"1. Provide impression that they are "open," too (and therefore "good", or at least, "less threatening")."
That might be a good point if Microsoft gave a shit about the community that loves open source for being open source and not what it actually produces.
At the very least, won't it be interesting to see MS' code and maybe let them know about faults in it? How many of us admin MS boxes?
Funny you're calling someone touchy for defending another guy's right to express his opinion, yet you're rabidly posting in here defending a cartoon. Some manga is great stuff, but it's not for everyone, and if you don't realize that then you're a bit too observed.
It's funny how seriously some of you take this shit.
"I mean, given a 40 or 50 inch flat-screen HDTV (whether LCD, Plasma, DLP, or whatever), a decent dolby-supporting sound system, and HDTV-quality DVDs... is it enough to give a theater-quality experience?"
From my experience at a higher-end consumer electronics store, generally no. The key is a front projection system. The sound system isn't even that important as long as it's Dolby Digital. There's no comparing even a 70" widescreen Grand Wega (which you shouldn't buy, stay tube or wait for OLED) to a 110" screen.
The size of the screen is the critical factor that seperates a nice setup from a home theatre. I'd say it needs to be at least 90" to start to get the feel of one. Of course, you'd also need a good LCD (more likely DLP) projector to go with it. A dedicated room is also a must. This kind of setup is surprisingly not that expensive, however. You can get a very decent project for 2 grand that can do quality HD and a 120" motorized screen for another 1000. You're still paying much less for a much less capable plasma TV.
"I think what upsets people is that someone upgrading from a VHS to a DVD to an HD-DVD copy of a movie pays just as much as someone who's buying the HD-DVD version as his first copy. That is, you aren't just paying for the improvement in the standard."
Exactly, but what those people are paying for is the ability to watch the movie. There will always be something better coming over the horizon in consumer electronics. If you're always waiting for the next big thing, you'll never buy, and you'll never enjoy the medium. It's just a matter of what you, as a consumer want. There's a tradeoff. If you want the latest technology with the best picture you can have it, but you'll have to buy all of your old movies again. Likewise, if you don't want to spend the money then noone is forcing you to do so, but your movie format won't yield as good of a picture/sound/whatever.
This situation reminds me of an argument I once had on IMDB's forums where a group of users were complaining about the fact that there was an extended version of Kill Bill coming out, but they didn't know it until after they purchased the first version despite the fact that it was a single disk, non-commentaried, nearly featureless DVD. The situation is similar in that you merely have to use your brain a little bit. Think of where you stand in this and stand by it, but noone should complain.
"Yeah, I hear they're releasing "Kill Bill 2" onto the venerable Flipbook(TM) format. I'm so glad I don't have to upgrade."
What exactly is your point? How is the parent poster wrong? You don't have to upgrade. There are no downsides to not upgrading. Other people are willing to buy into a superior format and you aren't ready for it. That's fine, but don't mistake that with being forced to upgrade. Yes, people are going to have a quite superior picture than you will when this hits (and they will PAY FOR IT), but this shouldn't degrade the quality of your collection unless you grow envious.
"The time has come where only specific art is being released on specific media."
We're talking about movies. You can buy just about every single recent movie on VHS, which is quite an aging standard. What's it been, 20 years? Hell, a cheap DVD player goes for about 30 bucks. Say there is some movie you really want to see but you're still on the VHS format. Oh darn, now you're going to have to pay another 30 dollars so that you can get higher quality movies for the next 20 years. 20 years from now, you might be "forced" to buy a HDDVD. It'll probably cost around the same equivalent amount.
"as long as it falls into the reasonable gray area of upgrading for higher quality, the majority of people will pay for it."
There is no gray area. Compare a DVD to a HD picture. There's nothing confusing there, it is a major upgrade to those WHO WANT IT and are WILLING to pay for it. DVDs are not in danger of extinction and won't be for many, many years. Remember Divx: the market determines what is best for the market.
"You prefer 78 RPM records?"
Christ. How old is the vinyl format? You want it to be supported wholly however many years after it came out? Honestly, if you're that cheap that you can't upgrade to just a regular CD player that costs 20 bucks, you shouldn't even imply that you're a consumer in this realm.
You and others like you do not have to adopt HDDVD. You don't have to buy the hardware. You don't have to watch the movies in it. DVDs aren't going away anytime soon, so I guess my question is why and how exactly does this threaten you? Does this existence of a superior format somehow take value away from what you already own?
I'm all about this development. I am more than ready and want to have the OPTION to watch my favorite movies on high def. Options are good! Yes, I have a very decent collection of DVDs and I wish I could have them all in HD without having to pay for them again, but when I bought them I was satisfied with them, and thus I GOT WHAT I PAYED FOR.
If anything, I'd be happy if I were you since the price of regular DVDs will probably go down a few bucks once the new format proliferates (if and only if enough consumers see it as being worth the money).
PS, have YOU seen 1080 HDTV against DVD? There is absolutely no comparison, HD beats the crap out of it. There is NO comparison.
Yes, and of course the only thing more predictable about the cookie cutter jokes are the the cookie cutter posts forecasting the pending cookie cutter jokes.
So finally people are beginning to purchase music online instead of pirating it, and now they want to make lossy music files cost as much as the CDs whose prices were the reason folks were downloading music in the first place?
I see iPods all over colleges. College kids generally don't have disposable incomes, but they are wildly popular. Remember who these iPods are being marketed to... it's not the rich folks...
Also, don't forget that Apple is very strict with iPod prices, so a 300 dollar iPod in good condition could be easily sold for over 150.
So radio tags are bad because they track peoples' habits. Product activation is bad because it ties a product to a specific user. Global databases are bad because it's a violation of your privacy. However, when we are talking about your $300 iPod, then it's all good?
DISCLAIMER: the logic in this post is based on my opinions.
Answer: Yes, because the intended purpose would be for something the customer wants as opposed to what Big Brother would want. Chances are it would be an opt-in type thing if it was for the customers, and if it wasn't, THEN it would be a bad thing. However, Apple knows how to treat its customers and chances are they wouldn't intstitute anything like that.
The difference with MS is that noone trusts them and chances are they'd force registering on all of their users if they were to kick something like that into gear.
Slashdot Mirror
I wish I had mod points right now...
Oh come on, mods... it was funny.
How did this get modded up?
I've got a few thousand songs on my iPod. I LIKE them all, but sometimes I'm in the mood for one thing over the other.
The ability to skip songs right through the headunit is an excellent ability to have. Choice is good!
"1. Provide impression that they are "open," too (and therefore "good", or at least, "less threatening")."
That might be a good point if Microsoft gave a shit about the community that loves open source for being open source and not what it actually produces.
At the very least, won't it be interesting to see MS' code and maybe let them know about faults in it? How many of us admin MS boxes?
Thank you for posting that.
Actually, Carmack was the one who wanted to do Doom 3 and threatened to quit if it didn't happen.
How is this interesting?
Funny you're calling someone touchy for defending another guy's right to express his opinion, yet you're rabidly posting in here defending a cartoon. Some manga is great stuff, but it's not for everyone, and if you don't realize that then you're a bit too observed.
It's funny how seriously some of you take this shit.
"Of course that assumes that a room in your house costs nothing."
True. A dedicated room is definitely a big plus, but not absolutely necessary. I've set some of these guys up in family rooms.
Light is also a big consideration, but is also easily dealt with. I definitely wouldn't do a projector in an apartment, however!
"as it gives (to my eyes) the best picture"
Excellent then, that's what counts in the end.
"I mean, given a 40 or 50 inch flat-screen HDTV (whether LCD, Plasma, DLP, or whatever), a decent dolby-supporting sound system, and HDTV-quality DVDs... is it enough to give a theater-quality experience?"
From my experience at a higher-end consumer electronics store, generally no. The key is a front projection system. The sound system isn't even that important as long as it's Dolby Digital. There's no comparing even a 70" widescreen Grand Wega (which you shouldn't buy, stay tube or wait for OLED) to a 110" screen.
The size of the screen is the critical factor that seperates a nice setup from a home theatre. I'd say it needs to be at least 90" to start to get the feel of one. Of course, you'd also need a good LCD (more likely DLP) projector to go with it. A dedicated room is also a must. This kind of setup is surprisingly not that expensive, however. You can get a very decent project for 2 grand that can do quality HD and a 120" motorized screen for another 1000. You're still paying much less for a much less capable plasma TV.
"I think what upsets people is that someone upgrading from a VHS to a DVD to an HD-DVD copy of a movie pays just as much as someone who's buying the HD-DVD version as his first copy. That is, you aren't just paying for the improvement in the standard."
Exactly, but what those people are paying for is the ability to watch the movie. There will always be something better coming over the horizon in consumer electronics. If you're always waiting for the next big thing, you'll never buy, and you'll never enjoy the medium. It's just a matter of what you, as a consumer want. There's a tradeoff. If you want the latest technology with the best picture you can have it, but you'll have to buy all of your old movies again. Likewise, if you don't want to spend the money then noone is forcing you to do so, but your movie format won't yield as good of a picture/sound/whatever.
This situation reminds me of an argument I once had on IMDB's forums where a group of users were complaining about the fact that there was an extended version of Kill Bill coming out, but they didn't know it until after they purchased the first version despite the fact that it was a single disk, non-commentaried, nearly featureless DVD. The situation is similar in that you merely have to use your brain a little bit. Think of where you stand in this and stand by it, but noone should complain.
"Yeah, I hear they're releasing "Kill Bill 2" onto the venerable Flipbook(TM) format. I'm so glad I don't have to upgrade."
What exactly is your point? How is the parent poster wrong? You don't have to upgrade. There are no downsides to not upgrading. Other people are willing to buy into a superior format and you aren't ready for it. That's fine, but don't mistake that with being forced to upgrade. Yes, people are going to have a quite superior picture than you will when this hits (and they will PAY FOR IT), but this shouldn't degrade the quality of your collection unless you grow envious.
"The time has come where only specific art is being released on specific media."
We're talking about movies. You can buy just about every single recent movie on VHS, which is quite an aging standard. What's it been, 20 years? Hell, a cheap DVD player goes for about 30 bucks. Say there is some movie you really want to see but you're still on the VHS format. Oh darn, now you're going to have to pay another 30 dollars so that you can get higher quality movies for the next 20 years. 20 years from now, you might be "forced" to buy a HDDVD. It'll probably cost around the same equivalent amount.
"as long as it falls into the reasonable gray area of upgrading for higher quality, the majority of people will pay for it."
There is no gray area. Compare a DVD to a HD picture. There's nothing confusing there, it is a major upgrade to those WHO WANT IT and are WILLING to pay for it. DVDs are not in danger of extinction and won't be for many, many years. Remember Divx: the market determines what is best for the market.
"You prefer 78 RPM records?"
Christ. How old is the vinyl format? You want it to be supported wholly however many years after it came out? Honestly, if you're that cheap that you can't upgrade to just a regular CD player that costs 20 bucks, you shouldn't even imply that you're a consumer in this realm.
Oops, didn't see your original post, it was below my threshold. Sorry 0123456.
That goes for the rest of you naysayers, though!
Wait a second, who is making anyone do anything?
You and others like you do not have to adopt HDDVD. You don't have to buy the hardware. You don't have to watch the movies in it. DVDs aren't going away anytime soon, so I guess my question is why and how exactly does this threaten you? Does this existence of a superior format somehow take value away from what you already own?
I'm all about this development. I am more than ready and want to have the OPTION to watch my favorite movies on high def. Options are good! Yes, I have a very decent collection of DVDs and I wish I could have them all in HD without having to pay for them again, but when I bought them I was satisfied with them, and thus I GOT WHAT I PAYED FOR.
If anything, I'd be happy if I were you since the price of regular DVDs will probably go down a few bucks once the new format proliferates (if and only if enough consumers see it as being worth the money).
PS, have YOU seen 1080 HDTV against DVD? There is absolutely no comparison, HD beats the crap out of it. There is NO comparison.
So then what you're getting at is that Apple's attention to detail is a bad thing in some manner?
Well, typically you don't pay for Linux releases though, do you?
I think the point is that I have a "free" DVD player on my Windows box.
Are you sure about that?
Hah... funny post dude.
Yes, and of course the only thing more predictable about the cookie cutter jokes are the the cookie cutter posts forecasting the pending cookie cutter jokes.
Weren't these gaming cafes etc supposed to be popular like 3 or 4 years ago? Still hasn't happened on a mainstream level...
Get a mac.
... oh wait.
Not to mention that you could also have multiple computers doing multiple accounts at the same time...
So finally people are beginning to purchase music online instead of pirating it, and now they want to make lossy music files cost as much as the CDs whose prices were the reason folks were downloading music in the first place?
I see iPods all over colleges. College kids generally don't have disposable incomes, but they are wildly popular. Remember who these iPods are being marketed to... it's not the rich folks...
Also, don't forget that Apple is very strict with iPod prices, so a 300 dollar iPod in good condition could be easily sold for over 150.
So radio tags are bad because they track peoples' habits. Product activation is bad because it ties a product to a specific user. Global databases are bad because it's a violation of your privacy. However, when we are talking about your $300 iPod, then it's all good?
DISCLAIMER: the logic in this post is based on my opinions.
Answer: Yes, because the intended purpose would be for something the customer wants as opposed to what Big Brother would want. Chances are it would be an opt-in type thing if it was for the customers, and if it wasn't, THEN it would be a bad thing. However, Apple knows how to treat its customers and chances are they wouldn't intstitute anything like that.
The difference with MS is that noone trusts them and chances are they'd force registering on all of their users if they were to kick something like that into gear.
Wait, that was a videogame?