The point I've been standing by is that car with a top speed of 150 is less expensive.

How about all the HD DVD's still being produced by WB and Paramount that lack lossless audio because of the lack of space. Or are we going to suggest that the difference between lossy and lossless audio is like the difference between 155 and 150 mph as well? Perhaps we should just go under the assumption that any format difference will always fall into such an easily dismissed delta rather than trusting our eyes and ears to address any future differences we may discover to save ourselves time in evaluating the compromise?

When a format has already "maxed out" right out of the gate of having launched, and can't provide optimal compression for both audio and video for many released titles, it seems strange to rush to its defense when there is an alternative that *can* provide video *and* audio transparency. Albeit costing slightly more, at present, to manufacture.

[DaViD Boulet]

The quote from the bits.
http://www.thedigitalbits.com/mytwocentsa144.html#once

In other news for the HD-DVD camp, just two days after Sony DADC announced that they'd replicated their milestone 10 millionth 50GB Blu-ray Disc (click here for the Video Business story), the HD-DVD Promotions Group quickly countered with a little damage control, making sure everyone knew that the DVD Forum was close to approving the spec for a triple-layer 51GB HD-DVD disc (click here). However, industry sources are telling us that NONE of the existing Toshiba HD-DVD players and drives are currently capable of reading them. Indeed, the Video Business story indicates that once the spec is finalized, "compatibility with current HD DVD player and recorders can be investigated." According to reports from Bits readers who were on at CEATAC this weekend, Toshiba reps told attendees that the triple-layer disc configuration would require a hardware change (the lens on existing drives reportedly isn't capable of moving to focus on the third layer), meaning that the existing drives are not firmware updatable. This of course is unofficial. It remains to be seen what testing of the discs will reveal.

and

from 10/10

Toshiba has also acknowledged [yesterday's DVD Forum meeting in Hollywood] that their triple-layer 51GB HD-DVD disc may not work in existing players (testing is apparently on-going). Finally, at the same event, Paramount and DreamWorks revealed that they have some 30 HD-DVD titles already planned for release in 2008 (one, we suspect, is Braveheart). You can read more at Home Media.

Just because Bill Hunt HONESTLY tells us his opinion about which way the format-war will ultimately end does not make him dishonest nor suggest that he misrepresents what he hears when sharing industry information.

On the contrary, someone who obviously prefers one format and slants their comments towards favoring that agenda, tells balanced posters to "calm down" when they ask for documented sources of information, but does *not* honestly profess their opinion in favor of that format, gives cause for suspician.

[Lotus]

Originally Posted by DaViD Boulet

That isn't being contested. Just the 38% yeild percentage figure, among a few other lower-than-generally-reported figures.

Still costs more. Can we please not turn this into AVS where people repeatedly attack parts of data to create negativity?

Nothing you can do will change that it costs LESS and significantly. You using adjectives like "slightly," are bogus and just more of an agenda to BASH.

Get over your problem, please.

[TheMoose]

Originally Posted by Lotus

Still costs more. Can we please not turn this into AVS where people repeatedly attack parts of data to create negativity?

Nothing you can do will change that it costs LESS and significantly. You using adjectives like "slightly," are bogus and just more of an agenda to BASH.

Get over your problem, please.

Dude get a grip & read this carefully.
We agree that at least for now BD does cost more, what we are saying & you are not addressing is the fact your yield figures are just plain wrong!!

Can you show us Facts that your yield numbers are correct or are you just going to pretend I'm attacking you because I'm asking for proof of your figures?

I'm more than willing to have a discussion with you, however when I say something is my opinion I state that is just that, an opinion, I expect you to either state it's opinion or back up your facts with proof.
As you say this is not AVS forum, we don't take opinion as fact, we want actual correct information, not rumors or bashing.
Opinions are more than welcome, just state them that way.

This is in no way an attack on you, just a request for proof that your yield numbers are correct.