Could Warner Bros. Abandon HD DVD in 2008?

[kennyt]

Lotus,

To date the only combo player is weak at best, add to that the fact that you can easily buy separate Blu-ray and HD DVD players for less than your $700 price point right now and I think I would advise you against it. I think you would be wiser and more future-proof with one player of each format, not to mention the added flexibility for future upgrades.

[Lotus]

Originally Posted by kennyt

Lotus,

To date the only combo player is weak at best, add to that the fact that you can easily buy separate Blu-ray and HD DVD players for less than your $700 price point right now and I think I would advise you against it. I think you would be wiser and more future-proof with one player of each format, not to mention the added flexibility for future upgrades.

The original LG unit was junk...

The new Samsung has a good chip set and seems to be built rock solid.

The deal is a good HD DVD player will cost me $299 and a BD player $399?

That's $700 in one unit...

I'm really upset with how BD is now looking like HDMI with new 1.1 versions, etc. To me they are making it all much worse. Whose brilliant idea was that?

[DaViD Boulet]

Lotus,

do you work for Toshiba?

Some of your responses seem fact-based. Others are clearly FUD to the highest degree.

They aren't temporary. HD DVD will remain cheaper to produce, and in fact is MUCH cheaper to produce currently especially on the hardware side.

Yes, BD may always be slightly more exspensive due to its superior structure which allows it to pack almost twice as much data into the same physical surface area. However, the large price differential we saw early on is shrinking and will continue to shrink as increased volume always does. Early on in DVD's life cycle we heard people just like you claim that dual-layer DVD would never be "affordable" for all the same reasons... a radical departure from any previous manufacturing technology. Now virtually every DVD from every studio is dual-layer becauses costs are so minimal. Why can't BD be exptected to follow a similar path?

it's possible to make players for around $90. The production costs for BD hardware are still about 4 times as much. There will not be a drop in the near future.

What are you talking about? Are you infering that because of Toshiba's retail price drop during their $99 fire sale, that this represents the cost to produce the player? That's a serious stretch. But not more of a stretch than suggesting that the price difference between a $99 blow-out Toshiba sale price and a $499 BD player is manufacturing related. Both drives use a blue-laser and BD drives do not account for a $400 difference.

Sony also hasn't adopted much of anything, it's the other BD studios adopting VC1, etc.

This is where it's most apparent you're just spreading FUD. Sony incorporated AVC, VC-1, Dolby TrueHD, DTS-HD MA, and Managed Copy into the BD format per Toshiba, Microsoft's, and Warner Brother's pressure. They also wanted to include iHD but the BD group didn't approve it.

Virtually all new Sony Blu-ray titles use the AVC video codec and more and more titles are implimented with Dolby TrueHD (and/or provide PCM lossless given the plentiful space on Blu-ray Discs). Are you trying to misrepresent these facts with your statements or are you hontestly mistaken?

I suspect I'm talking to someone who has "chosen a side," and that side is BD. Facts are these, the sales numbers for BD are not considered as healthy as HD DVD. With around 15 times as many players in homes, BD only has a 2 to 1 advantage. That number in fact is not increasing. This past weekend HD DVD saw a huge boost to its in home figures. If software sales remain strong with the new buyers, they should start catching back up to BD sales figures.

You're trying to suggest that a format that has a growing 2:1 lead over another format is not selling better? By "15 times as many players" I assume you're including the PS3, many of which were purchased for gaming-only? Well then, shouldn't we also include the 360 HD DV add-on which has OUTSOLD all other HD DVD and BD products combined (according to Microsoft's latest report)? How does your "attach rate" to HD DVD look now? The Toshiba $99 fire-sale was a obvious tactic to temporarily boost HD DVD market reach, as was paying Paramount 150 million to stop releasing BD for 18 months. Let's wait and see how these factors play into the growing lead of BD over HD DVD in the coming months. Blu-ray might have tricks of its own that will come into play during the holiday season when the numbers are most critical.

We all have our preferences. Yours is for HD DVD and mine is for Blu-ray. But let's both do our best to avoid blatant falsehoods, despite our mutual biases.

[Lotus]

Originally Posted by DaViD Boulet

Lotus,

do you work for Toshiba?

No. Let's just say I have a far better understanding of the manufacturing side than 99% of the people who post on these boards.

Some of your responses seem fact-based. Others are clearly FUD to the highest degree.

Try all of my responses are fact based. The others are just things people who for some reason have decided to "follow," a certain format like a fanatic refuse to accept, because they don't want to think they are/were wrong.

Yes, BD may always be slightly more exspensive due to its superior structure which allows it to pack almost twice as much data into the same physical surface area. However, the large price differential we saw early on is shrinking and will continue to shrink as increased volume always does. Early on in DVD's life cycle we heard people just like you claim that dual-layer DVD would never be "affordable" for all the same reasons... a radical departure from any previous manufacturing technology. Now virtually every DVD from every studio is dual-layer becauses costs are so minimal. Why can't BD be exptected to follow a similar path?

You say superior structure, and I say less efficient both in cost and in reliability. Over 98% of the HD DVDs that come off the line are useable. That is currently about 11% better than BD. That increases costs too. Even the triple layer HD DVDs are expected to not cause problems in that regard.

You then make the inexcusable decision to label me as "uneducated," about the things I spoke of. You decide that to justify your arguement with me you will label me as someone who is just like the person that said dual-layer DVD would never be "affordable," for all the same reasons.

First, I don't remember that EVER being something anyone thought (at least not in the industry). Dual Layer DVDs didnt have huge yield problems, and it was obvious that production costs could be lowered drastically over time.

BD does have yield issues. BD also is MUCH more expensive to replicate than a DVD 9 and less reliable. Over time will that issue be fixed? SURE. However today BD can't match HD DVD in pricing. IF Warners and Universal go to a $14.99 and $19.99 pricing point like is rumored, then BD will not be matching it, because they can't yet.

What are you talking about? Are you infering that because of Toshiba's retail price drop during their $99 fire sale, that this represents the cost to produce the player? That's a serious stretch. But not more of a stretch than suggesting that the price difference between a $99 blow-out Toshiba sale price and a $499 BD player is manufacturing related.

I'm talking about the cost to make an affordable HD DVD player today using Chinese manufacturing facilities. It's roughly $90. This has nothing to do with Toshiba's A2 being sold at low costs to clear old inventory. That $90 manufacturing cost is leading to a $149 player at Wal-Mart. So please don't take what I say is manufacturing cost and try and twist it to being about a blowout sale.

Both drives use a blue-laser and BD drives do not account for a $400 difference.

Both use a blue laser. Both are not aligned the same. To read BD discs the laser has to be at a certain angle that is HARD to produce high yields on a manufacturing line. BD drives are much more expensive to manufacture. HD DVD drives have been dropping in price (as have BD drives), but HD DVD is extremely less expensive to manufacture currently. I don't have the time to dig my numbers back up, but they are legit. Look them up in this thread.

This is where it's most apparent you're just spreading FUD. Sony incorporated AVC, VC-1, Dolby TrueHD, DTS-HD MA, and Managed Copy into the BD format per Toshiba, Microsoft's, and Warner Brother's pressure. They also wanted to include iHD but the BD group didn't approve it.

No, this is where you twist things again. Is Sony the only company in the BD forum that makes decisions? Do you even know who pressured the BD group on this? No. It was DISNEY. In fact one could say that the new 1.1, etc. is also a product of keeping DISNEY happy.

Virtually all new Sony Blu-ray titles use the AVC video codec and more and more titles are implimented with Dolby TrueHD (and/or provide PCM lossless given the plentiful space on Blu-ray Discs). Are you trying to misrepresent these facts with your statements or are you hontestly mistaken?

There is only one person here trying to misrepresent facts, because you obviously don't know them. While Sony may have finally abandoned MPEG I have no doubt in my mind that it was a decision forced on them by consumer purchasing habits. It had nothing to do with doing the right thing, but with survival. If Sony cared they would have been using superior codecs from the start.

FACTS:

BD is MORE expensive than HD DVD for the consumers, manufacturers, and studios. This is not going away soon. While the BD fans are happy a $349 player will be available at Christmas, HD DVD is going to be at $149, $199, and $299 with Magnavox, Onkyo, and Integra providing HD DVD product.

HD DVD has from the begining used the internet and superior codecs.


RUMORS:

HD DVD may hit the $14.99 and $19.99 MSRP price point.

You're trying to suggest that a format that has a growing 2:1 lead over another format is not selling better? By "15 times as many players" I assume you're including the PS3, many of which were purchased for gaming-only? Well then, shouldn't we also include the 360 HD DV add-on which has OUTSOLD all other HD DVD and BD products combined (according to Microsoft's latest report)? How does your "attach rate" to HD DVD look now? The Toshiba $99 fire-sale was a obvious tactic to temporarily boost HD DVD market reach, as was paying Paramount 150 million to stop releasing BD for 18 months. Let's wait and see how these factors play into the growing lead of BD over HD DVD in the coming months. Blu-ray might have tricks of its own that will come into play during the holiday season when the numbers are most critical.

It's not selling better. In fact it's a failure of massive proportions. Sony counts the PS3, because it's a BD player. They have over 6M units in homes, but their sales figures are horrible and well, well, well below Sony's estimates.

You make the mistake of believing that Paramount only left because of money.

I don't know what Microsofts latest report is, but I was under the impression that over 450,000 HD DVD players were in homes, and those COUNTED the add on. Numbers weren't in for the drive after the price drop. Maybe you could point to a link?

Because it looks to me like you're again doing what you blame me for: FUD. I find it impossible to believe that the add on has sold over 6M units like you suggest.

Even if the Add On puts HD DVD at 1M, they STILL have a better attachment rate.

Everyone who tries to bash HD DVD refuses to look at that number. They also refuse to believe it's important to the industry (it is). Currently HD DVD is healthier than DVD was in it's infancy. That can't be said of BD.

We all have our preferences. Yours is for HD DVD and mine is for Blu-ray. But let's both do our best to avoid blatant falsehoods, despite our mutual biases.

See you come to the conclusion that someone is biased because their facts, opinion, etc. difer from you. I prefer neither format. Seriously, they both provide the same picture quality.

I'm just pointing out facts. You can twist them all you want, but you cant change replication costs or manufacturing costs. My posting them doesn't make me prefer them.

If I was the average consumer, I'd be buying the cheaper product. That has ALWAYS been the case. Look at VIZIO taking over the TV market. Couldn't be because they had better product.... nope they were just CHEAP.

Cheap wins. The BD camp was trying to force the market to spend more by controlling the creative output. Paramount changed the picture. Warners as this thread is about will change it more.

Trust me sales trends show that an even footing will go to the CHEAPER product.

No bias there at all.

[DaViD Boulet]

BD does have yield issues. BD also is MUCH more expensive to replicate than a DVD 9 and less reliable. Over time will that issue be fixed? SURE. However today BD can't match HD DVD in pricing.

Sounds like we agree.

IF Warners and Universal go to a $14.99 and $19.99 pricing point like is rumored, then BD will not be matching it, because they can't yet.

Or Sony could subsidize costs to offset price reduction. Just like Toshiba has done with HD DVD hardware.

I'm talking about the cost to make an affordable HD DVD player today using Chinese manufacturing facilities. It's roughly $90. This has nothing to do with Toshiba's A2 being sold at low costs to clear old inventory. That $90 manufacturing cost is leading to a $149 player at Wal-Mart. So please don't take what I say is manufacturing cost and try and twist it to being about a blowout sale.

Wasn't trying to twist anything. Thanks for clarifying. So, when BD hardware starts to flow from China, won't it enjoy similar price reductions? Toshiba has encouraged early Chinese production in order to lower costs swiftly to gain market share. BD manufacturers have delayed such tactics to preserve some time to recoup R&D costs, but that model could be abondoned if it was necessary.

No, this is where you twist things again. Is Sony the only company in the BD forum that makes decisions? Do you even know who pressured the BD group on this? No. It was DISNEY. In fact one could say that the new 1.1, etc. is also a product of keeping DISNEY happy.

Disney, Warner, and Microsoft all placed pressure on the BD group to incorporate advanced audio/video codecs. MS pushed for managed copy and got it.

So, are you tacitly now agreeing with the *point* of my statement which was that Sony is mastering BD material using advanced audio/video codecs?

There is only one person here trying to misrepresent facts, because you obviously don't know them. While Sony may have finally abandoned MPEG I have no doubt in my mind that it was a decision forced on them by consumer purchasing habits. It had nothing to do with doing the right thing, but with survival. If Sony cared they would have been using superior codecs from the start.

So your emotion surrounding your disdain for Sony is the cause for suggesting they aren't, infact, doing what they are now doing?

We can argue about *why* Sony moved to advanced audio/video codecs in another thread. But to not pull out the question of "why" they did as a defense of stating earlier that they had not even done so isn't even logical.

By the way, I will AGREE with you that, at the start, Sony's "suits" seemed pretty arrogant about their notion of how to master in HD given the ****** they pulled with those embarassing early MPEG2 titles. The boys at WB were not too happy when they were forced, by agreement, to release a handful of early titles authored for them (badly) by Sony. I'm not defending Sony's past. Just stating that at present, they've turned course and are now producing discs with quality superior to most HD DVD studios.

BD is MORE expensive than HD DVD for the consumers, manufacturers, and studios. This is not going away soon. While the BD fans are happy a $349 player will be available at Christmas, HD DVD is going to be at $149, $199, and $299 with Magnavox, Onkyo, and Integra providing HD DVD product.

We can debate about "soon". I agree that by this Christmas, BD hardware probably won't be at the $199 level. But as soon as it's necessary for survival, it will. I see nothing wrong with letting the companies who've invested heavily in R&D recoup some of their sunk costs before prices, and profit margins, are shaved razor-thin as Toshiba did with HD DVD right from the start.

HD DVD has from the begining used the internet and superior codecs.

Most every BD player today decodes and/or streams advanced audio over HDMI. No HD DVD player yet supports DTS-HD MA. I agree that the requirement of internet connectivity in HD DVD hardware is a plus, and I look forward to BD profile 2.0 and it ****es me and every other BD enthusiast off that it wasn't required from day one. We can blame the manufacturers, and the BD group for yeilding to their pressure to not mandate it sooner.


Here's where Microsoft comments on the penetration of the HD DVD add-on:

http://www.homemediamagazine.com/new...ticle_ID=11479

“Another fact to look at is the amount of Xbox 360 HD DVD drives sold, compared to all Blu-Ray dedicated players. As of the latest NPD data, the Xbox HD DVD drive has outsold all combind Blu-Ray dedicated players by a substantial factor. While the Xbox 360 HD DVD drive is the best selling accessory over $100 for ALL game consoles, it only represents as single digit attach rate to Xbox 360.

His point was to emphasize the small percentage of gamers who watch HD media on their system. Why would we assume that all PS3 gamers would then count towards your theorectical "attach rate" which would counter this reason?

See you come to the conclusion that someone is biased because their facts, opinion, etc. difer from you. I prefer neither format. Seriously, they both provide the same picture quality.

high-bit-rate AVC on BD is actually getting a better average score than the lower bit-rate VC-1 by most major web review sites that claim impartiality. Check Dan Ramer's editorial at dvdfile.com to see his numbers.

I'm just pointing out facts. You can twist them all you want, but you cant change replication costs or manufacturing costs. My posting them doesn't make me prefer them.

Saying that Sony wasn't using advanced audio/video codecs wasn't stating facts. That was exhibiting your bias. We each have a bias. Let's both try to keep our facts tidy and state opinion as opinion (I'll do the same).

[Lotus]

Originally Posted by DaViD Boulet

Sounds like we agree.

No we don't. Because you're making it sound like BD will be competively priced SOON. While HD DVD is getting cheaper, BD is not. There are only three facilities in the world currently capable of making BD 50 discs and their prices are not cheap. They've been subsidizing costs for studios from the get go. Guess who owns those three facilities?

Or Sony could subsidize costs to offset price reduction. Just like Toshiba has done with HD DVD hardware.

They have been in the software side for a long time. As for your statement about Toshiba... you're so off base it's absurd. You twist things and never rely on facts. You take something that is true and you fail to understand it. Then you post about it while being wrong. Where is Toshiba subsidizing hardware (besides the $98 sale)? They aren't. The A3 could have a MSRP of $199 and still make Toshiba money. They've driven costs down and the third generation players all show it. That is why the top of the line unit is under $500.

Wasn't trying to twist anything. Thanks for clarifying. So, when BD hardware starts to flow from China, won't it enjoy similar price reductions? Toshiba has encouraged early Chinese production in order to lower costs swiftly to gain market share. BD manufacturers have delayed such tactics to preserve some time to recoup R&D costs, but that model could be abondoned if it was necessary.

If you aren't twisting, then you're lying. BD Manufacturers ARE using those same tactics to lower costs. In fact a Chinese BD player should be out in the Spring for $299 at Target.

$149 is $150 less than $299. Perhaps the unit will price at $249 since the Spring is a long way away. However that's still $100. It doesn't change the basic facts that HD DVD is much cheaper than BD.

Disney, Warner, and Microsoft all placed pressure on the BD group to incorporate advanced audio/video codecs. MS pushed for managed copy and got it. So, are you tacitly now agreeing with the *point* of my statement which was that Sony is mastering BD material using advanced audio/video codecs?

Sony is currently doing this, but they didn't "adopt," them. Out of the gate, Warner, Disney, etc. were using BETTER mastering, etc. Sony for whatever reason took way too long to come around. They did not come out of the gate swinging with the consumer in mind.

So your emotion surrounding your disdain for Sony is the cause for suggesting they aren't, infact, doing what they are now doing?

No. You twist statements to try and prove a point. Pointing out that Sony didn't adopt a "consumer first," approach like their competition (even in BD) did is not showing "disdain."

We can argue about *why* Sony moved to advanced audio/video codecs in another thread. But to not pull out the question of "why" they did as a defense of stating earlier that they had not even done so isn't even logical.

They DIDN'T. They may use better codecs now, but early on they didn't. There is nothing wrong with my statement. The facts remain that Sony never had the strategy of using the best codecs, they just tried to provide content.

By the way, I will AGREE with you that, at the start, Sony's "suits" seemed pretty arrogant about their notion of how to master in HD given the ****** they pulled with those embarassing early MPEG2 titles. The boys at WB were not too happy when they were forced, by agreement, to release a handful of early titles authored for them (badly) by Sony. I'm not defending Sony's past. Just stating that at present, they've turned course and are now producing discs with quality superior to most HD DVD studios.

Exactly. Well all but the last sentence anyway. The fact that Sony now releases some titles on par with the best of the rest of the industry is something that should be expected and not applauded.

We can debate about "soon". I agree that by this Christmas, BD hardware probably won't be at the $199 level. But as soon as it's necessary for survival, it will. I see nothing wrong with letting the companies who've invested heavily in R&D recoup some of their sunk costs before prices, and profit margins, are shaved razor-thin as Toshiba did with HD DVD right from the start.

Ah. So you're in the party that believes that Toshiba originally had a massive loss leader in the original A1. The original units (and there werent that many of them) were split in to two units, the more expensive was not sold at a loss. The loss of the less expensive unit was miniscule. We're talking less than $50 a unit. The markup on the higher model more than made up for it in total sales. So it was a good ploy and great early market penetration strategy.

2nd Generation players were sold for a profit (and not that narrow at all until around June of this year) and werent sold at a loss until the blowout this past weekend.

This is a business and Onkyo, Integra, and Meridian would not be in the process of releasing HD DVD players if there was no way to make money doing so. It doesn't make sense, and for the record many other high end brands are hoping that HD DVD does well this quarter so they can release HD DVD players. Why would they want that over BD?

COST.

Most every BD player today decodes and/or streams advanced audio over HDMI. No HD DVD player yet supports DTS-HD MA. I agree that the requirement of internet connectivity in HD DVD hardware is a plus, and I look forward to BD profile 2.0 and it ****es me and every other BD enthusiast off that it wasn't required from day one. We can blame the manufacturers, and the BD group for yeilding to their pressure to not mandate it sooner.

What is going to stop the BD group from making a 3.0 or 4.0? NOTHING. This is not good for consumers. It's as bad and as stupid as HDMI 1.1, 1.2, 1.3a, 1.3b.....It confuses consumers and it really, really, really ****es off consumers to find out they invested heavily in something that is obsolete tomorrow.

Here's where Microsoft comments on the penetration of the HD DVD add-on:

http://www.homemediamagazine.com/new...ticle_ID=11479

Uh. You just proved you lied. Thanks for that. In fact that article even backs up much of my statements. HD DVD is less expensive still in both replication and hardware and looks to be so for years to come. The MS exec states that. He also says that their Add On has outsold EVERY BD standalone player combined. We knew that already too. He doesn't say it's out sold every BD, HD DVD product combined.

His point was to emphasize the small percentage of gamers who watch HD media on their system. Why would we assume that all PS3 gamers would then count towards your theorectical "attach rate" which would counter this reason?

What he is saying is that the PS3 doesn't have a high attachment rate. He is echoing exactly what I've said. The article also mentions the add on is a single attachment for the 360. In otherwords it counts as an "attachment," sale to the 360. He points out that the 360 is used for GAMES primarily.

He also points out that it won't get better. He uses history as an example and points out that as soon as those PS3s can be used for their primary purpose, that is what they will be doing. Once good game content hits the PS3, the number of movies bought for it are going to go DOWN.

The attachment rate for HD DVD is 4 times that of BD, and yes the industry does care, in the early stages attachment rates are much more important than over all sales.

Saying that Sony wasn't using advanced audio/video codecs wasn't stating facts. That was exhibiting your bias. We each have a bias. Let's both try to keep our facts tidy and state opinion as opinion (I'll do the same).

No that was just stating a fact. I'm not biased. You saying that just shows how much you have no idea of who I am or what I do for a living. You mistake a stance of showing that Sony adopted an early market penetration strategy of "product at any cost," over a statement of Sony is and always has released poor product. You misunderstood the statement, and then tried to prove that I'm biased because of it. That is just silly.

Look I'm sorry you don't like the fact that HD DVD will be selling for less than $200 this holiday season, with a $169 player at Sears and a $149 player at Wal-Mart, and another $170 player at Best Buy. Meanwhile BD will have a $349 player. I'm sorry you can't accept that HD DVD is still much less expensive to replicate and is only getting cheaper (while BD is staying relatively the same).

Maybe another facility will decide to do BD 50 replication, but if they aren't owned by Sony like the others, the cost would be too high for a Studio to be willing to use them...

Wait. That's why there are no facilities besides Sony owned replicating BD 50s right now. They could invest in the capability, but would have nobody to sell to. That's just not good business.

The purpose of this thread is about WARNER and their plans. I can state with some authority on the matter that they will be considering a 1st Quarter switch, but it's not to BD like the BD fanatics proposed. I've pointed out the facts of what could possibly make Warner decide to go HD DVD only.

COST.

Low costs just lead to sales. If BD cost $98 this past weekend, they'd have sold out too. Even $199 A3s were soldout. Even the MS link you mentioned showed that COST is winning out in the console market too. The Wii is winning, the 360 is second, and the PS3 is third and extremely far behind projected sales.