OT:HD-DVD Production Cost

apit34356 wrote on 6/25/2006, 10:11 AM
Quoted from RegHardware News " Toshiba is subsidising its HD-A1 HD DVD player by at least $175 in a bid to buy the next-generation optical disc format success. So claims market watcher iSuppli, which took the machine to bits and totted up the cost of all the parts.

Available in the US, the HD-A1 is priced at $499. iSuppli's assessment of the cost of the players' components puts the product's bill of materials at $674 - and that's before the cost of assembly, packaging, peripherals, distribution, advertising, software development and so on. Oh, and that $499 is the retail price - Toshiba will be charging resellers even less for the player.

The market watcher said it expects the full cost of the HD-A1 to come in at over $700 a unit - over 40 per cent more than the consumers pays for it. ISuppli characterised this level of vendor subsidy as "unusual".

So why is Toshiba going to far, especially when rival Blu-ray Disc players cost around twice as much as the HD-A1? You can answer that question with just three letters, we'd say: PS3. The next-generation games console launches in November for $499 - or $599 if you want an HDMI port, Wi-Fi and an bigger hard disk. Sony's recent move to delay its own consumer Blu-ray Disc player to later October suggests it really wants folk to buy its games console, even if they only use it as a next-generation DVD player.

Either way, the PS3 is likely to define the price point for consumer Blu-ray and HD DVD devices in the coming Holiday season, and Toshiba clearly wants to make the point that HD DVD was there first. The PS3, like all other games consoles, costs much more to make than to buy - the vendors make up the difference on the back of software sales. That's the market environment Toshiba has to work in if it's to compete was the PS3, so perhaps the high HD-A1 subsidy isn't that odd, after all.

The HD-A1 shipped in the US in April. Soon after, early adopters took the machine apart only to find an Intel Pentium 4 running the show. The iSuppli analysis reveals there's a Broadcom HD codec in there too and a set of four Analog Devices DSPs. The box contains 1GB of Hynix DRAM, a 256MB Flash disk from M-System and 32MB of Flash memory sold by Spansion. ® "

Interesting how much $$$$'s Toshiba,MS and Intel are investing in the media war,(plus x360 vs PSP3), against Sony & partners.

Comments

farss wrote on 6/25/2006, 1:26 PM
Silly Toshiba, didn't they realise if it's backed by Sony it'll bomb anyway.
The really scary thing is Sony Oz (the consummer division) is now selling Vegas, argh!

Of course all this anguish between HD-DVD and BD is a bit of a joke, the world seems to have decided on HVD, it's backed by the Chinese who do know how to market a thing or two and the players are $200.

Bob.
johnmeyer wrote on 6/25/2006, 3:42 PM
the world seems to have decided on HVD, it's backed by the Chinese who do know how to market a thing or two and the players are $200.

That's where my money (bet) is going ...
p@mast3rs wrote on 6/25/2006, 4:03 PM
Do you really think the studios are going to jump in on that especially after dumping all this money into that HD DVD/BD now? Furthermore, isnt HVD just the Chinese red laser drives that read WM9/VC1 codecs? I jsut dont see how it can be successful if there is no content from the major studios licensed for it.
TheHappyFriar wrote on 6/25/2006, 5:01 PM
Sony lowered their PS3 price? Last I saw (aka E3) it was $599/$699. Plus it's not HD video from BD discs, it's eigther SD progressive or 720p (I forget which, but it's WAY below what they originally announced).

Plus Nintendo doesn't loose $$ on consoles. They make a profit. :)
johnmeyer wrote on 6/25/2006, 5:34 PM
I jsut dont see how it can be successful if there is no content from the major studios licensed for it.

At one level I agree with you -- the studios want, and will get, DRM. However, my point is that VCD succeeded in a big way in China, and elsewhere, without any studio help or backing. Perhaps an even better example is MP3. No one backed that, and yet it became -- and arguably still is -- the defacto standard for compressed audio. Manufacturers adjusted their players so that many CD players that play round shiny objects can directly play a disk that contains MP3.

Thus I don't think the issue will be Blu-Ray vs. HVD or HD-DVD vs. HVD. What will happen instead is exactly what happened in the other cases: Smart manufacturers will build players that play Blu-Ray AND HVD (or HD-DVD AND HVD). Consumers will prefer the consumer-friendly format, which is what will be used for anything other than Hollywood movies. As I've said in other posts, when the features of a new product are designed primarily to benefit the manufacturer and its allies rather than to benefit the consumer, the product fails (example: Divx/Circuit City).
p@mast3rs wrote on 6/25/2006, 5:42 PM
Yeah but VCD and MP3 took off because of piracy. Plus many many encoders were out there that allowed any Joe to create those tpyes of content. I havent even seen anything that would allow authoring of such discs.

Id be all for though. Finally could get all of my HD captures from OTA and cable on a play back medium.
farss wrote on 6/26/2006, 2:21 AM
"Yeah but VCD and mp3 took off because of piracy."

No, VCD took off in Asia because both the players and media could be produced cheaply, think $20 for a VCD player and $0.50 for a VCD. Plus although the resolution is pretty sad very few people in those countries could afford a big enough TV for it to matter much.

To answer your previous point about the major studios, Hollywood is simply a backwater in the world market. It's dwarfed by Bollywood, combine that with the various production centres in China and the rest of Asia and if it slipped into the Pacific Ocean tomorrow on a global scale I doubt anyone would notice.

The current crop of HD-DVD players out of China are so cheap I can almost give them away to clients, if only I could crack the trick of how to author a disk! I already have the gear to duplicate the disks so for me this format is a no brainer even though it's only 720p.

Bob.
Laurence wrote on 6/26/2006, 8:31 AM
Is there any software to author HVD?
johnmeyer wrote on 6/26/2006, 8:58 AM
I am intrigued by any format that provides an alternative to the two "Hollywood" supported formats, so I did a little research. As always, doom9.org is a wealth of (mostly) good information. I haven't been able to confirm any of this, so I may be spreading rumors here, but the following seems to possibly be the case:

1. There is some possibility that existing authoring software may be hackable to make some form of HD disk. It sounds like at least one key to the difference is that the HD material goes into the HVDVD_TS folder.

2. Authoring programs that may have some support for HD (not necessarily HVD, though) include Scenarist, DVD Studio Pro, and Ulead DVD Workshop. If you are seriously interested in pursuing this, I would start by doing a search on those programs.

Here are a few interesting, although inconclusive, posts:

NeuNeo
p@mast3rs wrote on 6/26/2006, 9:05 AM
Scenarist is major $$$. DVD Studio Pro 4 only allows playback on PC with QT installed, and Ulead DVD Movie Factory 5 only supports Mpeg-2 with VERY poor quality.

Still nothing affordable or quality wise without spending a fortune. :(
Coursedesign wrote on 6/26/2006, 9:23 AM
DVD Studio Pro 4 only allows playback on PC with QT installed

So you're saying that a good chunk of Hollywood-produced DVDs (those created with DVDSP4, which are said to be the majority today) can't be played on my PC?

I trust I'm misunderstanding this somehow.
Spot|DSE wrote on 6/26/2006, 9:35 AM
I think he meant that high def currently will only play on computers with QT, which is an accurate statement excepting some unique instances.
Coursedesign wrote on 6/26/2006, 9:39 AM
OK, thanks.

As I'm diving into OS X more, I'm learning more and more about "QuickTime". It's a lot more than just a player, it's really a whole infrastructure for media files of all kinds.
Spot|DSE wrote on 6/26/2006, 11:10 AM
It's a lot more than just a player, it's really a whole infrastructure for media files of all kinds.
I believe that's the most under-stated comment I've ever heard from you. :-)

Quicktime nearly fell apart many years ago, but fortunately was revived. It's a great tool for anything multimedia, and can be interactive as well, without a lot of scripting or messing about. Colors are very accurate as well, and completely tweakable, plus plays out to a full screen television display with no problems either. Wouldn't it be great if Windows Media Player could access your HDMI or Firewire output directly like QT can?
apit34356 wrote on 6/26/2006, 11:17 AM
" "QuickTime". It's a lot more than just a player, it's really a whole infrastructure for media files of all kinds." Its just the tip of the iceburg. Apple has done a good job placing it's media products for future grow.
Jay-Hancock wrote on 6/26/2006, 11:26 AM
Hollywood is simply a backwater in the world market. It's dwarfed by Bollywood, combine that with the various production centres in China and the rest of Asia and if it slipped into the Pacific Ocean tomorrow on a global scale I doubt anyone would notice.

Maybe if it slipped into the Pacific Ocean nobody would notice, but in the rest of the world it's probably entirely the other way around! So I'd say that "backwater" statement only holds water in regional terms (i.e. in Asia), not globally.

I've been to lots of Europe countries and one Middle East country. Saw lots of Hollywood movies dubbed in cinemas. Everywhere. Never saw anything from Bollywood in those countries. (I've been in Indonesia and Japan, and they also have dubbed Hollywood movies. Probably they have both in those countries.)

... when the features of a new product are designed primarily to benefit the manufacturer and its allies rather than to benefit the consumer, the product fails (example: Divx/Circuit City).

Almost seems like many of the big movie and music media companies don't care if the product fails. If they had their way, we wouldn't have DVDs or CDs (remember they tried to stop the launch of the VCR). They'd probably want us to have to pay a fee to them for every single time that we listen to a song or watch a movie, and make it utterly impossible to record it ourselves :-( And the fear of somebody recording something outweighs all else, hence their resistance against online distribution of media. (And to some extent they are right; piracy can kill revenues.)

p@mast3rs wrote on 6/26/2006, 11:26 AM
I use to hate QT beyond belief but have come to accept it more and more these days. Still not thrilled with their H.264 implementation but it has definitley matured some over the years.
Spot|DSE wrote on 6/26/2006, 11:40 AM
It's a shock how many people would have you believe that Hollywood is small. Entertainment, and movies in particular, are America's #1 export. You can't go ANYWHERE in the world without seeing the influence of Hollywood, including Mumbai, Calcutta, Delhi, etc.
apit34356 wrote on 6/26/2006, 1:24 PM
As DSE pointed out, and plus Hollywood's exports also have the one of the lowest cost products considering shipping, reproduction costs vs return (Similar to software ).
Coursedesign wrote on 6/26/2006, 1:52 PM
I believe that's the most under-stated comment I've ever heard from you. :-)

It wasn't meant to either understate or overstate what QT does.

I have seen many people have a hard time troubleshooting video (and even still image files) because they don't know how much QT gets called to do things that other systems handle in either the applications or core OS code.

It is if anything more like an OS extension. How much it gets called depends on the application coders, where those with a Mac background use it a lot more than others.

apit34356 wrote on 6/26/2006, 9:00 PM
If one is new to "video and still image" processing, the dependence of commerical software using QT codecs is surprising.
Jay-Hancock wrote on 6/26/2006, 11:26 PM
apit34356 - yeah, QT is important. How many video formats do you know that include an Alpha channel so that you can import a lower third or a wipe or an overlay without having to monkey around with masks or keys? QT comes to mind, and what else? Nothing that I know of! And I find it preferable to the alternative of importing a 500 MB sequence of .tga stills...