But oh no, somehow, someone, somewhere decided we needed something more to make the public buy the product.

Well, it's there, you can use it if you want. If you don't want it then don't use it. Creating a menu-based Blu-Ray disk is no more difficult, in reality it would be a little easier, than creating a menu-based DVD. What is your grief? Does the fact that there is support for more than you need hamper your ability to create what you want?

I don't get this particular bit. How does having more than you need make things harder? Why is progress always so painful for some?

I am not trying to be facetious or anything, but there is nothing about creating BDs that require any fancy stuff. Why would you feel compelled to add Java things to your BDs if you didn't want to?

We got into this daft feature war with each camp upping the ante with more features.

Not really. There were one or two features added, but the Blu-Ray forum decided to go with BD-J quite some time ago and had a specific release schedule based on the fact that this had to be completed, but then Microsoft and Toshiba decided they wanted to steal the market and released something else.

Not really. There were one or two features added, but the Blu-Ray forum decided to go with BD-J quite some time ago and had a specific release schedule based on the fact that this had to be completed, but then Microsoft and Toshiba decided they wanted to steal the market and released something else.
================
In an article entitled Blu-ray Association Sets Fall Deadline For BD-Java Hardware Support from March of 2007 Hi-Def Digest stated the following:

In an attempt to standardize BD-Java playback on Blu-ray hardware, the Blu-ray Disc Association has announced a deadline of October 31, 2007 for mandatory BD-J audio/video support in all new players released after that date.

For format-war watchers, it's a move that has come none too soon. Unlike rival HD DVD's interactive development platform, .

Do you have something that contradicts this article and backs up your claim. I would like to read it. Or is this something else you made up?

John

Only an IDIOT would want to spend an extra $500-1000 on a TV that has extra pixels but you can't SEE the difference. There's NO REASON to buy a 1080 32". You can't see a difference. I've looked. I've had average people who don't know the technology look. They can't see a difference. People don't NEED huge TV's. Heck, my 32" isn't much wider then my old 4:3 that I got for free. Until you see the space between the pixels it's a huge waste of $$ to get 1080, especially when you can get a better tuner or more inputs/outputs that would be useful.

I don't recall saying I was talking about something as small as 32". When I do look at buying a flat-panel TV for my living room, I'd prefer a 46". And I've made a point of looking at televisions that size over the last year and a half or so, and nearly all the 1366x768 models I've seen have pictures barely any better than an SDTV in certain ways... the picture always seems to be far too granular. The new 1080p 120Hz models, hooked up to a 1080 source looks worlds better than any other consumer level option.

The older models are probably acceptable if you're just interested in paying anywhere from 1.5X to 2X more on your cable bill for a 720p signal, but given that I watch probably an hour or two of cable a week, and the vast majority of stuff I wtach comes from DVDs (and, in the future, Blu-Ray) I'd rather have a 1080 screen. Better to spend $2500-$3000 for a good TV that'll last me a while than $1200 for a crappy one I'll want to replace in a year's time.

You start out with a false statement that you cannot back up

So, you are still maintaining that lie even after I posted the article that gives those numbers? Do you feel that calling other people liars is the only way you can feel good about your self?

Could I have elaborated more about what I meant by 10-15% of media sales, of course, but trying to compare oranges to oranges is always a good idea. When movies are released in both formats, Blu-Ray now regularly captures above 10% of sales for any particular movie. That is an orange to orange comparison as opposed to comparing total sales for a market where many times more titles are released for DVD than Blu. People are buying movies, not media.

Meaning either we accept your false statistics or we don't care about picture quality.

What false statistics? Where have I said anything at all about picture quality. For the two only real competing formats in HD at this stage, the picture quality is identical, with a theoretical edge to Blu. For future possible distribution media that is obviously not the case. When new and better distribution media comes along I am going along with it. Currently the distribution media is Blu-Ray and it will continue to stay so for a good while longer simply because the alternatives simply are not there yet.

Your source in your flame post DOES NOT back up your statistics. So you either have a reading comprehension problem or you made them up just like I said.

Or perhaps I prefer comparing oranges to oranges while you prefer comparing apples to oranges and calling people liars. That's OK too.

can't find it anywhere and neither can the rest of us that you baited with the statistics you made up.

So, are you saying that, when comparing oranges to oranges, that the article above is not stating that for movies released simultaneously on DVD and Blu-Ray, Blu has consistently captured market share at 10% and abvove? Are you saying that the following is not stated in the article referred to:

Fox's "Hitman," also released March 11, fared even better, generating 12.6% of its total unit sales from Blu-ray.

or that the following is not in the article in question

"No Country for Old Men" realized 9.8% of its total sales from Blu-ray Disc

Hey, perhaps they are all in my fantasy, or perhaps you need to get back on your medications.

Now, compare that to the most significant HD release of 2007 (using these measurements) which hit 4%.

Oh, are you saying that comparing DVD sales of a single movie to sales of that movie on other media is irrelevant? Do you think, for example, it is more relevant to compare say DVD sales of "Pirates of the Caribbean" on DVD to, say "Shakira Oral Fixation Tour" on Blu? If you think that is a better comparison, I'd love to see the justification.

The last statement I made in my original post was the state of the Japanese Blu-Ray market. In that case I have to refer to the Gfk Japan report for February 2008. But hey, Gfk and I might both be bought by Sony.

http://www.cdfreaks.com/news/Blu-ray-sales-hit-record-in-Japan.html

Your insistence that people you disagree with have to be liars is interesting, and your rabid hatred for anything Blu is quite fascinating. As I said, time to get back into the medicine cabinet and fish out them drugs.

Do you have something that contradicts this article and backs up your claim. I would like to read it. Or is this something else you made up?

Does it hurt? I mean, you know, having so little self-confidence that every time someone disagrees with the view from your fairy fantasy you have to call them liars?

The Blu-Ray organization announced BD-J in June of 2005. iHD was considered but rejected. Given the nature of the way the Blu-Ray forum decided to release hardware, the feature was not mandatory on players, but it was part of the standard from 2005. Does it hurt to be wrong all the time? Does it hurt so much that you have to call me a liar again?

Now, I am not sure how solid your English is, but do you understand the difference between:
"but the Blu-Ray forum decided to go with BD-J"
"the Blu-Ray forum mandated BD-J on all"

Now, since you clearly are very, very slow, they are quite different. Ask your mum if she can explain it to you.

Oh, and to use your, somewhat faulty logic (I am being nice now), Microsoft "finalized" HDi in 2007. September 20th to be exact. Would you say that given that the standard wasn't even named correctly before September 2007 an indication that the decision to use HDi on HD-DVD players came after 2007?

Hmmm, I forgot that our friend here has never heard of Google and that he doesn't know how to conduct a search, here is an article from June of 2005 about the BD-J decision:
http://www.betanews.com/article/Java_to_be_Used_in_Bluray_DVD_Players/1120058452

Now, of course, anyone severely lacking in brain matter would probably read the article, not find a single mention of BD-J and then exclaim over and over again that anyone who states there is anything about BD-J in said article is a liar. He'd be using bold font to emphasize his moronic outbursts too. As if using bold font makes you more correct.

here's NO REASON to buy a 1080 32"

Did anyone say there was? A 32" 16x9 TV is the same size as a 25" regular TV. If you normally buy a 32" TV you have to buy a 40" wide screen TV to get the same size. Buying 32" HD TVs is absurd, 42" is probably the minimum, and that is only the same size as 34" regular TV.

HD-DVD & BD. HD-DVD dead, BD now the only one left, IE monopoly.

Wow. So you are saying that now that VHS is dead, Toshiba (a member of the DVD alliance) has a monopoly on DVD production and distribution? How?

Would you say that the US government, who decides on standards for cars, has a monopoly on car manufacturing, sales and ownership in the US? How exactly?

1 : exclusive ownership through legal privilege, command of supply, or concerted action 2 : exclusive possession or control 3 : a commodity controlled by one party 4 : one that has a monopoly

As I said, in LSD land. None of these fit Blu-Ray. Sony doesn't own, control or in other ways manage Blu-Ray. Sony doesn't have exclusive possession or control. Sony doesn't control the commodity.

On the other hand, one could argue that there was a de-facto monopoly on HD DVD given that there was only a single vendor.

Yes! Plain as day: DVD is the only method for consumers to buy SD content to play @ home in their video players.

Wow, so you really have no idea whatsoever what the term "monopoly" means, do you? Given the quoted definition - who owns DVD? Why is there competition in the DVD market when you claim there is a monopoly? The antithesis to monopoly is competition. The two can not exist in the same market at the same time. There is another "opoly" that may be correct, but calling the DVD market a monopoly or the Blu-Ray market a monopoly is absurd in the extreme and doesn't say anything else than that the one stating it has no clue what "monopoly" means.

Same with cars: several different companies selling different variations that all aim to fill the same purpose.

So, how is that different from the DVD market, the Blu-Ray market or the cattle market?

Terje, one of the problems that continues today is the dis-information about the BD and the BD group that MS and Toshiba effective spread thru the forums using "insiders" to post a lot of FUD. Of course, the only miscalculation was the impact of the dis-information using the 6 degree theory and the cost of toppling a brand name in world consumer electronics. Sony did take some image damage, but the Intel, MS, HP and Toshiba did not stop BD, the cell, or PS3 gaining market share. MS war with linux colored the BD issued and mobile OS's. This is a big spider web of OSs issues across many markets. Not only was the PS3 a pain as a gaming console, but it was an open system that would run linux, something that MS and Intel is not happy with, a linux system with a 1080p display option.

You start out with a false statement that you cannot back up

So, you are still maintaining that lie even after I posted the article that gives those numbers?
===============
But it doesn't give those numbers. Cut and paste from that article you cited where it says as you put it in your original post.

"Since the war ended, Blu-Ray has typically hit 10-15% of the total media sales"

The article doesn't say that. You added that. You made it up.
==============
The last statement I made in my original post was the state of the Japanese Blu-Ray market. In that case I have to refer to the Gfk Japan report for February 2008. But hey, Gfk and I might both be bought by Sony.
==========
OK. I read it and what it says is the following - and I quote:

"After a period of decline in December and January, February showed a 18.2% share."

Nowhere does it support your claim that :

"In Japan in Blu-Ray has maintained an above 18% share of the total media market." as you stated in your original post.
You added that. You made it up.

John

"Creating a menu-based Blu-Ray disk is no more difficult, in reality it would be a little easier, than creating a menu-based DVD."

Good news, so where is DVDA for BD?
All they should need do is a couple of VERY minor code changes.

"Why is progress always so painful for some?"

Real progress has never been painful for me.
I replace 40GB HDDs with 400GB HDDs, I've gone from 1/4" R2R tape to DAT to HD based audio recording. All painlessly and giving me real progress.
I've gone from every analogue videotape format to FullHD mxf on flash, I've gone from shooting 16mm film to DCI digital with in camera Look management. A lot of work but productive work, I can get a better result at a lower cost. Sure there's some mental pain but that's fine when it delivers a better outcome. Along the road though the engineers that designed that stuff are real engineers. Everything is still compatible. We still use the same everything, lenses, grips, batteries etc, etc as were used decades ago. No one changed anything that didn't need changing. Neither HD DVD or BD offered that level of good engineering. It was complexity for the sake of complexity all the way.

Bob.

Do you have something that contradicts this article and backs up your claim. I would like to read it. Or is this something else you made up?
--------
The Blu-Ray organization announced BD-J in June of 2005. iHD was considered but rejected. Given the nature of the way the Blu-Ray forum decided to release hardware, the feature was not mandatory on players, but it was part of the standard from 2005.
------
And that plus the article you cited (http://www.betanews.com/article/Java_to_be_Used_in_Bluray_DVD_Players/1120058452[/link) is supposed to back up your allegation that as you put it.................."the Blu-Ray forum decided to go with BD-J quite some time ago and had a specific release schedule based on the fact that this had to be completed, but then Microsoft and Toshiba decided they wanted to steal the market and released something else" ???

According to Wikipedia's description of the format war under the heading of Attempts to avoid a format war, they state the following:

In an attempt to avoid a costly format war, the Blu-ray Disc Association and DVD Forum started to negotiate a compromise in early 2005. One of the issues was that Blu-ray's supporters wanted to use a Java-based platform for interactivity (BD-J), while the DVD Forum was promoting Microsoft's "iHD" (which became HDi).[18] A much larger issue, though, was the physical formats of the discs themselves; the Blu-ray Disc Association's member companies did not want to risk losing billions of dollars in royalties as they had done with standard DVD.[19] An agreement seemed close, but negotiations proceeded slowly.[20]

That does not sound like what you seem to describe as a sneaky move by Toshiba and Microsoft to beat Blu-Ray to the punch.

John

"Wikipedia's description of the format war " this is a very PC Wikipedia's description, which seems to happen more today on critical issues where stocks and corp policy are being dicuss.

The simple fact is MS would thave made "billions" off the HD player market if HDi was adopted from the OEMs and media suppliers. Every HD player would be required to run the MS os for HDi plus the studios forced to paid for advanced HDi "services". This would be a windfall profit for MS and position it absolutely the "core" media center product supplier. The bulk of the world's manufacturers did not want MS making billions at their expense, especially with MS learning curve history in smartphones,etc.

If one check's HP's timeline, HP corp management and the boardroom had a number of serious issues, many related to stockholders being drawn into a major battle over control of HP. This permitted MS and Intel to flex some muscle, reflecting the sudden switch in HP support away from BD. Plus HP was under pressure from MS about their servers and the old HP3000 line products.

until bd prices reach dvd prices, it wont EVER go anywhere near dvd numbers... hell, not every household has dvd, what makes ppl think that bd will sway them across?

The article doesn't say that. You added that. You made it up

As others have stated, we do not have a lot of information to do trend analysis on, but we have some interesting figures. Now, as a background from these figures, recall that no HD movie in 2007 reached beyond 4%, and only one did get to 4. Compare that to Blu-Rays released after the end of the war.

Michael Clayton (02/19/08) 5.5%, 30 Days of Night (02/26/08) 8.9%, No Country for Old Men (03/11/08) 9.8%, this one I generously rounded up to 10%, Hitman (03/11/08) 12.6%. See any trend?

Now, is my statement overly "jubilant" as to celebrating the end of a war, probably, but is it based on "made up" numbers, not even close.

In Japan in Blu-Ray has maintained an above 18% share of the total media market

Sorry, I was using the same wording as this article: http://www.blu-ray.com/news/?id=1154. I my use of "maintained" is wrong I have to apologize, my native language is not English.

(Terje) "Creating a menu-based Blu-Ray disk is no more difficult, in reality it would be a little easier, than creating a menu-based DVD."

(farss) Good news, so where is DVDA for BD?

Well, that I am afraid you will have to ask Sony about, I have actually taken the time to look into the matter, and once you have the encoding in place, which Sony already do, laying down the file structure on a BD is not at all difficult. Not in the least. Somewhat over simplified, some SCS engineer has to create a XML file, license a UDF 2.5 driver (there are many available today) and that's about it. It should take about two developers and one tester less than a month to get the technology in place and fully tested. This doesn't include BD-J btw.

In commercial software there are a couple of things that are needed in addition to that, in this case, templates etc for HD content. Again, that shouldn't be all that hard. Give it another month of work let's say. Now add project management to that and other things, and updating DVD-A for BD authoring should be possible to accomplish with about 4 resources in about 3-4 months. That is, without knowing the internal structure of DVD-A of course.

I can not explain why SCS has not delivered a basic BD authoring suite yet, but I am hoping it is because they are spending their resources on getting DVD-A up to speed on other features available in competing packages.

But no, there is no technical reason for why SCS has not delivered basic BD authoring, menus and all, for DVD-A at leat 6 months ago. For some reason that is not considered a priority within SCS, and you have to ask the SCS product manager why that is.

It was complexity for the sake of complexity all the way

Again, what complexity? There is no complexity. Honestly. None. This is dead easy. You can probably manually put together a menu-based BD with the tools you have today and a piece of burning software that supports UDF 2.5. This is dead easy. We are simply talking about exactly what SCS software is doing today, namely encoding, and basically (slightly over-simplified) writing an XML file.

In my humble opinion, that DVD-A 4.5 was released without BD burning was strange, and that there hasn't been an update to enable this is bordering on absurd. Ulead did it in a few weeks. I don't know what's going on in Madison, but I am not particularly happy about it. Hopefully that will change soon or Sony is going to go the way of Ulead.

"Did anybody do blow-outs on HD-DVD when Toshiba called it quits? Just curious if I missed out on Hi-Def feature films at blow-out prices.
=========================

Just saw them in the London Drugs flier (Canada) for 149.00. That's an incredible price given Canada!

Blink, what model numbers being listed at 149 Canada?

That's an incredible price given Canada!
==========
You guys pay through the nose for electronics, we in the States pay through the nose for health insurance and health care. Guess which one of the two I would choose.

John

"Blink, what model numbers being listed at 149 Canada?"
Can't off hand remember Apit... the flier's in the trash now. But it was most likely the A3.


"You guys pay through the nose for electronics, "
Tell me about it! And they fix it with big duties and high shipping charges so that ordering from the US is almost not worth it. And TRY hard as you can to get your sales tax back if you should have to return A US purchased item.

Thank the lord we have Government healthcare... otherwise we wouldn't be able to afford our electronic goodies!