Why This Format War Was Unfair From The Start

[DarthXan]

I keep reading statements from studios claiming that "the consumer has chosen", or what not. But honestly lets look at it from the beginning. From the get go, HD-DVD was the underdog because of more studios supporting blu-ray. Now just coz more studios supported blu-ray doesn't mean, blu ray was superior, and it also didnt mean the consumer chose blu-ray. But naturally, since 1 format has more support people would tend to go for that. Now HD-DVD had a chance to stay in it if Warner would have gone HD exclusive. Blu would still have a 1 sudio advantage, but HD would have 3 exclusive studios so it would be more fair.

Still, to have a true format where where the consumer really chooses the winner, studios should support both formats, thus the consumer's decision should be solely based on incentives that each format offers technologically. Blu-rays disk space, HD-DVDs interactive features, combo disks and price.

But since from the start blu ray had more studio support (god knows why, or how much money sony paid them), it was obvious that HD-DVD had to fight hard. And since most consumers dont even know what these 2 formats are, they will choose the 1 with more movies available. Hence the consumer didnt choose, the studios chose. So I'd just like for once to hear blu supporters tell it the way it is, "the consumer didnt choose, we chose for them, more studios supported our product coz we paid them excessive amounts of money, in an effort to sabotage the competition, hence we won". If they would be honest and say that, maybe I would consider blu ray in the future if HD-DVD dies.

But until then, if they keep up this consumer's choice BS, ill stick to HD until its death, then just standard DVD.

[kururo]

of course blu-ray had more support. it was made before hd-dvd.

[rick240]

Grasshopper,

format war is unfair...

...because it is part of life....

...and life is unfair

[Jason One]

Sorry, but the fact that more people bought Blu-ray players and discs does mean that the consumers chose it. Refusing to buy Blu-ray just because studios use this phraseology is highly irrational.

[hstewarth]

HD DVD had the backers of DVD, but then again - competing against yourself.

Big question now, will there even be any new HD DVD is June.

[bomba]

HD-DVD has SOME of the backers. Most of the important DVD forum CEs and studios backed Blu-ray but theres alot of smaller members. Numbers win out.

[Solid Paul]

I can tell you why I decided to support Blu-ray. As a consumer I want choice and content. I got both with Blu-ray. I'm not going to argue over the studio's choosing for me. I wanted more content, and I got that with Blu-ray.

I hope you understand that money was likely to have exchanged hands on both camps. No one was bullied into buying one format over another. As you can see in these forums, some went Blu, some went HD and some went Format Neutral.

I'm not saying that the companies truly care about the consumer beyond getting our hard earned cash.

It's a business, and to take a quote from my favorite movie...."It's nothing personal, it's strickly business."

I love HD content, I truly didn't care which way this war ended, only that it ended. I accepted that I was taking a chance by adopting a format early on like most.

It's too bad you choose to return to SD-DVD rather than continue to enjoy HDM through Blu-ray....but that's your choice to make, and you have your reasons.

[damonous]

I keep reading statements from studios claiming that "the consumer has chosen", or what not. But honestly lets look at it from the beginning. From the get go, HD-DVD was the underdog because of more studios supporting blu-ray. Now just coz more studios supported blu-ray doesn't mean, blu ray was superior, and it also didnt mean the consumer chose blu-ray. ...

It also doesn't mean that it was inferior, either. Guess what? --Sometimes, 1 company (or a consortium of companies) actually come up with a better business strategy than another company/companies. That's what 'free market' and 'capitalism' is about. Besides, when you specifically mention the "underdog" status, remember that Toshiba launched the format fully aware that they were launching as an "underdog". This isn't a football team. This isn't about a soldier fighting against an army of the 'enemy'. Toshiba entered into a market without even 40% of the industry support that their competitor (Sony, BDA) did.

Still, to have a true format where where the consumer really chooses the winner, studios should support both formats, ...

And in a perfect world, you and I would be given $10m on our 18th birthdays, and we wouldn't have to work for a living for the rest of our lives.

...they will choose the 1 with more movies available. Hence the consumer didnt choose, the studios chose. So I'd just like for once to hear blu supporters tell it the way it is, "the consumer didnt choose, ...

Ok. So the consumers didn't make the initial choice of what studios would support each format. So? Did you as a consumer choose what record labels supported CD? (That didn't happen all overnight, you know --even though everyone was onboard with one format, some studios didn't release a lot of CD's at first.) --Same for DVD's.

But, in a year (2007) wherein roughly 2:1 sales of movies went to BD vs HD-DVD ...that could be considered a "consumer choice". Certainly, it is more relative to a "consumer choice" than when Paramount switched to HD-DVD amidst the 2:1 BD sales lead and claimed it was "better for consumers".

But until then, if they keep up this consumer's choice BS, ill stick to HD until its death, then just standard DVD.

So, because of your definition of what "consumer choice" is differs from that of Warner Bros, or BD supporters on this site, etc. .....you are going to do whatever you can to cling to the format which (due to its steward's own unsound business strategy) has been mortally wounded. ...Even if that means that with HD-DVD-fans maintaining this senseless division, it could help cripple adoption of HDM in general and the only choice we'll be stuck with is low-quality DVD's or crappy HD downloads?

How does the consumer "win" then? --Where's their "choice" in that instance?

[g.k.]

Who ever heard of a fair war?

[Micker]

I think HD DVD was the underdog, because it was a next generation media and it was trumped by Blu-Ray in all the areas that mattered. More space, higher bitrates, more durable media. Why would I buy HD DVD when a better media was available??

[Chrisb187]

I don't know about fair but I'm sure someone will jump up and correct me here.

The DVD forum originally approved a dual 9gig format.

HD DVD was rejected twice, Blu Ray once. The forum added 3 more members and bam HD DVD was good to go.

but then again its war what is fair. That's why you have to shoot the kids and women. So they don't shoot you in the back.

But at the end of the day it is all about high PQ and sound quality. I could care less if they encoded the data onto a piece of toast.

[kururo]

I don't know about fair but I'm sure someone will jump up and correct me here.

The DVD forum originally approved a dual 9gig format.

HD DVD was rejected twice, Blu Ray once. The forum added 3 more members and bam HD DVD was good to go.

but then again its war what is fair. That's why you have to shoot the kids and women. So they don't shoot you in the back.

But at the end of the day it is all about high PQ and sound quality. I could care less if they encoded the data onto a piece of toast.

surprise surprise, one of the companies that was added to the dvd forum was.....microsoft.

[Htown-D]

I keep reading statements from studios claiming that "the consumer has chosen", or what not. But honestly lets look at it from the beginning. From the get go, HD-DVD was the underdog because of more studios supporting blu-ray. Now just coz more studios supported blu-ray doesn't mean, blu ray was superior, and it also didnt mean the consumer chose blu-ray. But naturally, since 1 format has more support people would tend to go for that. Now HD-DVD had a chance to stay in it if Warner would have gone HD exclusive. Blu would still have a 1 sudio advantage, but HD would have 3 exclusive studios so it would be more fair.

Still, to have a true format where where the consumer really chooses the winner, studios should support both formats, thus the consumer's decision should be solely based on incentives that each format offers technologically. Blu-rays disk space, HD-DVDs interactive features, combo disks and price.But since from the start blu ray had more studio support (god knows why, or how much money sony paid them), it was obvious that HD-DVD had to fight hard. And since most consumers dont even know what these 2 formats are, they will choose the 1 with more movies available. Hence the consumer didnt choose, the studios chose. So I'd just like for once to hear blu supporters tell it the way it is, "the consumer didnt choose, we chose for them, more studios supported our product coz we paid them excessive amounts of money, in an effort to sabotage the competition, hence we won". If they would be honest and say that, maybe I would consider blu ray in the future if HD-DVD dies.

But until then, if they keep up this consumer's choice BS, ill stick to HD until its death, then just standard DVD.

Do you remember how many of those xtra features promised for dvd actually showed up? I don't recall any consumer outrage over not getting the alternate viewing angles on any movies. I wonder why that is? That's why all this nonsense over pip is just that. No ones going to miss it or ask for it outside this forum.

[Gutter21]

Tell us something we dont know !

[venk]

"You didn't beat me. You ignored the rules of engagement. In a fair fight, I'd kill you."

"That's not much incentive for me to fight fair, is it?"

-POTC 1