Slashdot Mirror
Disney - Blu-ray's Fair Weather Friend
An anonymous reader writes "One day they're out, the next day they're in. Back in March, Disney CEO Bob Iger seemed to indicate that his company (which has exclusively backed Blu-ray since the start of the high-def format war) was on the verge of supporting *both* high-def formats. What a difference a couple of months of good press for Blu-ray makes: this week, the CEO reversed his earlier position, saying 'the single greatest thing we can do right now is to not waffle, but to be very, very blunt about it, (and) to continue our support of Blu-ray because we sense a real advantage.'"
I don't see how this qualifies as "pushing MS around". The success of the XBox360 and MS isn't really based on whether movie studios support the HDDVD's, but the PS3 and Sony's fortunes are heavily dependent on studios supporting Blu-ray since they are taking a loss on the units to promote it.
Really, they should support the format they think's going to lose. Then, if that format loses before anyone really bothers to come out with dual-format players, they could sell the people who bought a copy in that format a copy in the other format as well.
Ewige Blumenkraft.
since they are taking a loss on the units to promote it
If they make a loss on an $600 unit which is crippled compared to a PC, it's one of the worst corporate inefficiencies in today's world. For the same price, you can buy a used car, pay a rent for a 2 bedroom apartment in many parts of the country, get a decent desktop from Dell or feed 100 children in India for a month. Don't tell me 100 parents can not assemble one playstation 3 in a month.
More likely, it's due to a couple of bad weeks for HD-DVD (security keeps getting cracked). That'd be more motivation for keeping to the other one if I was an idiot executive. Who cares if one gives a better quality video? One of them is still capable of manipulating our customers^W^W^W protecting our content.
Such is the fate of those who bought gaming consoles hoping to use them as media centers. Both MS and Sony have a stake in one particular format which puts console owners at a significant disadvantage when it comes to media support.
Console buyers should have anticipated the eventual emergence of multi-format players. Also, Disney announced their loyalty to Blu-Ray some time ago. Anyone who really wanted to watch Disney movies on their gaming console pretty much had to go PS3.
It is usually appropropriate to market a product with a different name in a county where the English word can be misinterpreted, still that does not always stop the other country taking offence, real or imagined.
Communication is always a problem when you have different languages and cultures. This is why French became the language of Diplomacy since (I think) 1700's since the language was basically codified such that it was very difficult to misinterpret. Of course that did not stop some of the most horrendous wars in history it just made it easier to tell the other guy you did not like him and why.
There ain't no such thing as proprietary standards only proprietary formats. Standards are by definition open.
After all, Apple is on the blue ray Association Board of Directors.
Yeah, what's up with that? Could anybody explain? One minute Apple is crying from the rooftops that DRM is bad, the next they're totally supporting a format that's laden with it (even moreso than HD-DVD). Why couldn't they just not express a preference at all...?
== Jez ==
Do you miss Firefox? Try Pale Moon.
It's not hard to see a difference between music DRM and movie DRM--as Jobs pointed out, anybody can go buy music on a CD that has no DRM. However, a commercial DVD has built-in DRM that is illegal to circumvent. Shitty situation, sure, but that's reality. Also, the experience of a song as a unit of culture is quite separate from consuming movies: smaller time commitment, small file size, enjoyable virtually anywhere via an iPod.
Ha, captcha 'cultural'
1.) Given the parts, I doubt they could assemble it.
2.) I doubt much of the cost comes from assembly.
As long as prices fall quickly I don't give a rat's ass which format "wins". My motives are selfish. I have a bunch of old videotapes I want to archive. I thought DV was the answer, and it is to a point. But even though DV is a decent compression method, once I archived a few dozen tapes I found I was STILL reluctant to trash the old VHS/Hi-8 analog tapes.
I want enough space on a burnable disc so I can capture all my video (all SD and all lo-fi) with a lossless scheme. Only THEN will I toss my old tapes and not give it a second thought. Then I can experiment with different codecs until the cows come home and know I didn't sacrifice anything from the originals. I'll probably only actually do that on a handfull of the recordings I have, but hey, you never know. Someday one of my grandkids-to-be might develop an intense interest in a vacation I took years ago to Wally World. More likely is that all my precious footage will end up in a landfill somewhere. Such is the life of a pack rat.
Or it could fit on one 50GB Blu-Ray disk. I think we see one of the reasons HD-DVD is going to have issues.
:)
Yeah, it's all about capacity. OK, and name too. 'HD-DVD' is too tied to HD programming. 'Blu-ray' is just a name - if they will sell me a season of 24 on a single Blu-Ray disc, in SD, I'm buying. I care far more for the amount of shelf space it will take up than being able to see the pores on Kiefer Sutherland's face. (OK, if they want to do it in 720p and call it 'HD' - whatever, I don't care).
And if they're smart enough to sell it for $24, that'll just be a marketing coup.
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)