Slashdot Mirror


Sony Paid Warner Bros. $400 Million to Go Blu-Ray?

eldavojohn writes "How much would you pay to be the leading video media technology right now? Is $400 million too much? Sony didn't think so and this article speculates that's how they won the Hi-Def format war. 'With billions of dollars in global sales at stake, experts had predicted the Toshiba-Sony battle would go on for years - not unlike the 1980s battle of videotape formats between VHS (Matsushita) and Betamax (Sony). That war lasted a decade, leaving Sony battered and humiliated. So how did this epic battle come to such an abrupt end? The answer lies in part with the bruising Sony experienced with Betamax, which, like Blu-ray, was also the better product on paper.'"

9 of 487 comments (clear)

  1. We know step 2... by Overzeetop · · Score: 5, Insightful

    ... and it involves a $400M cash payment. No need for question marks for these gnomes.

    --
    Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
  2. Re:Betamax wasn't better. by provigilman · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Well, that, and VHS had porn.

    --
    "Life's short and hard, like a body building elf." -- The Bloodhound Gang
  3. Re:Market Isn't Even Ready by robizzle · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I don't think the availability of high quality downloads should effect whether or not the market is ready for HD media. Instead, the limiting factor is the ubiquity of high def TVs in the household; there is no sense in getting a blue ray player if you have a 480 TV.

    Conversely, I think the lack of high quality downloads would actually spur increased demand for the delivery of high quality content though other means (in this case, HD discs.) If people have high def TVs, they are going to want high def content. If they can't get high def content from the internet, they will try to get it from high def media.

  4. Re:I guess free market means bribes by eviloverlordx · · Score: 5, Insightful

    (2) The amount of money Sony just sent is proof that Blue-Ray sucks.

    BS.

    The HD-DVD camp did the very same thing, yet where is the moral outrage? Hypocrisy is alive and well on /.

    --
    'Loose' is when your pants are three sizes too big. 'Lose' is when you misuse 'loose'.
  5. Re:free market? by Captain+Splendid · · Score: 5, Insightful

    the 'state'

    It's spelled 'we, the people', dumbass. The 'problem', such as it is, isn't the system, but your particularly shitty implementation of it.

    --
    Linux, you magnificent bastard, I read the fucking manual!
  6. Re:Or... by evilviper · · Score: 5, Insightful

    but Toshiba figured out how to top 50GB using HD-DVD discs as the technology got more mature.

    3-layer HD DVDs was just a PR stunt. None were ever produced, and I'm willing to bet that none of the existing HD DVD players could read them, so it might just as well have been a new format that nobody would have adopted.

    Sony demonstrated much, much higher numbers of layers on Blu Ray discs as well.
    --
    Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
  7. Re:free market? by Penguinisto · · Score: 5, Insightful

    the 'state'

    It's spelled 'we, the people', dumbass. The 'problem', such as it is, isn't the system, but your particularly shitty implementation of it.

    ...shitty implementation of which system?

    We got to see at least three major (and differing) implementations of Marx' setup. The number of deaths from it climbs up into the hundreds of millions, all told, and in places like North Korea, still climbing at horrific rate. Problem is, too many people are eager to claim their actions in the name of "the people", but the reality ends up being just the opposite. I think the USSR lasted approximately three years before it stopped being about "the people" and started being about "the state" (and yes, there is a distinction).

    Capitalism (as practiced) isn't exactly a perfect system either (far, far from it). Quite frankly, it can outright suck at times. OTOH, it does have a tendency to keep its body counts down to a much more acceptable level.

    Socialism? Cool... now who gets to fund it all when the majority of a populace figures out that they can do just fine without actually having to work for what they get? Ayn Rand may have been a nut case, but she does have a point - even economics has an ecosystem that requires each part of it to function well enough to survive. Humans are too damned lazy in nature to be eager about providing excessively for others in a system where they objectively don't have to.

    Now here's the weak link in your arguments as per the free market... Collusion only works for as long as the people are willing to fund it. If not enough people buy Blu-Ray gear to justify the costs going into it, it eventually dies. If something freer, easier, and cheaper comes along (pick at least two) Last I checked, a lack of Blu-Ray gear won't prevent me from eating tonight, nor will that lack prevent me from drinking clean water, or having a nice warm environment in which to sleep tonight. This in turn leads to apathy among the larger population, which in turns leads to...

    ...fact is, the problem isn't the system per se - the problem is that too few people actually give a damn enough about forcing a change in the nastier incidents within it, at least not until the impact of any aspect affects them personally.

    /P

    --
    Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
  8. Re:free market? by homer_s · · Score: 5, Insightful

    So two people voluntarily made a transaction and you don't like it because it goes against your morals and what you think is "correct"?.

    So you agree with the crowd that wants to ban gay marriage?

  9. Re:free market? by immcintosh · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Short answer, yes and no.

    Longer answer, there are plenty of things we don't allow people to decide to do together. For example, kill each other. Doesn't matter one bit whether it's in private, voluntary, or not, it's simply not allowed. Likewise, things like bribery and collusion are regulated against because the majority find them unacceptable and detrimental to the general public welfare. Until somebody comes up with a consistent, coherent, universal ethical system (and nobody yet has), we're stuck with "mob rules" on a case by case basis when it comes down to it. Either that or barbarism and anarchy. Unfortunately, if the majority find gay marriage unethical (I certainly find no such thing), then we're stuck with that until and unless they become more enlightened.

    That is... unless you've got a Philosopher King in mind for us?

    P.S. Corporations are not people anyway. Here's the difference: people are assumed to have all rights naturally, and laws are made to restrict those rights. Corporations are assumed to have no rights naturally, and laws are made to grant those rights. Big damn difference.