Hope to see a new article about his new comments on AP's handeling of this article soon :) Got some things to poke at it

So now we're down form unabashed victory to a mere stalemate.

This shallow mouthpiece isn't fooling anyone.

Blo-ray is dead. Just like most Sony "innovations" of the last ten years.

I bought an xbox HD DVD player and returned it the same day. Stand alone players are DEFINITELY the only way to go. Using the 360's HD DVD player was like having a dust buster constantly spinning up while watching the movie. Horrid noisy thing! What were they thinking with that? So yea, I love my new halo 360 (falcon baby!) but I'm still looking for the right TV to set it off. Think I'm gonna go with a panasonic 1080p since the first two I bought and now have returned failed at 360 over HDMI. Samsung and Element are sketchy.

Really? I can't hear my HD-DVD when I play movies.

I read a lot of the comments here, but I couldn't get through them all. Two things I wanted to point out to the Blu-Ray fan boys here.

1. This article is based on an AP article which highlighted the SONY CEO's speech. Not an HD DVD supporter, but the CEO of the company that created Blu-Ray. HE called it a stalemate HIMSELF.

2. There were some comments about the Toshiba A2 sale from last week. I remember when Sony did this with the PS3, the fanboys all said that obviously they would replace the 60GB version once it was depleted with another version at that price point. I believe several insulting words were used to exclaim their point.

Those same people now are saying it was a Toshiba fire sale for a failing format and the price point will not be permanent. Which way is it folks? Just answer me that question.

Consider this: The problem about arguing with idiots is that they drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience. I hope that answers your question.

I drag idiots up to my level and beat them with a bat ;)

Heh...

...and not the cheap metal ones, either. Louisville is the only way to go.

the replacement A3 model is going for 200 on black friday. what's more likely to happen is now that they've established awareness and demand levels, they'll get a run of players going somewhere they think is the sweet spot between $100 and $300 that will outsell all the bluray propaganda based on dvd upconversion. Next year will be the year of cheap 720p and the start of 1080p and I think we'll see a ton of cheap 720p stuff out just waiting to be scooped up, especially after the holidays

I've never seen someone so scared that the game console / HD movie player he bought will go obsolete.

For someone so sure of BD victory, you are sure full of fear, uncertainty, and doubt. You somehow think by saying something, it will come true.

The signs of a completely scared little girl who's invested a months salary into an electronic device with a cloudy future. You are so sad, it's actually pathetic. I am truly embarrassed for you Joey.

Not only do your posts stink of desperation, but you also can't spell worth a sh!t.

You stupid jackass.

I thought about getting a ps3 as a bluray player after purchasing the xbox hd dvd player and absolutely hating the noise it made. maybe once they get the format sorted out and they release a low end ps3 with proper bluray support, i'll make that happen. until then, it's worth less to me than an old easily burn out gen1 360

"And then there was the incredible news of last weekend, showing evidence that the huge price markdowns for HD DVD players may have helped it close its entire sales gap with Blu-ray in as little as 48 hours."

Pathetic. The fact you even try and pretend you are journelists...

Even more pathetic, is your made up stats and statemtents are actually sucked up by the BetaPuppets.

The truth hurts, doesn't it?

Don't take your anger at Sony's failures out on the Betanews staff. It is very rude you know.

"journellists"

and to think you criticized others for spelling :)

BWAAAAAHAHAHAAHAHAHA!

Must have hit a 'raw nerve'?

Haha... he even 'corrected' it, and still got it wrong. :)

what?

LOL

Oh, don't worry... he simply missed the entire point of the article.

It ultimately doesn't matter though, since Sir Howard Stringer is just a Sony CEO. What does he know? :)

Well he didnt say stalemate himself. He strongly suggested it though and thats where AP cooked up that word.

But I agree with him, it's going nowhere fast and doesnt look like its going anywhere for at least another year.

As for Joey... I dunno what to say about him.

I am waiting for the day that HD has a fire sale the way BD does with the buy one get. This seems to be a weakly thing. And yes I did mean to spell week that way. There must be some serious fears if they are selling some bd's at less than SDDVD prices.

Here's what he put if he trys to corrected it a second time: "journelists"

I saw a rather interesting site at Wal-Mart last night...

There was an area cleared out in front of the HDTV wall with two chairs in the middle. An employee was sitting in one of them in front of all the displays with a PlayStation 3 on the top shelf hooked up to every one of them playing Lego Star Wars: The Complete Saga.

That was his job, he said... to sit there and show off the PlayStation 3. Management had said they needed to spur virtually non-existent sales of the PS3 as the holidays drew near.

I suspect Sony is urging retailers to do something drastic, and is compensating them in some way to do so. Has anyone else seen this happening in their Wal-Marts or other stores?

You found Dave!!! lol

'A sign of desperation?'

Haha, I wouldn't doubt it.

Talk about Sony shoving Blu-ray in everyone's face that doesn't want it, now it would seem they have retailers doing the same thing with their games.

That seems a little... well, desperate.

I did a simular thing with the PSP last year. I dont work for the store, I just do some promotional work on the side and sony happened to be one of our clients.

It's interesting to read sony's internal marketing documents though :) Didnt follow a word of them though, I dont feel right downplaying competing products.

"An employee was sitting in one of them in front of all the displays with a PlayStation 3 on the top shelf hooked up to every one of them playing Lego Star Wars: The Complete Saga."

Oh yes, if one game is going to beat Halo 3 this holiday season, it's definitely Lego Star Wars on the PS3.

Too bad though they chose Lego Star Wars which is a multiplatform game. Come to think of it though, what's not a multiplatform game on the PS3.

If my local Wal-mart does that, I'll probably have too much fun asking him a bunch of stupid questions like where's Halo 3 or Gear of War, or how the online compare, or why pay more for less games.

"what's not a multiplatform game on the PS3."

Lair... thank goodness! :)

Zing!

Ironically i know some things with this article that could be picked up on.
And not one blu-ray supporter has picked up on it here. They choose instead to make the same old claims and speculation :(

Is a proper well informed discussion too much to ask for?

"Is a proper well informed discussion too much to ask for?"

When you're dealing with obsessed Sony fanatics, the answer is yes.

Sadly I would have to agree with you.

I just boycott Paramount. When they release on Blu-Ray I will start buying their products again.

The Nielsen HD sales report was released yesterday fri 9th Novemeber 2007.
Even with Transformers on HD they couldn't take the lead in sales. LOL

Blu-Ray 71% to HDDVD 29%

Here is the Nielsen report. www.thedigitalbits.com

You're a tard.

I already boycotted Sony long ago.

I boycotted thedigitalbits.com long ago.

Bill "Papa Smurf" Hunt is the Al Sharpton of the Blu-ray drones.

Yes very mature
I'm sure they can hear your cries from their office

That is by far the dumbest thing I have heard in a while not to mention childish.

Awesome, that's how we move a mountain.

Boycott paramount (like they even noticed).

HAHA!

7 studios to 2, yet owning 29%. THAT is an impressive statistic.

Thanks.

If you can't buy it from them how exactly can you boycott them? By your logic people that only have HD DVD players are "boycotting" Disney, Fox, Sony...

I think that's a form of 'fuzzy logic'.

Majority of the people don't care of the Damn disk size. Its all about the Price and right now HD DVD is the Right Price.

Those buying HDTV displays do care about quality. They might not notice at first but if you point out the huge and clear difference in quality between a movie encoded at an higher bitrate and the same one at a lower bitrate you can be sure they would notice that.

"point out the huge and clear difference"

It is hard to point out things that don't exist aredo. Also even if this was the case(which it is not) it doesn't matter. The average consumer is and always will be clueless about all the technical aspects of the 2 discs. The only thing they understand is the price and that it is in high definition. Anyway continue on with your dillusion that Blo-Ray actually looks any noticeable bit better than HD-DVD.

Point out the "huge and clear" difference? Perhaps you can give real-world examples of this? We're all waiting...

home theatre enthusias care, the rest (vast majority) dont. Otherwise you would see a very large adoption of the HD market, clearly thats not the case

siryak: If you can't see the higher details and less noise offered by higher bitrate streams comparing the same codecs then it's your problem. Don't assume that everyone won't notice the artifacts that codecs do generate at lower bitrates (and on HDTV compression artifacts can be noticed easier than on SDTV for obvious reasons)

Better yet don't assume that everyone will notice. I personally have compared the two. Can you say the same? You have yet to give an example of where Blu-Ray looks better and we are all still waiting.

That is why 300 video got a better review on HD then bli ray, try again.

No, they don't. Most people don't know the difference between 4:3 & 16:9, don't have a clue the difference between composite & component & were you to try show or explain to them the difference bitrate could make they would tell you that "It looks good enough to me".

Yep, they are plugging in their brand new (well 12 month old) HD-A2, and wonding why they bothered with that $99 crap, when none of their favorite movies are apearing on it, it's noisy and slow, and looks dog ugly.

Bargain, not.

Your whole post was opinion. No facts.

Oh, by the way, what took you so long to get here? Did you have to talk amongst your fellow Blu-Blood Soldiers over at blu-ray.com to try to get some comebacks?

Prove it!

Prove it!

Yep... all weekend, and that was the best he could come up with.

Tired old regurgitated remarks. How sad. :)

Hehe I don’t know which broken record is worse now!!
Him repeating the same speculated claims based on opinion or us asking him to back his claims up.

Amazon had the Toshiba HD-A2 at the top of their best-seller list for months, remaining at #1 for quite some time... that same list where (as far as I am aware) not a single Blu-ray player made the Top-100.

Oh, but what do they know? They're insignificant, right?

None of their fav movies how do you know what they like idiot. Maybe they enjoy the large library f titles from Universal or the soon to be released titles from Paramount. Frankly I can't stand Disney movies so I could care less. Speaking of Disney didn't they back DIVX?

not any uglier than a ps3
not slow even downloading web content only takes a few seconds to start
noise? haven't heard a peep out of it
so far i've bought 12 of my favorite movies have another 20 picked out for the next couple weeks.... the kids wanted shrek 3 over rat any day kids like the disney movies but they never rewatch them as much as shrek.

thanks again for recommending the a2 we couldn't be happier with it.

"...but if you point out the huge and clear difference in quality..."

If the difference were as 'huge and clear' as you seem to believe it is, you wouldn't need to point it out.

You may want to wipe your feet...you appear to have stepped in something.

"...none of their favorite movies are apearing on it..."

There's a fine catalog of movies for HD DVD, many of them available on both formats. And as I've pointed out before, many of the BR exclusives, in the US, can be imported on HD DVD with the price only 2 or 3 bucks more...plus shipping (T2, RE 1&2, Pan's Labyrinth when released...the list goes on).

The A2 is far from noisy, and I wouldn't call a 30 sec time-frame, from power-on until the movie is on-screen, slow. You've been preaching this for awhile now, but people who actually own the machine keep refuting it.

"...and looks dog ugly."

I know that beauty is in the eye of the beholder, but the A2 has a nice stream-lined look about it. It looks like a piece of AV equipment.

LOL

Man, that's classic... you can't put a price on good comedy like that.

I believe AP has misquoted him saying 'stalemate' ? At least thats the impression I get reading this article elseware.
At least he admits he would go back and fix up everything :) Does that mean sony wouldnt have walked away?

I find it rather amusing that this has not yet surfaced on the front page of blu-ray.com.

Oh well, I wouldn't have expected it to. I'm sure it (as well as the 'Ban Button') is getting some exercise in the forums though.

I sense Sir Howard Stringer knows of some insider information to make a statement such as that.

Perhaps he knows of more studios defecting.

It is probably best that they focus on the PS3 as a game console, as I'm sure game sales could generate much more revenue than high-def movie sales. I imagine they have quite the challenge in front of them to repair relationships with long-time loyal supporters (developers) of their previous consoles. I know Kutaragi-san had a vision, but the PS3 should be a game console first and foremost... everything else should be icing on the cake, not the other way around.

Nevertheless, it's a statement that shows an almost exponentially more humble side of Sony than has been shown in many years, and is a very welcome breath of fresh air.

You still have a long way to go though, Sony.

They are to busy with a new buy a thon to combat Shrek next week. I find it amazing that they are talking about buying movies that they don't even like just to help teh format. That is totally pathetic. The movie in question is close encounters.

Yeah, I saw that too.

It's a pity that they do not realize that studios are just as likely to look at rental sales and not just retail purchases to accurately gauge preference of one format over the other. As of right now, HD DVD rentals are much higher than Blu-ray. That's because intelligent individuals know better than to waste money on a movie they do not like that much. People have done the same thing with DVD for years... why would it be any different for either of the high-def formats? Just because a movie is released on HD DVD or Blu-ray does not by default make it a good movie. Even if it is a good movie, that does not necessarily mean that everyone is willing to pay the exorbitant prices for either of the high-def formats just yet. Once prices start to fall for all titles, I'm sure people will start filling their shelves with "keepers"... at least that's what I did with DVDs.

Don't worry, Spielberg will see the light. We'll have Close Encounters of the Third Kind (along with the rest of his catalog) soon enough. The market is beginning to speak loudly... he'll go where the sales are like everyone else in his position.

I don't know about elsewhere but I used to work for a video rental chain in the U.S. When I left about a year and a half ago they were shoring up the business by going with rentrak which is basically where most of the profits go to the studios (rent to rent in effect). Rentrak style agreements are also used extensively by other larger chains here. Compound that with the selling price of the DVD format which enables people to buy more movies instead of renting.

I was there when DVD was making the big push in 2000/2001 and went from 1 rack to 3/4 of the new release wall. This is where the HD formats are right now (1 rack in most places). A major difference is that, compared to VHS, a DVD looked and played substantially better. Neither of the HD formats can say that now when compared to DVD. Do a majority of consumers even have better than an ED capable screen? Doubtful in my eyes...

So basically rental is dead/dying and they don't really care much about format. They are mostly concerned about getting enough copies for the cheapest price to rent when a movie is fresh and then having a way to get rid of copies when it isn't. It's all about how many turns a single copy will do.

The two P's will be the deciding factor...price and porn. If one of the formats matched or undercut DVD and focused on porn they would spur sales of players and be an instant winner, game over.

One has to wonder why has this not made blu-ray.com main page? It's blu-ray news and its BIG lol.
Or is it they are selective with the blu-ray content they put there because they are wary inform people correctly?

I don't think there's a stalemate. Unless there is a Blu-Ray player released by Christmas at a competitive price - the number of early adopters of HD-DVD will determine the outcome of the war.

I believe he declared a stalemate because he knows that what you just proposed is not going to happen.

The number of HD-DVD units that Toshiba managed to sell in the US by clearing old stocks with limited low price offers is not going to change anything.
HD-DVD is a format the majority of people just don't want. It's an inferior format simply because it can't offer more than 30GB and the 52GB media is a joke, while Blu-Ray has been up 50GB from the beginning by design and it can easily go up to 200GB with 4-layers, and the media will surely follow as soon as it will be declared the only HDTV optical disc standard on the market.
Customers, the majority of people, everyone spending money on HDTV is going to need the best available optical format, the one that offers more space and has room for improvement. More space means higher bitrates which means better video and audio quality if only the producing studio decides to make use of the space. What is for sure is that if there is no more space they can't increase quality by raising the bitrate up to the maximum allowed limit, it just wouldn't fit on disc that way.

Sorry, you have no factual data to support "HD-DVD is a format the majority of people just don't want". The majority don't know the difference between the two, and that same majority took home HD-DVD last weekend.

More than 50GB? Please! Name one studio that has released a movie that was more than 6 hours long.

Your post is just more Blu-ball FUD.

Sorry.

Yes consumers want to be able to buy a format that might or might not play all the features on newer movies on their current blu-ray player

Yes consumers want to pay double for a player that has the same quality as hd-dvd

Yes consumers want a copy right protection scheme that treats them like criminals, see sony rootkit.

Wow! do you really know consumers, 90,000 players in a weekend seems to disagree with you.

"HD-DVD is a format the majority of people just don't want"

I think that should say "HD is a format the majority of people just don't want...yet"

"Customers, the majority of people, everyone spending money on HDTV is going to need the best available optical format, the one that offers more space and has room for improvement"
Please inform us why you feel this way?
I dont buy the best availabe products when I shop, why does everyone need to? I leave that kind of buying to those with money to burn, early adopters

Sorry, but I'm just reading more of the same speculation and non-sense that we've grown accustomed to seeing from you.

"The number of HD-DVD units that Toshiba managed to sell in the US by clearing old stocks with limited low price offers is not going to change anything."

Oh, but you're wrong. It has changed everything.

"HD-DVD is a format the majority of people just don't want."

Perhaps you would be so kind as to offer proof of that 'fact'? Simply having more available space does not make it the better format by default, sorry to say.

"it can easily go up to 200GB with 4-layers"

Easily?! Are you actually serious? Now you're simply being delusional. Those were prototype test discs from TDK, and those needed players with modified optics, proving that existing players will not be able to read them under any circumstance. Even 50 GB discs cannot be easily made, as past yields have proven. What makes you think that 4-layer 200 GB discs can be? And you think 51 GB triple-layer HD DVD discs are a joke? You need a wake-up call in the worst way.

You keep going on about the increased capacity of Blu-ray discs, but you fail to concede that the increased efficiency of MPEG-4 AVC and VC-1 negate that "benefit". You choose instead to consistently latch on to the antiquated MPEG-2 and the extremely wasteful uncompressed audio offerings of so many Blu-ray titles... and that is the only reason why the increased capacity of Blu-ray discs are even necessary (that, and the inclusion of a completely separate version of the film to give the illusion of Picture-in-Picture). It surely isn't because of all those "vastly superior" BD Java interactive features, that's for sure.

As for your last paragraph, the "majority of people" have already proven what they truly want... affordable high-definition.

You forgot to mention that a lot of the Blu-Ray titles are on 25GB discs. Guess they didn't "need" that extra space after all.

If the 50gb disc is such an advantage, why then did Spider-man 3 release on 2 25gb discs?

EDIT: According to the review on highdefdigest.com the actual release is 1 50gb disc for the film, and 1 25gb disc for the extras. A few other review sites list the release with the same specs. Just wanted to clear up my mistake at the top of this particular conversation...

And then you want to spout your nonsense about the ability to play a 200gb disc? Get real. The BDA rushed a product to market with an unfinished spec. This is a group that didn't even have the foresight to include an ethernet port as mandatory; never mind something as simple as true PIP support, for supplemental material.

In all honesty, there isn't a single valid reason to require a disc over 30gb presently. The video quality is damn near identical (with the main differences being a result of using different codecs for the transfer). The audio quality is similar (uncompressed audio on BR just means 'space hogging').

Blu-ray isn't a format with room for improvement; it's a format that's scrambling to keep up with the Joneses (and trying to offer up the things that HD DVD has had since DAY ONE).

It's beyond obvious that people want HD DVD...just look at how many players moved out last weekend.

Congratulations...you've just posted speculation and crap on par with Joey/Dave/Benjamin's best.

Good call, thanks.

Spiderman 3 is a 1080p H.264 Dual-Layer 50GB disc release. Don't spread nonsense and false info.

Telling people that no more than 30GB is needed it's just a silly statement. In only 30GB the bitrate is pretty limited, also HD-DVD specifications allow for way lower peak bitrate anyway so fast moving scenes will always look worse on HD-DVD than on Blu-Ray where the studios can encode with peak bitrates higher than that on HD-DVD even when still using only 30GB.. go figure.

You are the one spreading false info here. No one is buying nor producing HD-DVD hardware and media. Only a few Companies have joined the Toshiba/Microsoft/DVD-Forum bandwagon. 90% of manufacturers are on the Blu-Ray side. HD-DVD still doesn't have any PC burner on the market nor cheap available media, while Blu-Ray ones are many from various manufacturers and keep falling in price pretty quickly.
Toshiba has just cleared some old-stock in desperation mode and only in the US. In Europe the A30/A35 version players that are renamed as E30/E35 sell for 350-500Euros, that's nothing cheaper than a PS3 or many new BD players on the market.

The majority of Blu-Ray releases nowadays are 1080p H.264 Dual-Layer 50GB releases. You keep spreading nonsense and false info.. are you as desperate as Toshiba and the DVD-Forum ?
It's obvious you don't like that but spreading false info it's just silly, anyone can check discs specifications on many websites and webshops.

PCM tracks a waste of space ?
H.264 and VC-1 at higher bitrates do look much better than the same codecs used at a lower bitrate. It's no magic, they still obey to basic signal theory, video coding and compression rules. Higher the bitrate, higher the measured and human perceived quality simply because less details have to be discarded from the original and the codec has to interpolate/guess statistically thru filters to approximate the originals way less, which means lower approximation error propagation on reconstructed frames=higher signal-to-noise ratio being achieved.
So, no.. the largest space it's always better in order to achieve maximum quality which makes a difference. If you don't care about quality then that's your choice but telling people that a lower bitrate encoded movie and the same movie encoded at an higher bitrate with the same codec would look the same is just plain wrong, it's not true.

The factual data is in the clear number of BD movies being sold. The majority of people are buying PS3 consoles as BD players nowadays, others are buying BD/DVD cheap hybrid Pioneer drives for their PCs/HTPCs and everyone is buying Blu-Ray movies. HD-DVD sales account for 20-25% of the market. There is a clear majority of Blu-Ray owners worldwide. Telling otherwise is just trying the marketing hype card to push Toshiba hardware at any cost, but so far people have been smart enough to avoid getting ripped off by an inferior product.

Hehe it's even worse actually!
Its 2 x 50gb discs according to blu-ray.com

"Telling people that no more than 30GB is needed it's just a silly statement. In only 30GB the bitrate is pretty limited, also HD-DVD specifications allow for way lower peak bitrate anyway so fast moving scenes will always look worse on HD-DVD than on Blu-Ray where the studios can encode with peak bitrates higher than that on HD-DVD even when still using only 30GB.. go figure"

Unfortunatly for you, thats completely disproven with current content so dont spread nonsense and false info.

"Only a few Companies have joined the Toshiba/Microsoft/DVD-Forum bandwagon"
Its far more than the 'few' you are making it out as.

"HD-DVD still doesn't have any PC burner on the market nor cheap available media,"
I'm sorry, is that a bad thing?

"Toshiba has just cleared some old-stock in desperation mode and only in the US. In Europe the A30/A35 version players that are renamed as E30/E35 sell for 350-500Euros, that's nothing cheaper than a PS3 or many new BD players on the market"

Ah bring back the desperation... You people cant just admit that hd-dvd is here to stay. Instead of crying about it why dont you go out and grab a cheap player? At least you can be sure all future movies will play on it.

Before accusing him of spreading nonsense and false info how about you provide proof to back up your claim?
Otherwise all you are doing is shooting back half assed, no better than any other misinformed idiot on this forum.

"The majority of people are buying PS3 consoles as BD players nowadays"

Proof please, thats pure specualation nothing more. And you go off at people for misleading ???

Actually, we're both right on the SM 3 disc release...the film is on a 50gb disc, while the extras are 25gb disc (http://bluray.highdefdig...om/1042/spiderman3.html). I'll admit that mistake, but honestly...why did they need a second disc if they were using the 50gb in the first place?

There hasn't been the need for more than 30gb, unless you intend to hog the extra space up with an uncompressed audio stream. As for HD looking worse on fast moving scenes...I beg to differ. My copies of Silent Hill, and Fantastic Four have better transfers and encoding (which means a better picture) on HD DVD. Silent Hill (BR) in particular has some artifacts, which are most likely due to the use of MPEG 2. Don't get me wrong...the BR versions look nice, but the HD versions seem to be cleaner.

You can claim that no one is producing HD hardware all you want, but I'm pretty sure that the 90,000 units sold (not including Amazon) prove that wrong.

The market for BR burners is even smaller than the market for both HD and BR players at the moment. The lowest price that I could find was $461...hardly affordable to the average consumer (the media for it can't exactly be called 'cheap' either).

The higher number of BD movies sold is due to 7 studios supporting BD. The mere fact that HD DVDs are selling at 29% with support from only 2 studios is more impressive.

Sorry.

Fast moving scenes what a load of crap you have to prove that one JA. You can't because its not true. You might have blur on your cheap TV mine looke perfect.

I stopped at according to bloray.com AKA FUD central.

By using two discs they ensured that the main movie had available space for an higher bitrate encoding. That's pretty simple.
Higher the average bitrate, higher the number of peak bitrates sequences and better the quality will be.

Claiming that there is no need for more than 30GB is telling lies. Blu-Ray market being small is just your and other pro-Toshiba/Microsoft fanatics spreading hype in favour of HD-DVD.
Toshiba, Microsoft and DVD-Forum can brainwash you people as much as they want but there is no way they could change signal theory,video coding and compression basic rules. There is no way a movie encoded in 30GB maximum space at a lower bitrate with the same codec and even the same parameters would look better than encoded at an higher bitrate to fill 50GB available space.

Disproven by who ? You can't disprove basic signal theory,video coding and compression rules. With all the marketing hype you want, there is no way to change facts.
If I want to play HD-DVD movies I can easily buy one out of the many XBox360 HD-DVD USB2 players that people are selling in a desperate mode nowadays.

Insulting and using foul language won't prove you right, you know... You just look childish.

Instead of urging someone else to disprove something, how about proving some of your ridiculous claims?

No one wants or is buying HD DVD.

People are getting rid of their Xbox 360 HD DVD add-ons en masse.

Blu-ray players are cheaper.

Take your pick.

Anyway, whether you like it or not, the huge U.S. entertainment market will decide the outcome of this 'format war'... not Europe, not Asia, not Australia, not Antarctica... not anywhere else. Other regions will indeed have an impact, but nowhere to the extent of the impact of the U.S. I'm sorry, but that's***orical fact, and this will be no different.

The fact that so many Blu-ray so-called 'exclusives' can be found on HD DVD in other regions (not the other way around) tells me that there is a higher demand for those same releases on HD DVD. The market has spoken, and HD DVD is gaining serious momentum now.

No one is trying to disprove basic anything... in fact, no one was even talking about it aside from you. It's pure common sense that higher bitrates with the same codec yields better quality. The fact is that no one is currently taking advantage of the higher capacity of dual-layer Blu-ray discs in the ways you are describing (unless you can prove otherwise). For movie releases common to both formats that use the same codecs (whether they be AVC or VC-1), the bitrates are the same... and typically the picture quality simply looks better on HD DVD players. Review after review have shown this to be the case.

"Spiderman 3 is a 1080p H.264 Dual-Layer 50GB disc release. Don't spread nonsense and false info."

Oh, it's "Do as I say, not as I do", eh?

Spiderman 3 is a dual-disc (BD50 / BD25) release. How about you follow your own suggestions, hmm?

The PCM 5.1 soundtrack is a 16-bit 48kHz encode. Tell me how that stellar quality is not marginally better than what DVD offers?

The Dolby TrueHD 5.1 24-bit 48kHz (bravo, finally!) soundtrack should have been the only English one included.

The PCM soundtrack is simply not needed, is redundant, and is a waste of space... especially since Dolby TrueHD is lossless and is converted to uncompressed LPCM anyway during the decode process, with zero loss of quality... oh, that is if your Blu-ray player can do that properly, as it's an optional codec on that format, as opposed to mandatory on HD DVD.

The rest of the space on that dual-layer disc is taken up with Dolby Digital 5.1 640kbps soundtracks in 4 other languages. I'm not knocking it for that, it's simply to point out that just because there is more space available on the disc does not mean that higher quality due to higher bitrate encoding is assumed by default like you seem to suggest.

The HD DVD release of Transformers has already garnered extremely impressive reviews. Sound quality was one notable area that impressed most, especially considering it used Dolby Digital+. It's all in the transfer, and proves that 20 GB of extra space is simply not necessary. It's a gimmick, and shows that HD DVD supporters are not the ones who have been brainwashed as you claim.

There is no evidence (at least none that you have presented) to support your claim that simply because a movie is released on an HD DVD 30 GB disc that it was encoded at a lower bitrate than one released on a Blu-ray 50 GB disc.

How about instead of tying to impress everyone here with your self-proclaimed expert status in the field of audio/video encoding, you give an example of one single Blu-ray release that best utilizes the max theoretical peak bandwidth of any Blu-ray player or PlayStation 3 out there right now.

That's all... one single movie on Blu-ray that is the definitive example of utilizing the Blu-ray format to its fullest capacity. I'm sure that I can find an HD DVD release (probably the same movie) that either equals or excels in audio and video quality.

To date, no Blu-ray release has efficiently utilized a 50 GB Blu-ray disc in the ways you describe. Until that happens, your points are moot.

I thought there has been numerous posts here stating this porclaimed high bit rate is crap. It's just some numbers by design look impressive yet mean nothing in the real world.

"To date, no Blu-ray release has efficiently utilized a 50 GB Blu-ray disc in the ways you describe. Until that happens, your points are moot."

They need room for their rootkits don't yah know!

See? There you go again stating the blatantly obvious.

Of course movies encoded with the same codecs at higher bitrates yield better quality. When did I or anyone else claim otherwise? Yet, you decide to go off on tangents with techno-babble explaining common theory that has nothing to do with what anyone else here was referring to.

You've done this before with your ridiculous tirades on MPEG-2 compression at higher bitrates. Yes, it does yield better quality, but it is unnecessary when more space efficient alternatives are available that yield the same quality at lower bitrates.

The point is that you have yet to show proof that anyone has used those higher capacity Blu-ray discs to do just that... encode at higher bitrates with AVC or VC-1. Is that too much to ask?

And yes... PCM is a waste of space, when the exact same quality can be achieved utilizing more space efficient solutions such as Dolby TrueHD or DTS-HD... true lossless compressed codecs. Yes, when better alternatives are available that negate the 'superior quality' of uncompressed audio, PCM is a waste of space. It's very simple. Why you fail to understand that is simply beyond me...

It's rather common knowledge that both Blu-ray and HD DVD releases are (for the most part) either h.264 AVC or VC-1 1080p encodes.

What you have yet to prove is that 50 GB Blu-ray releases are encoded at higher bitrates than 30 GB HD DVD releases.

You can accuse others of spreading "false info" all you want, but you have yet to spread relevant info.

Drop your narrow one minded thought pattern for just 5 minutes, Dont try and be smart with all that techno garbage. It means absolutly NOTHING to the vast vast vast majority of people out there.

And stop avoiding peoples requests for you to backup your stupid claims...

and somehow you completely fail at reading
There was no insult towards you whatsoever in my small comment.
Who looks childish here? The person making silly claims and running away when the time comes to prove them or the people asking you?

Seriously... you people do nothing to your flavour.

The 50 gb platter is also home to the space hogging uncompressed PCM audio...don't forget that.

While you're right that higher bitrates do provide a cleaner image, you have to take into account the point where the human eye/ear no longer detects the quality difference. For example, music in mp3 format may be of a much higher quality when encoded to 320kb/s, but the human ear stops detecting the difference around 160 kb/s. There comes a point where these numbers don't mean a damn thing, except on paper.

PCM lossless not needed ? Redundant ? If you don't care about audio quality then download divx/xvid copies with low bitrate mp3 audio encodes on the 'net... you surely won't notice any difference then.
Any lossy compression causes signal distortions of various kinds, filters are used to reconstruct the signal as much as possible but there is no way to get the original audio stream as it was before compression. Only lossless codecs (and not quasi-lossless ones that are still lossy) and plain simple uncompressed streams can deliver the original audio quality.
Any lossy compression scheme lowers quality (and this applies to both video and audio).

You are wrong on your assumptions. Human eye and ear can detect compression artifacts, the truth is that on average many don't detect it but mainly because they don't focus and/or are not trained to. Those going at the opera and listening to classical music can notice audio distortion pretty easily usually, just for example.
Lossy codecs are developed looking at the average during design stages with a test audience, and algorithms and filters are fine tuned to give the average guy out of that statistics the best possible results, at least that's the main goal. Which doesn't mean that no one would notice compression artifacts, it's just that on average people should not, but it's still an average based on test audiences and statistics, in the real world many more people than what the design would like to achieve can notice compression artifacts, and lower the bitrates then higher the number of artifacts the encoder will produce.

I never claimed that a person can't detect compression artifacts; only that there is a 'breaking point' for doing so. There are limitations to exactly how much detail the human body can detect, in both sight and sound. When these limits are reached, the higher encode bitrates may look great on paper; but are ultimately just chest thumping.

It may be easier to find the differences and artifacts by someone who is trained to do so, (and/or has top of the line equipment); however, this not take away from the fact that the limits of the human body exist and have an impact.

"the truth is that on average many don't detect it."

Thank you for personally stating my point. Not too many people are going to sit there trying to find artifacts in their movies.

"in the real world many more people than what the design would like to achieve can notice compression artifacts, and lower the bitrates then higher the number of artifacts the encoder will produce."

Link to back up this BS? Better yet I would love to see some kind of link that shows that Blu-Ray looks better than HD-DVD. If this is the case I am sure there will be an abundance of articles on it. *note* blu-ray.com DOES NOT count.

"how about you provide proof to back up your claim"

I guess you just missed that part right aredo? We are all still waiting. "because aredo said" is not proof sorry.

Yes, uncompressed PCM audio is redundant, for the very reasons that he listed. It's a space hog, and nothing more.

They do need the 50 gig disks so the movie can be on the disk twice with one having PIP. They don't seem to be able to get that working even though it's been on HD DVD since day one. Beta-ray

I fond it funny looking at your buddies systems over on bluray.com they don't even have a system can play the lossless codecs so what is your point. In fact, most of your fellow trolls don't even have a center speaker so in reality what the hell do you even care since your I bet your system is just like the rest of them.

Compression done well has from what has been posted at many sites no difference.

Good point...

Are you quite simply choosing to ignore what I posted? Do you even read comments?

I was talking about lossless compressed audio... Dolby TrueHD and DTS-HD MA. They are true lossless audio codecs, and are better, more efficient alternatives to uncompressed PCM. Pay attention, please.

Spiderman 3 includes both Dolby TrueHD and PCM (both in 5.1, both in English)... in other words, redundant.

PCM is not needed, is redundant and is an extreme waste of space when compared to those two lossless compressed solutions that offer zero difference in fidelity. I offered Transformers as an example of how to do lossy compressed audio correctly, but it was not the main point of my comment.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dolby_TrueHD

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DTS-HD_Master_Audio

If you are so concerned with higher quality video, then it would stand to reason (to most intelligent individuals) that opting to use more efficient lossless compressed codecs for audio would yield more space for higher bitrate video.

The reverse is true as well. To get the most out of audio in a given amount of space, use more efficient video codecs.

Again, stop trying to impress with your 'vast knowledge' (what boils down to 'common knowledge' to everyone else here), and pay attention to what others are talking about. Then you might be able to respond accordingly with relevant statements.

Please stop assuming that just because someone suggests an alternative to uncompressed PCM that they are referring to lossy compression. It's getting really old...

You seem to be under the delusion that there is no lossless alternative to PCM (or seem to think that everyone else here doesn't know of one), and that every other option results in inferior audio.

Have you seriously not heard of Dolby TrueHD or DTS-HD Master Audio, or are you simply choosing to ignore them?

It's quite obvious that it irritates you when others know something better than you, and references to wikipedia are far from any accurate truth about things anyway.
TrueHD and DTS-HD MA need new receivers/decoders with HDMI 1.3a connections. With PCM the majority of people with older receivers/decoders can enjoy high quality lossless audio track. That's the main point, ensuring backward compatibility.
You are the one not paying attention to things, you just think to be the smartest one around and the studios are just wasting space on BD titles, the fact is that it's not the case at all. There is no redundancy in providing both lossless versions audio tracks.

@SGD: Either you are ignorant on the subject or you don't want to accept reality just to push the Microsoft/Toshiba marketing hype to promote an inferior disc format that HD-DVD really is.
Bitrate it's everything with any compression codec, either being audio or video. And even with uncompressed and lossless compression you have to take it into account. Any audio or video stream quantized at an higher bith depth will deliver better quality. A PCM 44.1KHz 24bit audio track does sound much better than the same track quantized at 16bit or worse. And for audio signals increasing frequency and bit depth causes an higher bitrate.
Delivering higher quality always requires an higher bitrate, whatever the lossy or lossless compression codec being used. You can't escape from this fact, it's the basis of signals theory and compression technologies.

You saying he's childish doesn't back up your statements either.

"HDMI-equipped players can internally decode TrueHD to LPCM, and output the LPCM over an HDMI 1.1 (or higher) interface, all HD DVD players currently support this. If a player can not internally decode TrueHD it can transport the bitstream over HDMI 1.3 to a receiver capable of decoding it, this feature is now supported on the Samsung 1400 BD player with a firmware upgrade. HD DVD players can also transcode the TrueHD bitstream into a different legacy format (such as Dolby Digital or DTS), providing a high-quality approximation of TrueHD audio over a legacy TOSLINK cable for those that do not have HDMI"

Again, the uncompressed is not needed and shows very little difference that only a/v enthusiasts may notice, the average movie watcher will notice no difference.

Itunes and the rush of digital music is a perfect example that the average person cannot hear any difference in how high a file is encoded and therefore pcm is a waste of space.

Exactly, yet you latch on to this concept that 5.1 16-bit 48kHz PCM (essentially the same as DVD) is somehow better quality than 5.1 24-bit 48kHz Dolby TrueHD (which any worthwhile player will decode internally and send its output as LPCM anyway... and not just through HDMI 1.3a as you ignorantly claim).

PCM would actually be worthwhile if it is encoded at 24-bit 48/96kHz. However, the incredibly vast majority of titles are encoded with 16-bit 48kHz PCM on Blu-ray. 24-bit PCM releases are extremely rare, only just now starting to trickle down to the public.

Sorry, but you cannot deny facts, my aurally-challenged friend. 16-bit is not high-quality. The fact that you honestly believe it to be (simply because it's uncompressed and nothing more) is laughable, and shows that you are the one who is clearly ignorant. For crying out loud, the majority of Blu-ray releases include a soundtrack that is essentially a multi-channel version of CD audio (that has been around for over 20 years) that is sampled only 4kHz higher. Oh yeah... that's astounding quality! If anything, the PCM tracks are included for backward compatibility for people that cannot take advantage of higher resolution audio.

If you want a clear and shining example of how high-quality multi-channel audio on Blu-ray should be done (Dolby TrueHD 24-bit 96kHz 5.1), check out Dave Matthews and Tim Reynolds: Live at Radio City.

http://bluray.highdefdig...radiocity.html#Section4

But no, you choose instead to believe that simply because audio is uncompressed and free of compression artifacts that it makes it high-definition by default. By your logic, Red Book CD audio is high-definition too, right? It is uncompressed, after all...

What both sides of the high-definition format backers and studios need to realize is that 'high-definition' does not just pertain to video, but audio as well... and 16-bit is not high-resolution. Include just one high-resolution multi-channel audio soundtrack, and let the consumer's hardware determine if it is played back properly in its native unmolested form. If not, let the player down-convert to one of the redundant tracks that already exist on so many releases currently wasting space that could be used for higher bitrates for video and audio alike.

Whatever though. Stop pretending you are the only one that knows anything around here and stop insulting everyone else's intelligence with your elitist condescending attitude. Also, stop pretending others are trying to "escape" from things they are not. You're acting like a child.

"TrueHD and DTS-HD MA need new receivers/decoders with HDMI 1.3a connections."

No, they don't. Please, stop spreading misinformation. It's people like you that give your preferred format a bad reputation.

"so fast moving scenes will always look worse on HD-DVD than on Blu-Ray"

Not if they use the same [30gb] video on both disc's. And when it's not, it's probably the worse quality mpeg2 which takes more space so Sony can say 'you need more space'. Go figure.

"PCM lossless not needed ? Redundant ?"

Not when your using a lossless compression. Which is still.... [wait for it] lossless. So yes. It's rendundant. It's just a way for Sony to say that you 'need 50gb's' by using full uncompressed audio and Mpeg2 video.

"you just think to be the smartest one around"

Touche.

"and the studios are just wasting space on BD titles"

Exactly. Why else would use full uncompressed audio (when compressed lossless is available, which is still lossless) and using Mpeg2 (when H.264 and VC-1 is available). They're trying to make it look like you 'need' 50gb's for a movie when you really don't right now.

"Claiming that there is no need for more than 30GB is telling lies."

You don't for a movie when you use the proper codecs. The extra's may make a difference, but that's a different story.

"PCM tracks a waste of space ?"

I didn't even bother reading the rest of your babbling post.

Yes. Full uncompressed audio is a waste of space when compressed lossless (which is still lossless, you still don't seem to understand that) is available.

Still waiting...

You are the one spreading false info. You need HDMI 1.3a capable decoders for these new lossless codecs.

http://www.dolby.com/ass...s_TrueHD_whitepaper.pdf

If you don't use HDMI 1.3 codecs like TrueHD will perform downmix, the quality will be reduced. It's not possible to achieve the same bandwidth on S/PDIF ports.

That's your opinion. You can't tell that no one would notice the difference since it's there and can be clearly noticed.

"You are the one spreading false info."

Okay, seriously... I'm used to your half-truths and ramblings that usually have nothing to do with the previous poster's comments, but this is ridiculous.

"You need HDMI 1.3a capable decoders for these new lossless codecs."

No, quite simply, you don't. You need HDMI 1.3 (or higher) to take advantage of raw bitstream output.

"If you don't use HDMI 1.3 codecs like TrueHD will perform downmix, the quality will be reduced. It's not possible to achieve the same bandwidth on S/PDIF ports."

HDMI 1.3 is only required to send the raw bitstream output to a capable receiver. All versions of HDMI support transport of multi-channel uncompressed PCM audio. Did you get that? It will only convert to a legacy format when forced to use S/PDIF.

If your player is decoding one of the true lossless compressed formats, what do you think it is being decoded into?

That's right... PCM. Not bad!

If your player is sending the bitstream output to a capable receiver for it to decode, what do you think the receiver is decoding it as?

Right again... PCM. Good boy!

There are numerous ways of getting Dolby TrueHD audio to a receiver:

* Unaltered - Over HDMI either as 5.1 or 7.1 uncompressed PCM (HDMI 1.0 or higher, up to 8-channel 24-bit 192 kHz) or bitstream (HDMI 1.3 or higher)

* Unaltered - Over multi-channel line-level analog outputs

* Down-converted to legacy formats (Dolby Digital or DTS) - Over S/PDIF if one of the above methods are not available

Did you notice all the ways it delivers audio as PCM? You know... the same PCM that you claim is necessary as a separate soundtrack wasting space?

There's your backward compatibility. Some studios are doing it correctly, others are simply being lazy during the transfer.

If you don't have a receiver capable of HDMI or multi-channel analog inputs, clearly you don't care about high-quality audio as much as you claim.

Good grief... you're like a punching bag, and about as observant as one, too.

He did not say "noone" would notice, if you bothered to read.

Average listeners would not notice. Enthusiasts would... that's why they're 'enthusiasts'.

Pay attention...

and waiting...

Eh... you'll be waiting a long time.

If he ever does comment, it will probably have something to do with MP3 basic compression theory. :)

Strange, where are all the "HD DVD is dead" posters gone?

To their Blu-Ray Bunkers to try and figure out a way to spin this. Of course you can go over to Neowin and listen to the always idiotic shill PeterTHX preach about the end of HD DVD. Unlike our zany fanboys here he's a pompous a** though so I wouldn't recommend it.

I just love it when Sony pretends like they're in charge. They're declaring a stalemate? Under what authority? Is it the same authority that allowed them to declared victory TWICE before? I don't know if the rest of you recall, but Sony declared Blu-Ray's victory over HD-DVD not once, but twice, earlier this year! Let's give it another 6 months and they'll probably declare defeat. Oh wait, it's Sony. They would never admit defeat.

Sony's arrogance knows no limits. For their CEO to say the format war is at a stalemate is quite disconcerting. It means they're in real and serious trouble. When the format war looked about even, Sony declared victory. Now that HD-DVD has the upper hand, they say it's a stalemate. Gives you something to think about.

Sony is offering a draw... to keep from losing...

Calm down Beta"News" fangirls... 2.45:1

http://www.engadgethd.co...or-week-ending-november/

Looks like Blu-Ray is quickly losing market-share. Imagine that...

Looks like the Sony CEO agrees.

That was your point, right? :)

"HD DVD's highly successful sale of the HD-A2 was too late in the week to impact the results"

Read the article next time.

and falling like a brick from my understanding.

Poor guy... if Sony learned how to let go, perhaps you can too someday.

*sigh* It will be easier fernz if you just let go right now. It will hurt too much for you to be still holding on whenever Sony throws in the towel. Make it easier on yourself and find a new obsession.

Yeah, sure.. that must be the reason why Blu-Ray accounted for 79% of HD discs sales last week then...

79% of HD disc sales from blu-ray.com perhaps.

Please READ the g**d*** articles, as soon as you idiots post anything that says blu-ray win neglect to actually READ. The part you may have missed that it doesn't include the 90,000 players nor the movies that some of them bought, nor does it include two disney movies for blu-ray and one for hd-dvd.

Noone said the impact of hd-dvd was going to be seen suddenly :)

Well considering the amount of blu-ray players currently out in the public, it's no wonder blu-ray is going to sell more software.
Thats even taking into consiration how many ps3 owners dont use it to play ps3 (which is only estimates), blu-ray still has more actual players playing content.
BUT all of that is about to change, theres no denying (unless you like to defy logic) that the price cuts on hd-dvd players is going to have a massive effect over the next few months.
You can be certain to see blu-rays lead get chipped away.

But yeah, its also sad to see so many idiots on forums organising such buyouts. Obviously they feel threatened by hd-dvd otherwise they would not need to conduct such childish behavour

i just got my a2 on the friday deal and already bought 10 movies for it and i'm a broke a$$ redneck trying to close on my first house in a couple of weeks can't imagine how many movies new hd-dvd owners with some extra money bought... just a note bestbuy has some really good deals on movies but the store here didn't update the prices on the display had to ask them to check the prices....

Toshiba has not cut players prices in Europe, not at all. They are as expensive as a PS3 and even more.
Price cut on HD-DVD players in the US was only for a few weeks, they are going to raise them again. They needed to clear their old stock of previous generation units.

And what on earth does the price of players in europe have to do with it?

fantastic!!! I feel so informed you brought that useless information here.
So are you claiming that those models that have had the price cuts are going back up in a few weeks? Or are you saying new models coming in to replace old? Thats the evolution of technology, what exactly is your point?

Well, you've about worn this account down, time to make a new one.

Hey, here's a thought:

Look at the graphs in the link.

What does that tell you?

See the blu-ray piece of the pie? It's shrinking. Weekly. By a large margin. Guess what? Toshiba just sold over 100k units. What do you think that's going to do to that slice, eh?

Time to jump off the fanboy wagon. You're beginning to look ridiculous up there.

Regardless, there are now 100K more units out there. Blu-Ray was already losing market share....even at Toshiba's normal prices.

Do the math.

It almost sounds like he is accepting defeat after sony has claimed victory a few month ago. Just because you have won a battle does not mean that you have won the war.

Ding Dong the disc is dead, blow your nose get out of bed, ding dong the blu-ray disc is dead!!!

I know, its still a formidable format but, I sure would like to see if get out of the movie market.

It does stink of desperation. When Blu-Ray themselves say the war is a stalemate, that pretty much means it's even.

People who are buying a PS3 as thier main Blu-Ray player are shafting themselves. The PQ is way better on a good stand alone. Anybody who has owned both said the same thing, the PS3 is to Blu-Ray what the PS2 was to DVD, a crappy player built into a gaming console.

I'm sure a lot of people with PS3's are letting them sit idle as they didnt buy a lot of games for the system and they don't know it plays BD movies. By the way, I now know why Sony doesn't charge for it's version of 360 Live, it's not worth paying for.

Joey will be looking for a ten foot length of rope this weekend.

It's gets worse too. MGM has indeinitely delayed all of thier upcoming titles on BD.

"MGM has indeinitely delayed all of thier upcoming titles on BD."

Here's a few extra "f"s, you seem to be out.

fffffffffffffff

Enjoy. :)

I disagree. When the "winner" says there is a stalemate, that means they are now losing.

Sony can not compete with sub $199 players while they are sitting at $399.

"MGM has indeinitely delayed all of thier upcoming titles on BD."

I was doubting this, but a little research and I found out that MGM only has Rescue Dawn this month and nothing for what seems to be half a year away, WOW. Is MGM owned by some other studio? Looks to me like MGM would go exclusive HD-DVD in no time.

i just remember how horrid the load times were on ps2 models when you'd die in a game and wait for 10-30 seconds for it to reload the level. maybe that was a game issue not a console issue, but from my experience playing ps2 i got nothing out of it but motion sickness and irritation

If Blu-Ray is losing like you claim, then how comes the population is buying Blu-Ray movies, hardware, blank media, burners, players including the PS3 then ?
Blu-Ray movies discs sales have accounted for 79% approx... the reality is that worldwide only a bunch of people bought HD-DVD hardware and are buying HD-DVD movies.
Many XBox360 HD-DVD add-on owners are selling their players now.
Toshiba must be in desperate mode to throw out their old-stock at such low prices.
DVD hardware got discounted by manufacturers up to nowadays silly prices just because HDTV media and hardware were going to be released. A manufacturer doesn't discount its own hardware unless it has got something better to sell.. or unless it knows that it has lost a format war and needs to make some cash quickly to recover from its losses.

The reality is that you have no idea what the reality is.

Thanks.

Your face is so far up Sony's a** I can't tell when you begin and they end, you have no proof, no logic and you need help.

where are these xbox360 people dumping their add-on?

Since Toshiba is the only one making the hd-dvd players they can sell it for whatever they want.

The reality is you cannot look from the forest through the trees, the CEO of Sony even says "oops"

The reality is even if blu-ray is better as long as it costs more the consumer will not buy it, look at vhs vs beta EXACT same thing, and Sony has a habit of creating propietary media that never catches on.

You do know that the PS3's primary function is a games machine, and therefore doesn't count into the number of BR players sold, right?

"Many XBox360 HD-DVD add-on owners are selling their players now." Care to back up this little piece of FUD with the link to a news article?

"A manufacturer doesn't discount its own hardware unless it has got something better to sell.. or unless it knows that it has lost a format war and needs to make some cash quickly to recover from its losses."

Wow...just...wow. You've managed to exceed the typical Smurf stupidity with this statement. You come close to grasping the concept of the blow out price ("...something better to sell..." namely the 3rd gen player) and then devolve into circular logic.

Which is it? Did they sell these players at a huge loss to dump inventory and get out of the game (as oh so many azure sheep at bluray.com seem to think); or did they do it to make cash quickly. I think it's the old gillette trick myself...sell the player at a loss, and make the difference in movie sales (via the licensing).

Please... simply because some people are buying Blu-ray players, burners, and PlayStation 3 consoles does not mean they are selling well. These are facts that you seem determined to deny, instead opting to make up your own... such as your 79% claim of a Blu-ray software sales lead over HD DVD, and the "fact" that no one wants HD DVD.

The best reason I can think of explaining why someone would want to get rid of their HD DVD add-on for the Xbox 360 is because they bought a Toshiba stand-alone for $50 less last weekend (if they were able to get one before they were sold out everywhere).

I'm sorry, but so far no one has seen any indication of HD DVD losing momentum in this ridiculous format war. In fact, it's quite the opposite. If not, then we certainly would not be commenting on an article titled "Sony CEO Declares Stalemate".

Sony is the one in desperate mode, sorry to break it to you. They know they cannot wage a war on a price front... their own stubbornness to lower prices on their products has always been their downfall.

If you have ever taken the time to skim over the highlights of most of the trade shows where both opponents have made an appearance, you may have noticed two completely different attitudes from both sides. Only the Blu-ray side deemed it necessary to take childish stabs at the HD DVD side, constantly comparing the "superior" benefits of their format over their rival... advanced features that still to this day remain in a state of perpetual flux hovering somewhere over Fantasy Island. These oh-so-superior advanced features that would bring their players up to par with HD DVD entry-level players that have included final versions of those features since the first player hit retail shelves... you know, entry-level players that sold out last weekend, proving that you are unconditionally wrong when you claim "no one wants HD DVD".

The attitude from the official HD DVD partners was usually infinitely more humbled, showing almost zero concern over the threat from Blu-ray. Toshiba has played it smart from the beginning.

If you want to be bitter and angry, direct it towards someone much more deserving... Sony. It's not HD DVD manufacturers who have charged exorbitant prices for incomplete and unfinished high-definition solutions.

Keep dreaming. People are buying the PS3 as a Blu-Ray player mainly nowadays simply because it's the cheapest and best option on the market so far.
Then when they bought it they obviously play games on that as well since it's a console but telling that because it's a console it can't be counted as a player it's such a silly statement, really.

Right... Blu-ray player first
Game machine second

Oh thats supposed to be a good thing wasnt it?

"People are buying the PS3 as a Blu-Ray player mainly nowadays simply because it's the cheapest and best option on the market so far." You've been posting this bit for awhile now, yet haven't offered up any proof of the statement.

Try to spin it all you want, but the fact remains. The PS3 is a games platform, that has the ability to play BR movies built in. Regardless of how many people are buying it as a BR player, logistically, it remains a game console. The 360 add-on isn't counted either, since it's not a stand alone player (regardless of the fact that its only purpose is movie playback).

Look at it like this: Does your DVD player count toward the number of CD players sold, since it has the ability to play CDs as well? No. The same comparison applies.

Are you sure about that?

Not every PlayStation 3 can be counted as a Blu-ray player. Sorry to break it to you, but more than half of the people that buy or have bought a PlayStation 3 are unaware that is even capable of playing a Blu-ray movie.

That is why Blu-ray has an embarrassing 2:1 lead in movie sales when Blu-ray-capable players outnumber HD DVD players by such a large margin.

The fact is that HD DVD has a higher attach rate, and that is what matters.

It's damage control time Sony.

Same thing will happen to Howard as it did with Michael Bay. They will both learn the hard way that they are DISPOSABLE.

Surely this must be a mistake. Sony has already stated a few times that Blu-ray has won.

LOL

Oh SNAP!

there are so many long articles like this and so many debates and arguments over something that can be summed up in 3 words:

Consumers Don't Care.

This is true. Consumers don't care at all. All they want to do is watch the movies they like in high def. This just goes to further show that there never should have even been a "format war" in the first place. The only reason why this even happened is because some big egos (and their high priced lawyers) at the corporate ivory tower level couldn't agree on the details of what content protection schemes to use.

Well, here's a news flash for you Big Wig Corporate CEO's: your paying customers don't like content protection schemes and they don't like paying for you to further develop and refine them either. The more time, energy, effort and resources you put into them, the more you piss your customers off even more. Oh, and here is the follow up news flash for you: every time you think you have come up with the "unbreakable" content protection scheme, some 17 yr. old in the Neatherlands figures out a way to defeat it within a few weeks or months.

Great job guys. Exellent use of resources there. Way to screw up your cash cow industry and make all your customers, and the consuming pulic in general, completely hate your guts. You guys must be taking lessons from the brilliant brain trust over at the RIAA. They have just done wonders for their industry and its good will in the community, haven't they? Impressive.

Well, here's a news flash for you consumer-guys: Big Wig Corporate CEO's don't care what you want. They want to make money for their company and that required complicated protection schemes. Without them, they would lose money, and their job. So if it takes a format war in order for them to keep their job, and their money, so be it.
Meanwhile, we must all suffer, or stick to good, ol' DVDs. Maybe if you stand real-close to your TV it'll look kinda like HD.

The amount of money that is lost by copied DVD's probably never will amount to the billions spent on development and marketing of a new format.

Standard DVD's would look worse if you stood closer as at it would be easier to see it was lower resolution. Try increasing distance to where resolution makes no difference.

Thats actually 4 words :-)

Sony is offering a draw... to keep from losing...

"Maybe if you stand real-close to your TV it'll look kinda like HD. "

Wouldn’t you have to stand real-far away for it to look HD. Real close will just look pixilated.

dgootman: I disagree with you. DVD's uses copy protection and "lose" money on it. By "lose" I mean that it gets pirated and can't sell those copies. BUT, no lose in money going on... It's just they can't make even MORE money. Look at the numbers for DVD... people ARE buying, and the BIG WIGS are getting rich off of it. I think its just greed that keeps them wanting more. THAT’s the reason the writers don’t get more money (but that’s a different subject).

The best way to combat this is to make it cheap. People WILL steal $35 BR/HDDVD Discs. Heck, people will steal $5 BR/HDDVD Discs. But more people will be inclined to just go out and buy the thing if they can pick it up for $10 and be able to make backup copies for it. It still pisses me off that I can't buy a movie; make a backup copy for my media server; and put the original away. Well... I can and I do, but I hate that I have to feel like a criminal when copying my movie that I bought.

I love the current state of technology right now; 1tb drives; 10,000 songs that fit in my pocket; my 56” 1080P HD Sammy, my blackberry that does stock quotes, email, voice, traffic, gps, and internet; my psp which now gives me access to my media files on the ps3 anywhere in the world... I love this stuff. BUT MAN I HATE THIS COPY PROTECTION CRAP. Itunes only files. 20 different types of media cards. I hate that if I buy a new camera, I have to get a new memory card.

As far as this format goes. I'm for Blu and all because I have the PS3 and I want Blu to win so I don’t have to buy another player... And I'm glad it's gone on this long because with out it, there wouldn’t be a $99 or $200 HD player and they would still be at the $500 range… But I think this has gone on long enough. It’s just getting annoying now. HDDVD people shouldn’t have to go rebuy the movie in BD because BD “won” (the same goes with BD if HDDVD “won”). It’s just getting ridiculous.

What was the topic again… I guess I just kinda went on a rant. Well to sum it up. Make it cheap, universal, and protection free… less people will be pissed off that way.

I’m Fernz33, I’m running for President, and I approve this message.

The reason why the amount lost to copied (insert DVD, CD, VHS or whatever format is being copied)'s will match up to what is spent on development is because most people that buy or download the pirated content would not have bought it in the first place.

I have to laugh whenever someone says that every copy of a DVD is 29.95 (or whatever the going cost it) that the movie execs are not getting. If the download was not available, most people would not go out and buy it instead. Granted there are a few, and most of them probably will anyway.

On the other side, there are those who buy it, want a digital copy, and instaed of going through the trouble of making a copy themselves, download a copy.

I really appreciated reading that comment fernz33.

"I'm for Blu and all because I have the PS3 and I want Blu to win so I don’t have to buy another player..."

I have a lot of respect for you for such an honest statement. I believe that is the driving reason behind a lot of people's decision to back one format over the other, and it's completely understandable.

"And I'm glad it's gone on this long because with out it, there wouldn’t be a $99 or $200 HD player and they would still be at the $500 range…"

I agree completely. The ongoing competition between the two (while tiring and frustrating) has certainly done a world of good towards driving the prices down on the players... more so on the HD DVD side. Now we just need the movie releases to follow suit.

@Austin814: If you see no difference between an heavily distorted signal that makes the SDTV and fake 16:9 format DVD compared to HDTV native 16:9 1080p MPEG-2/VC-1/H.264 720p/1080p streams then you must have some serious issues.

Now see if you would post more like that and less like this "Calm down Beta"News" fangirls... 2.45:1" then there might actually be more "logical" discussion and less pointless bickering. I gotta give you props for this post. I actually for once agree with your post completely.

It may have been a rant, but it was a well thought out rant.

"...but I hate that I have to feel like a criminal when copying my movie that I bought." EXACTLY. I'll take this sentiment one step further though. I hate that I have to sit thru a "don't steal movies" message on DVDs that I PAID FOR. Talk about preaching to the choir...

"I'm for Blu and all because I have the PS3 and I want Blu to win so I don’t have to buy another player..." I can respect this, but here's a little consolation for you: at least HD DVD players are reasonably affordable now. If HD comes out on top, your BR movies will still play on your BR player (look at it the same way many videophiles that bought into laser disc do, and it's not that bad).

Personally, I own both, and I prefer HD DVD. Both formats offer the potential for the same a/v quality, but the affordability of the format (and its reliablity) makes it more appealing to me.