[*TL]

Originally Posted by goMac 

Yeah, again, $150 is pocket change. It's hardly going to make a difference in Paramount's coffer ....

Wow, high rollers here! Paramount Home Video's net revenues for the last quarter were $545M. Assuming similar revenues for this quarter, an extra 25% in the kitty isn't bad. Heck, net earnings for all of Viacom were "only" $433M last quarter, so this deal has the potential to pad the entire corporation's bottom line by 1/3 without anybody lifting a finger.

Not bad for a day's work.

[climber]

Good point, $150 mil is hardly pocket change.

What bugs me is that even if the race has only just begun, BR is definitely in the lead right now. Without the latest deals, BR could have won the race by the end of this year. That clearly will not happen now. In order for HD-DVD to win they will have to slug it out until at best 2009. However you slice it or dice it this extends this format war. I for one will not purchase anything until it is over. I doubt I am alone.

[wallinbl]

Just get this stupid format war over with already. Get a player in the neighborhood of $100 already! I don't care much about media prices as I only rent.

[goMac]

Originally Posted by *TL 

Wow, high rollers here! Paramount Home Video's net revenues for the last quarter were $545M. Assuming similar revenues for this quarter, an extra 25% in the kitty isn't bad. Heck, net earnings for all of Viacom were "only" $433M last quarter, so this deal has the potential to pad the entire corporation's bottom line by 1/3 without anybody lifting a finger.

Not bad for a day's work.

On the other hand, the average movie costs $100 mil to make. How many movies does Paramount/Dreamworks make a year?

[PaperNotes]

Originally Posted by goMac 

On the other hand, the average movie costs $100 mil to make. How many movies does Paramount/Dreamworks make a year?

A handful compared to Sony and its subsidiaries and even then the best ones are by Spielberg who will continue to see his movies released on Blu-ray too. So the bribes and incentives paid by the HD DVD camp are a waste of money. I see Blu-ray continuing to expand their lead especially in Europe now that the PS3 will have a DVR option.

[goMac]

Originally Posted by PaperNotes 

A handful compared to Sony and its subsidiaries and even then the best ones are by Spielberg who will continue to see his movies released on Blu-ray too.

Yeah, that wasn't exactly what I was noting, but thanks...

[mitchell_pgh]

IMHO This is why Blu-ray will win.

The Numbers - Top-Grossing Distributors 1995 to 2007

If you look at the distributors that are over 1%, this is the breakout.

Blu-ray - 48.62%
Both - 19.32%
HD-DVD - 24.72%

So, if you buy a Blu-ray player, you should have access to over just under 70% of the films... and if you buy a HD-DVD player, you should have access to ~45% of the films.

Granted, not every film will be released, but that's my logic.

[jokell82]

That is, until Warner goes HD exclusive. And Lionsgate goes neutral.

[PaperNotes]

Originally Posted by jokell82 

That is, until Warner goes HD exclusive. And Lionsgate goes neutral.

That won't happen. Their strongest sales have been Blu-ray titles.

[jokell82]

Originally Posted by PaperNotes 

That won't happen. Their strongest sales have been Blu-ray titles.

You know, you're right - why would anyone do that? Oh right, Paramount did.

Warner has leaned HD DVD since the beginning - it should shock no one if they went exclusive.

[PaperNotes]

Originally Posted by jokell82 

You know, you're right - why would anyone do that? Oh right, Paramount did.

We never hear such scandalous stories of bribery about Blu-ray...

Paramount and DreamWorks garnered "incentives" valued at $150 million to agree to release their films in high-definition home video exclusively in the HD DVD format, the New York Times and Daily Variety reported today (Wednesday). Both publications said that the HD DVD camp had agreed to "promotional considerations" amounting to $50 million for Paramount and $100 million for DreamWorks over the next 18 months. The Times indicated that an undisclosed amount of cash also exchanged hands. Variety's revelation was buried in an article about director Michael Bay's flip-flop over the two film companies' decision. Bay had originally posted a message titled "Paramount pisses me off!" on his personal website in which he remarked: "I want people to see my movies in the best formats possible. For them to deny people who have Blu-ray sucks!" He vowed not to direct Transformers 2 if it would not be released in the competing Blu-ray format, which currently outsells HD DVD by three to one. By the end of the day, however, Bay had backtracked, writing, "I overreacted. I heard where Paramount i$$$ coming from and the future of HD. ... I like what I heard." Fellow director Steven Spielberg remained unconvinced, balking at the Paramount/DreamWorks deal (as he did with Universal's exclusive deal with the HD DVD camp). A spokesman indicated that his films will continue to be released exclusively in the Blu-ray format, regardless of the studio for which they are made. DreamWorks marketing chief Marvin Levy said Tuesday that Spielberg continues to be a "big supporter of Blu-ray."

HD DVD is smacking of desperation and will have to send in the yakuza next.

Warner has leaned HD DVD since the beginning - it should shock no one if they went exclusive.

Certain people in Warner can lean any way they want. The financial officers and shareholders will be looking at sales.

What happened to your claim that HD DVD has a 51GB format in the labs when the Paramount spokesman said 45GB is the largest HD DVD in the labs? Why did you balk when it was pointed out to you that Blu-ray has a 200GB disc in labs?

[jokell82]

Originally Posted by PaperNotes 

We never hear such scandalous stories of bribery about Blu-ray...

Never heard of Blockbuster or Target then, have you?

Originally Posted by PaperNotes 

HD DVD is smacking of desperation and will have to send in the yakuza next.

So when HD DVD does it it's desperation, but when Blu-Ray does it it's good business? Check back in this thread - the exact same thing was said about HD DVD when they gave away 5 free movies with their players. Oh but then Blu-Ray did it and it was a good idea.

Originally Posted by PaperNotes 

Certain people in Warner can lean any way they want. The financial officers and shareholders will be looking at sales.

Or, they can look at costs and attach rates. Which is something some of the Blu-Ray fans just can't understand.

Originally Posted by PaperNotes 

What happened to your claim that HD DVD has a 51GB format in the labs when the Paramount spokesman said 45GB is the largest HD DVD in the labs? Why did you balk when it was pointed out to you that Blu-ray has a 200GB disc in labs?

Paramount isn't the one working on the discs, and the latest news was 51gb (as a way to one-up BD).

And I didn't balk - the 200gb Blu-Ray disc is not backwards compatible with older players. The TL HD DVD *IS*. That's a big difference between the two.

[PaperNotes]

[QUOTE]

Originally Posted by jokell82 

Never heard of Blockbuster or Target then, have you?

Where is the story of bribery?

So when HD DVD does it it's desperation, but when Blu-Ray does it it's good business?

Where are the desperate sales figures for Blu-ray?

Or, they can look at costs and attach rates. Which is something some of the Blu-Ray fans just can't understand.

Where are figures for the attach rates for HD DVD?

And I didn't balk - the 200gb Blu-Ray disc is not backwards compatible with older players. The TL HD DVD *IS*.

But a Blu-ray drive that supports 200GB+ discs supports older discs. Discs that have outsold HD DVD by a larger margin every month. If you're going to respond that nobody will upgrade to a newer Blu-ray drive in the future, you can expect responses from those who have bought updated DVD drives over the years when new features were added such as support for recordable discs (DVD+RW, DVD-RW, and dual format). Not just stand alones but computer based drives too.

[jokell82]

Originally Posted by PaperNotes 

Where is the story of bribery?
Where are the desperate sales figures for Blu-ray?
Where are figures for the attach rates for HD DVD?

Try reading more of this thread than the last page. Then take part in the discussion. I'm not repeating pages of posts just for you.

Originally Posted by PaperNotes 

But a Blu-ray drive that supports 200GB+ discs supports older discs. Discs that have outsold HD DVD by a larger margin every month. If you're going to respond that nobody will upgrade to a newer Blu-ray drive in the future, you can expect responses from those who have bought updated DVD drives over the years when new features were added such as support for recordable discs (DVD+RW, DVD-RW, and dual format). Not just stand alones but computer based drives too.

That has nothing to do with the fact that Sony will leave all early adopters in the dust if they decide to use those discs. Hell, they're about to make some players obsolete with the 1.1 spec. I don't know how anyone can think that is acceptable.

[mitchell_pgh]

Originally Posted by jokell82 

Or, they can look at costs and attach rates. Which is something some of the Blu-Ray fans just can't understand.

The problem with your "attach rates" comment is you lump all PS3 sales in to that figure when everyone knows that the PS3 is primarily a gaming system, and a first class Blu-ray player second.

Also, cost is a tricky thing considering the cost of most HD TVs. The average cost of a HD TV is still in the $1000+ range. Do you really think someone is going to say "Sure, I'll buy the $2300 TV, but I'm not willing to spend the $200 difference between the lowest end HD-DVD player and the lowest end Blu-ray player..." Especially when Blu-ray currently has more the movies most people want.

HD movies are still in their infancy... call me when even a quarter of the population knows the difference between HD-DVD and Blu-ray.

I'm starting to think that hybrid players will win out.

[PaperNotes]

Originally Posted by jokell82 

Try reading more of this thread than the last page. Then take part in the discussion. I'm not repeating pages of posts just for you.

I have read everything. You conjured up your attachment rates like David Blaine trapped in ice on a bad day, and there are no stories of Blu-ray bribery.

That has nothing to do with the fact that Sony will leave all early adopters in the dust if they decide to use those discs.

Sony will do blah blah blah. If you don't work there this is a conspiracy theory. Future Blu-ray drives will be compatible with older discs. That makes more sense.

Hell, they're about to make some players obsolete with the 1.1 spec.

Source that all Blu-ray discs already shipped will not function?

[jokell82]

Originally Posted by mitchell_pgh 

The problem with your "attach rates" comment is you lump all PS3 sales in to that figure when everyone knows that the PS3 is primarily a gaming system, and a first class Blu-ray player second.

So when it benefits the Blu-Ray camp, the PS3 install base means they have a TON of player sales. But if you bring up attach rates, suddenly they don't count? I don't buy it.

Originally Posted by mitchell_pgh 

Also, cost is a tricky thing considering the cost of most HD TVs. The average cost of a HD TV is still in the $1000+ range. Do you really think someone is going to say "Sure, I'll buy the $2300 TV, but I'm not willing to spend the $200 difference between the lowest end HD-DVD player and the lowest end Blu-ray player..." Especially when Blu-ray currently has more the movies most people want.

Considering Vizio is now the top selling LCD HDTV, I'm not sure you can say the average cost is $1000+. And how do you figure Blu-Ray has more movies that "most people want"? The number of releases is pretty close to even (and I think HD DVD is getting ready to outnumber BD).

Originally Posted by mitchell_pgh 

HD movies are still in their infancy... call me when even a quarter of the population knows the difference between HD-DVD and Blu-ray.

I'm starting to think that hybrid players will win out.

I've said from the beginning that I think this will end with both formats coexisting, and nothing recently has changed my view. I'd still rather have HD DVD the clear winner, but I doubt Sony's ever going to stop making BD movies. So given that scenario I'd definitely agree with you - hybrid players will become the standard.

[jokell82]

Originally Posted by PaperNotes 

I have read everything. You conjured up your attachment rates like David Blaine trapped in ice on a bad day, and there are no stories of Blu-ray bribery.

I conjured them up? Please show me how the math is wrong and I'll gladly retract what I wrote. But unless you can do that then please STFU.

Originally Posted by PaperNotes 

Sony will do blah blah blah. If you don't work there this is a conspiracy theory. Future Blu-ray drives will be compatible with older discs. That makes more sense.

Who claimed otherwise???

Originally Posted by PaperNotes 

Source that all Blu-ray discs already shipped will not function?

Do you even understand what I wrote??? Because no one suggested that.

[PaperNotes]

Originally Posted by jokell82 

I conjured them up? Please show me how the math is wrong and I'll gladly retract what I wrote. But unless you can do that then please STFU.

Mitchell has shown you numerous times and it has gone over your head without appropriate response.

Who claimed otherwise???
Do you even understand what I wrote???

Again not an appropriate response and an ad hominem.

You have also ignored my request to show me a source for any of your responses, in particular tales of bribery in the Blu-ray camp. What you're doing in your responses smacks of the same dirty tricks and bad excuses the HD DVD camp has been up to. For that I'll respect Blu-ray supporters even more. They can show facts and figures every time.

[jokell82]

Originally Posted by PaperNotes 

Mitchell has shown you numerous times and it has gone over your head without appropriate response.

Mitchell didn't show a thing. Instead, he complained that you can't count all the PS3s. To which I responded they either are a BD player or they aren't. I even included attach rates if you don't include the PS3. I guess you could survey every single PS3 owner and see if they are or ever plan to use their machine as a Blu-Ray player, but since that hasn't happened there is no other way to come up with the numbers.

Originally Posted by PaperNotes 

Again not an appropriate response and an ad hominem.

It's an appropriate response because you're arguing a point that no one is talking about. Of course old discs will work in new players, and no one has suggested they wouldn't. What's hard to understand about that? The problem is that NEW discs will not work in CURRENT players. That is something you have no response for.

Originally Posted by PaperNotes 

You have also ignored my request to show me a source for any of your responses, in particular tales of bribery in the Blu-ray camp. What you're doing in your responses smacks of the same dirty tricks and bad excuses the HD DVD camp has been up to. For that I'll respect Blu-ray supporters even more. They can show facts and figures every time.

They have been shown before, and I don't feel the need to dig them all up again. But do you honestly deny that Sony paid Target for their player exclusivity? Seriously? Because if you do a simple Google search for any topic about that deal all the results talk about Sony buying the endcap or paying for Target's exclusivity. But since no insiders leaked the exact amount it's probably just a fabrication...

[PaperNotes]

Originally Posted by jokell82 

Mitchell didn't show a thing. Instead, he complained that you can't count all the PS3s. To which I responded they either are a BD player or they aren't.

To which he included a source - a survey in which many PS3 owners said they weren't aware they had a Blu-ray player.

The problem is that NEW discs will not work in CURRENT players. That is something you have no response for.

I asked for a source for that. That's all I want.

Because if you do a simple Google search for any topic about that deal all the results talk about Sony buying the endcap or paying for Target's exclusivity.

Buying something is quite different from a cash bribe:

The Times indicated that an undisclosed amount of cash also exchanged hands.

You realize that by paying cash bribes to executives that the HD DVD camp acted illegally and against shareholder interests? Note, a billionaire like Spielberg has no use for a pesky bribe like executives do so it was impossible for him to be bought.

[goMac]

Originally Posted by jokell82 

That is, until Warner goes HD exclusive. And Lionsgate goes neutral.

I could see Microsoft throwing more money at Warner. And they really should. Sony has pretty obviously been throwing their money around to shift neutral studios to Bluray only, it's about time the HD-DVD camp does the same,

[Eug]

Originally Posted by mitchell_pgh 

The problem with your "attach rates" comment is you lump all PS3 sales in to that figure when everyone knows that the PS3 is primarily a gaming system, and a first class Blu-ray player second.

Also, cost is a tricky thing considering the cost of most HD TVs. The average cost of a HD TV is still in the $1000+ range. Do you really think someone is going to say "Sure, I'll buy the $2300 TV, but I'm not willing to spend the $200 difference between the lowest end HD-DVD player and the lowest end Blu-ray player..." Especially when Blu-ray currently has more the movies most people want.

HD movies are still in their infancy... call me when even a quarter of the population knows the difference between HD-DVD and Blu-ray.

I'm starting to think that hybrid players will win out.

Lots of 37"+ TVs are US$999 or less these days. I bought one for my mom for CAD$999 months ago. Hell, Dell was selling a 42" Westinghouse for CAD$699 yesterday. That's just over US$650, and traditionally TVs cost more in Canada than in the US.

Also, lots of people will look at $499 for a Blu-ray player and say no thanks. $199 is the magic number IMO, but $299 is a good start. In fact, I won't even pay $499, and I have the money, and I'm a relatively early adopter.

HD DVD has been at $299 MSRP for months now, with deals coming up from time to time to as low as $199.

Originally Posted by goMac 

I could see Microsoft throwing more money at Warner. And they really should. Sony has pretty obviously been throwing their money around to shift neutral studios to Bluray only, it's about time the HD-DVD camp does the same,

If MS isn't giving its money to Paramount, why should they do it for Warner? Remember, HD DVD is not MS. If anything, the "promotional considerations" should be provided by the HD DVD group, not MS specifically.

[PaperNotes]

Originally Posted by goMac 

I could see Microsoft throwing more money at Warner. And they really should.

Won't happen because it isn't in their interest. HD DVD technology belongs to Toshiba not MS. Microsoft's support for HD DVD is limited to having it work on their platforms. Sony and Dell, both on the Blu-ray consortium, are two of their most important Windows licensees so there won't be any stepping on toes there. Also each Blu-ray disc encoded with SMPTE VC-1 pays Microsoft a license fee.

Note, when MS wanted to adapt Halo into a movie they sent the script to every studio, not just HD DVD supporting ones. The two companies who agreed to develop Halo were Universal (HD DVD) and 20th Century Fox, who have shipped many Blu-ray titles. Halo would have been dual format if produced.

Blu-ray.com - Blu-ray Movies - 20th Century Fox

Sony has pretty obviously been throwing their money around to shift neutral studios to Bluray only

Show a source for that. Sony doesn't have to "throw money" or bribe anyone. They have their own major entertainment studio that funds big and small films and is also a distributor. A lot of those studios you call neutral are Sony partners so you will have to show Sony doing anything wrong that equals the HD DVD's camps illegal cash bribery.

[PaperNotes]

Blue Ray Technologies, the first independent Blu-ray manufacturer in the US, has issued a press release regarding the recent exclusivity agreement between Paramount and HD DVD. Commenting on the move, Erick Hansen, founder of Blue Ray Technologies, said, "Toshiba and HD-DVD offered this deal because they are desperate. The public has chosen Blu-ray discs with their pocket books, buying BDs 2-to-1 over HD-DVDs this year."

Regarding why he disagrees with the move, Hansen commented, "For retailers, it's like being forced to stock VHS tapes after the public chose DVDs. For the consumer it creates more confusion that hurts the industry-wide move to hi-def."

Hansen also says he isn't the only person speaking out. "If multi-billion dollar director Steven Spielberg and billion dollar director Michael Bay like Blu-ray, the deal is a double-edged sword." Commenting further, "If these two spoke up so quickly, you can be sure that there are a dozen others who will follow suit if they have the clout on a film."

He also hopes that others will be as outspoken as himself. "I would like to see others take a stand, this is only slowing the inevitable and hurting consumers and the business. It's not that I'm surprised they took the deal but it's like paying them not to grow crops. How is the film industry going to segue into the next-gen world if it accepts a relative pittance to stunt its growth?"

[Eug]

Originally Posted by PaperNotes 

Blue Ray Technologies, the first independent Blu-ray manufacturer in the US, has issued a press release regarding the recent exclusivity agreement between Paramount and HD DVD. Commenting on the move, Erick Hansen, founder of Blue Ray Technologies, said, "Toshiba and HD-DVD offered this deal because they are desperate. The public has chosen Blu-ray discs with their pocket books, buying BDs 2-to-1 over HD-DVDs this year."

Regarding why he disagrees with the move, Hansen commented, "For retailers, it's like being forced to stock VHS tapes after the public chose DVDs. For the consumer it creates more confusion that hurts the industry-wide move to hi-def."

Hansen also says he isn't the only person speaking out. "If multi-billion dollar director Steven Spielberg and billion dollar director Michael Bay like Blu-ray, the deal is a double-edged sword." Commenting further, "If these two spoke up so quickly, you can be sure that there are a dozen others who will follow suit if they have the clout on a film."

He also hopes that others will be as outspoken as himself. "I would like to see others take a stand, this is only slowing the inevitable and hurting consumers and the business. It's not that I'm surprised they took the deal but it's like paying them not to grow crops. How is the film industry going to segue into the next-gen world if it accepts a relative pittance to stunt its growth?"

That's totally awesome. He sounds like Blu-ray is in serious hyperbole damage control mode.

Thanks for the quote. It added a chuckle to my day.

Originally Posted by PaperNotes 

HD DVD's camps illegal cash bribery.

It would seem that PaperNotes is also in serious hyperbole damage control mode... but then some. Not even the Blu-ray group would be stupid enough to call any such deal "illegal cash bribery".

P.S. Someone would have to be extremely naive that such deals like a possible Paramount one don't happen all the time in the industry.

[*TL]

Originally Posted by jokell82 

Mitchell didn't show a thing. Instead, he complained that you can't count all the PS3s. To which I responded they either are a BD player or they aren't. I even included attach rates if you don't include the PS3. I guess you could survey every single PS3 owner and see if they are or ever plan to use their machine as a Blu-Ray player, but since that hasn't happened there is no other way to come up with the numbers.

Actually, you wouldn't have to survey all PS3 owners, just a statistically significant sample. You could then say that 1 PS3 is worth .3 standalone players, or whatever. The HD PG wants to count the PS3s for attach rates, but ignore them for purposes of saying how many of each type of player is on the market, which is intellectually dishonest.

Actually, a few pages back, it was shown that 40% of the 1.5M PS3 owners knew PS3 was a BD player, and 50% of those had bought a BD title. If true would mean, of 1.5 million PS3s sold, 300,000 of them have bought BD titles, swamping the number of HD DVD players on the market alone.

Also, I believe, that puts the "attach rate" of BD owners and PS3 owners using the PS3 as a BD device at one disc per owner higher than for HD. (5 vs. 4 or 4 vs. 3; I did back-of-the-envelope calculations last week when these numbers were posted, but I've forgotten what they were and don't have the time to look it up, so I could be wrong.)* There's also a "sleeping giant" effect, where if even half the remaining 1.2M PS3 owners bought just one disc, it would have an enormous effect on the titles sold.

*(I also think the whole attach rate issue is a red herring, but that's another issue.)

[Eug]

Interesting post as to why Blu-ray costs more:

DVD and CD have a numerical aperture (NA) of 0.60. To maintain compatibility HD DVD uses a NA of 0.65 which is close enough that the same lens can be used to focus the infared light (CD), red light (DVD), and blue light (HD). The NA or numerical aperture of a lens in simply a value that corresponds to the maximum angle of light that can enter the lens. To keep it simple a higher NA will have a larger incident angle and as a result a higher the optical resolution, lower focal length and lower depth of field. The limit of a lens in air is an NA of 1.0.

The "problem" with keeping the NA similar to CD/DVD is that moving from red to blue only increases the capacity by a factor of 3x while the jump from 480p to 1080p is a 6x jump in pixels. At the time the only codec was mpeg2 and there simply wasn't enough capacity. Toshiba flirted with the idea of going mpeg2 and 720p. Microsoft showing VC-1 could enabled a 2:1 compression over mpeg2 allowed HD DVD to gain support of the DVD Forum. By using an NA of 0.65 HD DVD allows the use of existing DVD lines. For all intents and purposes an HD DVD is simply a DVD with smaller pits. By using a single lens HD DVD also allows for cheaper optical pickup units.

BD on the other hand was original designed as an mpeg2 system. 3 years prior to it's release as a prerecorded playback system it was being sold in Japan as an HD recorder. Using mpeg2 BD needed a capacity of 25 & 50 GB. The numbers were chosen because at the bitrates used for HDTV in Japan 25GB would record slightly more than one hour (TV) and 50GB would record slightly more than 2 hours (movies).

Now BD and HD DVD use the exact same 405nm blue-violet diode as a laser source. So how does BD gain 2/3 more capacity? Sony changed the NA from 0.6 to 0.85. This creates as focus point closer to the laser source (and hence closer to the top of the disc). This one small change has radical effects on the material science involved.
1) The light spot is now smaller allowing the pits to be placed closer together = higher capacity and bandwidth.
2) The data layer is now located only 0.1mm away from the surface as opposed to 0.6mm for CD, DVD, HD DVD.
3) The same lens can NOT be used for other formats (CD/DVD/HD DVD) because it would be out of focus when looking at a data layer 0.6mm from disc surface.
4) The ultra thin top layer necessitated a harder top coat.
5) The BD discs can not be made on DVD stampers, and other replication equipment.

How do BD players playback DVD & CD?
Two lenses are used (or a floating lens on the PS3). The light from the infrared and red diodes are directed through a 0.6NA lens to allow proper focus at the 0.6mm data layer. The light from the blue diode is directed through a 0.85NA lens to allow proper focus at the 0.1mm data layer.

The interesting fact is that a BD drive that can playback CD and/or DVD essentially has everything it needs (at the optical level) to playback HD DVD also. This does not mean that any BD drive can playback HD DVD because they can't. It means that with little modification and cost a design for a CD/DVD/BD drive could be converted into a CD/DVD/BD/HD DVD drive. The actual material cost in adding HD DVD support to a BD drive would be minimal*. The blue diode light needs to be redirected (via a splitter) through the 0.65NA vs the 0.85NA lens used by BD.

The reverse is not true. A HD DVD only drive will still cost substantially more to build in BD playback. An HD DVD drive would need the additional and higher cost 0.85NA lens and the higher grade actuators to enable the smaller movements necessary to track the smaller BD tracks. While diodes get all the press it is the 0.85NA lens that greatly increases the complexity and cost of the BD optical pickup. While 0.60 NA lenses on CD and DVD can now be mass produced out of plastic the 0.85NA lens in BD drives is a high precision glass optic. The higher NA means the lens has a very small depth of field. If the lens is out of tolerance even slightly it will be either near sighted or far sighted and miss the data layer.

*One potential issue with lower cost of combo drives is that both technologies are proprietary and would need to be licensed. In effect the licensing cost is now doubled.

[PaperNotes]

Originally Posted by Eug 

It would seem that PaperNotes is also in serious hyperbole damage control mode... but then some. Not even the Blu-ray group would be stupid enough to call any such deal "illegal cash bribery".

First, respond directly to me if you have a problem. Second, an undisclosed amount of cash that exchanges hands is called a bung, also known as an illegal cash transaction for favors in return, also known as a bribe. Shareholders and companies don't benefit from executives who take undisclosed cash bungs that result in a company selling less discs than competitors.

[PaperNotes]

Originally Posted by Eug 

Interesting post as to why Blu-ray costs more:

Prices drop and Blu-ray has sold twice as many discs as HD DVD. So who is not making enough money?

[PaperNotes]

Originally Posted by Eug 

Also, lots of people will look at $499 for a Blu-ray player and say no thanks. $199 is the magic number IMO, but $299 is a good start.

In his speech at the unveiling of the new iMac, Steve Jobs said we have finally gotten to the point when all-in-one devices are the best value and best option for consumers. He showed a slide show to prove his point. iMac is an all-in-one. iPhone is an all-in-one. The iPod is almost an all-in-one. Laptops are too. We are in the era of the convergence device according to Jobs.

Sony's answer to that is the PS3. Why buy a stand alone player at all when an all-in-one console and computer drive is all you need?

[Kerrigan]

This thread is getting really bizarre. I can't wait for one of these formats to win so that all the arguing and killing can stop.

[Dakarʒ]

Originally Posted by Kerrigan 

This thread is getting really bizarre. I can't wait for one of these formats to win so that all the arguing and killing can stop.

The HD-DVDers have rallied together in the face of the Paramount announcement. It's certainly spurred way too many pages in too short a time.

[Eug]

Originally Posted by PaperNotes 

In his speech at the unveiling of the new iMac, Steve Jobs said we have finally gotten to the point when all-in-one devices are the best value and best option for consumers. He showed a slide show to prove his point. iMac is an all-in-one. iPhone is an all-in-one. The iPod is almost an all-in-one. Laptops are too. We are in the era of the convergence device according to Jobs.

Sony's answer to that is the PS3. Why buy a stand alone player at all when an all-in-one console and computer drive is all you need?

Cuz a standalone HD DVD player is a heluvalot cheaper. Plus the PS3 is a little clunky as a Blu-ray player for the average non-gamer, especially since it has no IR support.

BTW, that's the first time I've ever heard Jobs' like of the iMac design as an example to support the PS3's design. They are completely different products.

First, respond directly to me if you have a problem. Second, an undisclosed amount of cash that exchanges hands is called a bung, also known as an illegal cash transaction for favors in return, also known as a bribe. Shareholders and companies don't benefit from executives who take undisclosed cash bungs that result in a company selling less discs than competitors.

Heh. PaperNotes, that's really a bizarre statement to make. Nobody, including not a single person the Blu-ray group, is accusing Paramount of taking illegal kickbacks.

Your paranoia certainly isn't helping the credibility of your argument.

[goMac]

Originally Posted by PaperNotes 

Sony's answer to that is the PS3. Why buy a stand alone player at all when an all-in-one console and computer drive is all you need?

Apple also excels at not including crap that most consumers don't need. Most consumers don't need a game console or a computer at their TV.

[climber]

Originally Posted by PaperNotes 

is called a bung, also known as an illegal cash transaction for favors in return, also known as a bribe.

Or even more commonly known as business deal. Unless you have evidence those payments were received by the executives instead of the company.

As far as attach rates go, it makes little difference if they are selling less product. Obviously BR has a significant lead right now, and has been gaining ground.

[goMac]

Originally Posted by Eug 

Cuz a standalone HD DVD player is a heluvalot cheaper. Plus the PS3 is a little clunky as a Blu-ray player for the average non-gamer, especially since it has no IR support.

I was actually given a Harmony the other day and it's so nice that it works with my XBox 360. The person who gave it to me is a PS3 user and he certainly is bothered that it doesn't work with his Harmony, especially since he bought it as a Bluray player (the store was out of Bluray players, but as always, had a huge pile of PS3's, so he had to buy a PS3).

[PaperNotes]

Originally Posted by climber 

Or even more commonly known as business deal. Unless you have evidence those payments were received by the executives instead of the company.

The evidence is that the company did disclose the legal payments and incentives. However the cash that changed hands was, as stated, undisclosed. That means not to the company as a the latter would have to disclose it for the benefit of shareholders.

[PaperNotes]

Originally Posted by goMac 

Apple also excels at not including crap that most consumers don't need. Most consumers don't need a game console or a computer at their TV.

Are you serious? So what's all this Apple talk about downloading TV shows and movies to stream to your Apple TV? That's a convergence of desktop computer and TV side console, one communicating to another. You can have it that way or marry the two to a high definition display. Apple apparently, and according to you, has thus excelled at including crap that most consumers don't need.

[*TL]

Originally Posted by goMac 

On the other hand, the average movie costs $100 mil to make. How many movies does Paramount/Dreamworks make a year?

Not all that many, but when you sink $100M into a movie, you hope to get, say, $150M back. (Paramount's was also notorious for using German tax shelters and other creative finance to spend next to nothing to make it's movies.) To (reportedly) get that $150M free and clear, with no risk, that's nothing to sneeze at. Again, look at the total revenues the Home Video division brought in last quarter for some idea of how much of an affect $150M would have. Hell, $150M is 10% of Viacom's earnings for 2006.

(NB, I'm not trying to play games mixing reports for revenues and earnings; I just don't see the Home Video division's earnings easily broken out, and I'm not taking the time to dig around for it.)

Also, as I pointed out earlier, Paramount's generally been on a decline for the past 7ish years. Brad Grey bought DreamWorks (for about $1.5B) essentially to get its production pipeline because Paramount had nothing.

Now, I go on and on here to get back to this point: $150M is a deal that troubled Paramount would find difficult to refuse. I'm sure HD PG knew that. What doesn't make sense to me is that, given the lack of recent hits at Paramount, the HD PG would spend all that money to get what amounts to 2 recent hit films, Shrek and Transformers (the former of which appeals primarily to those too young to have cash to buy an HD player).

[PaperNotes]

Originally Posted by Eug 

Nobody, including not a single person the Blu-ray group, is accusing Paramount of taking illegal kickbacks.

Your paranoia certainly isn't helping the credibility of your argument.

And that's your opinion. So? Well, Variety has said an undisclosed amount of cash exchanged hands that was not going into company coffers otherwise it would be disclosed for shareholders.

[starman]

This thread has taken a turn for the worst.

[Dakarʒ]

Just think how ugly it'll be if HD-DVD does start doing well.

[*TL]

Originally Posted by PaperNotes 

Well, Variety has said an undisclosed amount of cash exchanged hands that was not going into company coffers otherwise it would be disclosed for shareholders.

That's not what Variety reported, as you (I think it was you anyway) quoted above. Variety's source was the Times, which I've linked elsewhere, which contains no implications that the "cash exchang[ing] hands ... was not going into company coffers" was an under-the-table thing between individuals or that there was otherwise anything untoward.

There's also no duty to report the amount of money in a deal like this to shareholders.

[goMac]

Originally Posted by PaperNotes 

Are you serious? So what's all this Apple talk about downloading TV shows and movies to stream to your Apple TV? That's a convergence of desktop computer and TV side console, one communicating to another. You can have it that way or marry the two to a high definition display. Apple apparently, and according to you, has thus excelled at including crap that most consumers don't need.

Huh? As you've pointed out, Apple already has their own home entertainment device in the AppleTV. And as much as you're saying that the PS3 is a device modeled after Apple's own philosophies, the AppleTV and the PS3 are nothing alike.

The AppleTV doesn't play games. It's not a DVD/Bluray/HD-DVD player. It doesn't download content. It doesn't have a web browser. It doesn't have a TV tuner. What has Apple done? They've eliminated the crap they don't feel most consumers need.

In fact, the AppleTV is really like the anti-PS3. Strange, in since according to you the PS3 was designed using similar ideas that Apple would use in designing the AppleTV.

[PaperNotes]

Originally Posted by goMac 

The AppleTV doesn't play games. It's not a DVD/Bluray/HD-DVD player. It doesn't download content. It doesn't have a web browser. It doesn't have a TV tuner. What has Apple done? They've eliminated the crap they don't feel most consumers need

It's a convergence device because it requires a computer to work with it. If you could stream DVD or HD to it you would. If games were downloadable to it kids would. YouTube is a form of web browsing. Users and potential buyers have requested a TV tuner to be built into it. You think that's all crap that consumers don't need simply for the sake of argument.

Strange, in since according to you the PS3 was designed using similar ideas that Apple would use in designing the AppleTV.

Even stranger is that all I said is that they are both forms of convergence devices and didn't say what you said I said.

More.

From IMDb

The decision by Paramount/DreamWorks to release high-definition discs exclusively in the HD DVD format may result in short-term benefit for the company (it will reportedly receive $150 million in promotional value and cash from the HD DVD camp), but it is likely to decrease its overall sales of high-definition discs significantly and delay the public's decision to purchase players for either HD DVD or Blu-ray, several analysts agreed Wednesday. Jim Bottoms, CEO of media research firm Understanding & Solutions, was quoted in Home Media Retail magazine as telling a research seminar in Beverly Hills Wednesday, "The weight of the industry is still very much behind Blu-ray ... We do not believe overall [that the Paramount announcement is] going to change the outcome of the battle." Its only effect, he said, is to prolong confusion over the format issue. The announcement was greeted with dismay in Terre Haute, IN, where Sony has spent $81 million to upgrade a Blu-ray manufacturing plant. Richard Doherty, research director for The Envisioneering Group in Seaford, NY, told today's (Thursday) Indianapolis Star that "the Hollywood jet-set club [is] playing chess, and consumers feel like they're pawns in the game." In an editorial, the Los Angeles Times commented on Wednesday: "Hollywood needs to let consumers and the market pick a winner, just as they did with Betamax and VHS. And consumers can't do that unless all the studios release their movies in both formats.

From The NY Times

Paramount's recent decision to pick HD DVD as its exclusive HD format was influenced by money, not quality, reports say. The New York Times writes that Paramount was paid $150 million by the format's backers, divided into cash and promotional guarantees. This is despite Paramount's insistence that HD DVD is simply "the affordable high quality choice for consumers." Still unclear is how long the exclusivity will last, as while Paramount told PC World the deal was "indefinite," the Times claims it may be limited to 18 months. Paramount has released Blu-Ray titles in the past.

[PaperNotes]

Originally Posted by *TL 

There's also no duty to report the amount of money in a deal like this to shareholders.

But they did report money. Variety added there was other monies that changed hands that was undisclosed.

[icruise]

I for one would be very surprised if Paramount/Dreamworks swtich didn't involve some concessions (monetary or otherwise), but I also think it would be pretty naive to think that the same type of thing doesn't happen on both sides.

[wallinbl]

What causes people to root for companies or products? I don't get it? Why are you on the Blu-ray side or the HD-DVD side? Who freaking cares? Let one of them win so we can move on. Why would you care which one wins?

[*TL]

Originally Posted by PaperNotes 

But they did report money. Variety added there was other monies that changed hands that was undisclosed.

Variety is reporting the same $150M that everyone else is. Nobody has reported the sort of under the table payoffs that you're alleging. Paramount has disclosed nothing.