«

"Neill Massello" <> wrote in message
news:1iaeeby.57nz901rappxkN%.. .
> Eddie G <> wrote:
>
>> I never read/trust ANYTHING from theinquirer.net although I may read
>> it for a good laugh.
>
> Except that in this case The Inquirer is quoting Financial Times, as is
> Reuters.
>
> The interesting question is why Warner switched and why now.


620 million dollars plus incentives. It's all over the Net.

I'd kiss sony ass for that much as well

Mars <> wrote:

> It's all over the Net.

So are alien abduction stories. Do you have any links to reputable
sources?

Eddie G wrote:
> On Jan 8, 11:59 am, Winfield <dogho...@operamail.com> wrote:
>
>>"Paramount poised to jump ship"
>>
>>http://www.theinquirer.net/gb/inquir...hd-dvd-declare...
>>
>>also just in -
>> draft-dodgers give Dereck J a HUGE definition wedgie!
>>
>> - Winfield
>
>
> I never read/trust ANYTHING from theinquirer.net although I may read
> it for a good laugh.

The original source every other article was parroting was an "insider"
source to Financial Times, although it helps to disclaimer
that...anything past that, FT was guessing. -_-

Derek Janssen

"Mark A" <> wrote in message
news:jWRgj.36634$. ..
> "XPickel" <> wrote in message
> news:cf2dnTd-...
>> If Paramount dumps HD-DVD it's all over.
>
> Then they will, because the studios are desperately trying to end the
> format war.
>

Just like everyone else, they whish there'd never been one.

On Jan 8, 3:08*pm, masse...@newsguy.com (Neill Massello) wrote:
> Eddie G <egoldb...@amh.org> wrote:
> > I never read/trust ANYTHING from theinquirer.net although I may read
> > it for a good laugh.
>
> Except that in this case The Inquirer is quoting Financial Times, as is
> Reuters.

Then the OP should have cited:

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/dc409afa-b...0779fd2ac.html

Trusting a 3rd party internet source is like trusting a whore that
says you don't need a rubber!

Neill Massello wrote:
> md <> wrote:
>
>> This is the more expensive of the two ... correct?
>
> The discs are usually about the same price at retail. If anything,
> Blu-ray discs are often a little cheaper, despite their being
> (supposedly) more expensive to manufacture. Blu-ray players are still
> more expensive than HD, but the relative gap has been shrinking and the
> absolute prices of both formats have been declining, as is typical with
> new technology.
>
>
>> Any advantages worth paying for?
>
> Blu-ray has twice the capacity of HD. Not a big deal for movies, but an
> important consideration in picking the next generation of optical data
> storage.


An important consideration, yes - but price might be even more
important. I can do standard rewritable DVD double-layer burns, but
don't because single-layer discs are much more economical. Even putting
up with a bit of hassle to split files/organize to get all the
nutritional data goodness.

Inexpensive HD-DVD recordable discs and burners may be where the format
survives.

winfield

Tarkus wrote:
> Winfield wrote:
>> "Paramount poised to jump ship"
>>
>> http://www.theinquirer.net/gb/inquir...-declared-dead
>>
>
> If that's true, how long before Toshiba just pulls the plug and cuts
> their losses?


Good question. I wonder how much input Microsoft and other partners
might have on this decision. It would certainly be a major announcement.

- winf

In article < >,
"XPickel" <> wrote:

> "Mark A" <> wrote in message
> news:jWRgj.36634$. ..
> > "XPickel" <> wrote in message
> > news:cf2dnTd-...
> >> If Paramount dumps HD-DVD it's all over.
> >
> > Then they will, because the studios are desperately trying to end the
> > format war.
> >
>
> Just like everyone else, they whish there'd never been one.

As a consumer, you should have loved the war. What do you think forced
those prices down so fast? It sure as hell wasn't either side's mfgs
wanting to.

Winfield <> wrote:

> Inexpensive HD-DVD recordable discs and burners may be where the format
> survives.

I don't think so, any more than DVD-RAM survived. There's really only
room in the market for one next-gen optical storage format. DVD-R media
was also quite expensive initially but got much cheaper as the format
took off. Something similar will happen with Blu-ray.

Lloyd Parsons wrote:
> In article < >,
> "XPickel" <> wrote:
>
>
>>"Mark A" <> wrote in message
>>news:jWRgj.36634$ t...
>>
>>>"XPickel" <> wrote in message
>>>news:cf2dnTd-...
>>>
>>>>If Paramount dumps HD-DVD it's all over.
>>>
>>>Then they will, because the studios are desperately trying to end the
>>>format war.
>>>
>>
>>Just like everyone else, they whish there'd never been one.
>
> As a consumer, you should have loved the war. What do you think forced
> those prices down so fast? It sure as hell wasn't either side's mfgs
> wanting to.

If memory serves correctly, it was companies wanting to move great
stocks of UNSOLD products.

Which the public wasn't buying.

Because they wanted a winner first.

Which they weren't getting.

Because there was a format war on.

(Now, as to what KEEPS prices down, now that companies can make a
greater sales margin on less expensively produced products in safe mass
quantities, for a larger customer base then their previously "niche" one...)

Derek Janssen