Blu-ray player now cheaper than a PS3

Discussion in 'DVD Video' started by Super Mario, Jun 4, 2007.

  1. Super Mario

    Super Mario Guest

    iTWire http://doiop.com/qgba53

    For the first time Sony's Blu-ray players http://doiop.com/they-suck
    are cheaper than its PlayStation 3 console http://doiop.com/garbage
    after the company announced a $100 cut off the price of the BDP-S300
    player to $499. The move begs the question: can Sony now afford not to
    also slash the price of PS3?

    ...By cutting the price of the BDP-S300, Sony has in effect severed the
    link between the PS3 and Blu-ray players. If a video enthusiast just
    wants a Blu-ray player, the PS3 is no longer an option because it's now
    too expensive.

    In effect, Sony has just kicked out one of the legs supporting the
    table of its still struggling PS3 business. With both Nintendo's Wii
    and Microsoft's Xbox 360 walloping the PS3 at the cash register, a lack
    of exclusive PS3 titles to choose from and still plenty of grumbling
    from gamers at the price, having one less reason for consumers to buy
    its next-gen console is something Sony can ill afford...
     
    Super Mario, Jun 4, 2007
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Super Mario

    khee mao Guest

    "Super Mario" <Use-Author-Supplied-Address-Header@[127.1]> wrote in message
    news:...
    >
    >
    > ..By cutting the price of the BDP-S300, Sony has in effect severed the
    > link between the PS3 and Blu-ray players. If a video enthusiast just
    > wants a Blu-ray player, the PS3 is no longer an option because it's now
    > too expensive.
    >
    >

    'enthusiast' and 'too expensive' in the same sentence?
     
    khee mao, Jun 4, 2007
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Super Mario

    SHaKeY STeVe Guest

    khee mao wrote:
    > "Super Mario" <Use-Author-Supplied-Address-Header@[127.1]> wrote in message
    > news:...
    > >
    > >
    > > ..By cutting the price of the BDP-S300, Sony has in effect severed the
    > > link between the PS3 and Blu-ray players. If a video enthusiast just
    > > wants a Blu-ray player, the PS3 is no longer an option because it's now
    > > too expensive.
    > >
    > >

    > 'enthusiast' and 'too expensive' in the same sentence?


    Exactly...you gotta pay for quality.
     
    SHaKeY STeVe, Jun 4, 2007
    #3
  4. Super Mario

    infiltrate Guest


    > Exactly...you gotta pay for quality.

    wrong. sure sometimes its like that but a lot of times thats the way the
    marketers want you to think. i have a $20 timex non-digital watch that for
    the last 5yrs has kept perfect time even after it getting banged,etc...
     
    infiltrate, Jun 4, 2007
    #4
  5. Super Mario

    Doug Jacobs Guest

    In alt.games.video.sony-playstation3 khee mao <> wrote:

    > 'enthusiast' and 'too expensive' in the same sentence?


    Enthusiast != stupid with money.
    Also, enthusiast != early adopter.

    If I wanted a Blu-Ray player, I wouldn't get a PS3. These newer, lower
    priced Blu-Ray players will almost undoubtedly benefit from better
    manufacturing techniques, as well as containing newer versions of firmware
    to handle the Blu-Ray spec, menus, etc.

    Really now, you would think anyone serious about technology would know to
    shy away from any first versions/releases. Let other people buy them to
    work out the kinks and bugs. Then, when the 2nd (or even 3rd) revision
    comes out, THAT's when your should start considering the purchase.

    --
    It's not broken. It's...advanced.
     
    Doug Jacobs, Jun 5, 2007
    #5
  6. In article <>, infiltrate
    <> wrote:

    > > Exactly...you gotta pay for quality.

    > wrong. sure sometimes its like that but a lot of times thats the way the
    > marketers want you to think. i have a $20 timex non-digital watch that for
    > the last 5yrs has kept perfect time even after it getting banged,etc...
    >
    >


    As apposed to Rolex which cost $20,000 and looses a minute or two a day!
     
    Heinrich Galland, Jun 5, 2007
    #6
  7. Super Mario

    fish. Guest

    In article <040620072115535279%>,
    says...
    > In article <>, infiltrate
    > <> wrote:
    >
    > > > Exactly...you gotta pay for quality.

    > > wrong. sure sometimes its like that but a lot of times thats the way the
    > > marketers want you to think. i have a $20 timex non-digital watch that for
    > > the last 5yrs has kept perfect time even after it getting banged,etc...
    > >
    > >

    >
    > As apposed to Rolex which cost $20,000 and looses a minute or two a day!
    >
    >



    Do they? Prove it.


    --
    "You're not going to enjoy this, and it won't be quick"

    Very apt quote from "300", I didn't and it wasn't.
     
    fish., Jun 5, 2007
    #7
  8. "Heinrich Galland" <> wrote in message
    news:040620072115535279%...
    > In article <>, infiltrate
    > <> wrote:
    >
    >> > Exactly...you gotta pay for quality.

    >> wrong. sure sometimes its like that but a lot of times thats the way the
    >> marketers want you to think. i have a $20 timex non-digital watch that
    >> for
    >> the last 5yrs has kept perfect time even after it getting banged,etc...
    >>
    >>

    >
    > As apposed to Rolex which cost $20,000 and looses a minute or two a day!
    >



    loose !?



    --
    Gareth.

    That fly... is your magic wand.
    http://www.last.fm/user/dsbmusic/
     
    the dog from that film you saw, Jun 5, 2007
    #8
  9. Super Mario

    khee mao Guest

    "Heinrich Galland" <> wrote in message
    news:040620072115535279%...
    > In article <>, infiltrate
    > <> wrote:
    >
    >> > Exactly...you gotta pay for quality.

    >> wrong. sure sometimes its like that but a lot of times thats the way the
    >> marketers want you to think. i have a $20 timex non-digital watch that
    >> for
    >> the last 5yrs has kept perfect time even after it getting banged,etc...
    >>
    >>

    >
    > As apposed to Rolex which cost $20,000 and looses a minute or two a day!
    >
    >

    1) no watch or clock keeps perfect time, not even atomic clocks.

    2) someone with a $20,000 Rolex probably doesn't give a shit about being a
    minute early or late and probably employs a servant to synchronize all of
    his watches to the US Naval Observatory's master clock each and every night.


    that said, I rock a Movado which only marks the 12.
     
    khee mao, Jun 5, 2007
    #9
  10. Super Mario

    khee mao Guest

    "Doug Jacobs" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > In alt.games.video.sony-playstation3 khee mao
    > <> wrote:
    >
    >> 'enthusiast' and 'too expensive' in the same sentence?

    >
    > Enthusiast != stupid with money.
    > Also, enthusiast != early adopter.
    >

    Enthusiast = pay to play.
     
    khee mao, Jun 5, 2007
    #10
  11. Super Mario

    Skipaiotter Guest

    "khee mao" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    >
    > "Heinrich Galland" <> wrote in message
    > news:040620072115535279%...
    >> In article <>, infiltrate
    >> <> wrote:
    >>
    >>> > Exactly...you gotta pay for quality.
    >>> wrong. sure sometimes its like that but a lot of times thats the way
    >>> the
    >>> marketers want you to think. i have a $20 timex non-digital watch that
    >>> for
    >>> the last 5yrs has kept perfect time even after it getting banged,etc...
    >>>
    >>>

    >>
    >> As apposed to Rolex which cost $20,000 and looses a minute or two a day!
    >>
    >>

    > 1) no watch or clock keeps perfect time, not even atomic clocks.


    True, each watch, clock etc should slow down x number of milliseconds the
    earth slows down each day etc to keep perfect time. :)

    > 2) someone with a $20,000 Rolex probably doesn't give a shit about being
    > a minute early or late and probably employs a servant to synchronize all
    > of his watches to the US Naval Observatory's master clock each and every
    > night.


    Well, there are those cheap ripoff fake ones out there.. ;)

    --
    Skipai
     
    Skipaiotter, Jun 5, 2007
    #11
  12. On Jun 4, 4:18 pm, SHaKeY STeVe <> wrote:
    > khee mao wrote:
    > > "Super Mario" <Use-Author-Supplied-Address-Header@[127.1]> wrote in message
    > >news:...

    >
    > > > ..By cutting the price of the BDP-S300, Sony has in effect severed the
    > > > link between the PS3 and Blu-ray players. If a video enthusiast just
    > > > wants a Blu-ray player, the PS3 is no longer an option because it's now
    > > > too expensive.

    >
    > > 'enthusiast' and 'too expensive' in the same sentence?

    >
    > Exactly...you gotta pay for quality.


    Which begs the question... is the cheaper BDP-S300 a worse Blu-Ray
    player than the PS3?
     
    The alMIGHTY N, Jun 5, 2007
    #12
  13. The alMIGHTY N wrote:

    > On Jun 4, 4:18 pm, SHaKeY STeVe <> wrote:
    >
    >>khee mao wrote:
    >>
    >>>"Super Mario" <Use-Author-Supplied-Address-Header@[127.1]> wrote in message
    >>>news:...

    >>
    >>>>..By cutting the price of the BDP-S300, Sony has in effect severed the
    >>>>link between the PS3 and Blu-ray players. If a video enthusiast just
    >>>>wants a Blu-ray player, the PS3 is no longer an option because it's now
    >>>>too expensive.

    >>
    >>>'enthusiast' and 'too expensive' in the same sentence?

    >>
    >>Exactly...you gotta pay for quality.

    >
    > Which begs the question... is the cheaper BDP-S300 a worse Blu-Ray
    > player than the PS3?


    Given that the second-generation S300 will probably have the new working
    BD-J standard installed, that's another point down for PS3.

    Derek Janssen
     
    Derek Janssen, Jun 5, 2007
    #13
  14. Super Mario

    Guest

    On Jun 4, 10:15 pm, Heinrich Galland <> wrote:
    > In article <>, infiltrate
    >
    > <> wrote:
    > > > Exactly...you gotta pay for quality.

    > > wrong. sure sometimes its like that but a lot of times thats the way the
    > > marketers want you to think. i have a $20 timex non-digital watch that for
    > > the last 5yrs has kept perfect time even after it getting banged,etc...

    >
    > As apposed to Rolex which cost $20,000 and looses a minute or two a day!


    A Rolex has a mechanical movement as opposed to a quartz movement and
    most are certified chronometers which means they are accurate to
    within -2 to +3 seconds a day (I believe somewhere around there). If
    your Rolex loses a minute or two a day it needs to be serviced. Not
    saying Rolexes are the best watch for the money but they keep good
    time (for a mechanical watch), have a great service network (you can
    send in your Rolex for service and it will come back looking new every
    time), are really durable and hold their value well due to Rolexes'
    iron hand and savvy marketing. Whoever wrote this is obviously
    talking out their ass as not too many Rolexes are $20k maybe a solid
    Platinum Day Date. Comparing a Rolex to a Timex is like comparing a
    classic European sports car to a KIA and saying the KIA gets better
    mileage.
     
    , Jun 5, 2007
    #14
  15. Super Mario

    mark johnson Guest

    <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > On Jun 4, 10:15 pm, Heinrich Galland <> wrote:
    >> In article <>, infiltrate
    >>
    >> <> wrote:
    >> > > Exactly...you gotta pay for quality.
    >> > wrong. sure sometimes its like that but a lot of times thats the way
    >> > the
    >> > marketers want you to think. i have a $20 timex non-digital watch that
    >> > for
    >> > the last 5yrs has kept perfect time even after it getting banged,etc...

    >>
    >> As apposed to Rolex which cost $20,000 and looses a minute or two a day!

    >
    > A Rolex has a mechanical movement as opposed to a quartz movement and
    > most are certified chronometers which means they are accurate to
    > within -2 to +3 seconds a day (I believe somewhere around there). If
    > your Rolex loses a minute or two a day it needs to be serviced. Not
    > saying Rolexes are the best watch for the money but they keep good
    > time (for a mechanical watch), have a great service network (you can
    > send in your Rolex for service and it will come back looking new every
    > time), are really durable and hold their value well due to Rolexes'
    > iron hand and savvy marketing. Whoever wrote this is obviously
    > talking out their ass as not too many Rolexes are $20k maybe a solid
    > Platinum Day Date. Comparing a Rolex to a Timex is like comparing a
    > classic European sports car to a KIA and saying the KIA gets better
    > mileage.
    >


    lol

    I got my wife a small Rolex a few years ago and yes it only looses a few
    seconds a day, but its quite expensive to get serviced every year. The watch
    cost me around $7500
     
    mark johnson, Jun 5, 2007
    #15
  16. "mark johnson" <> wrote in message
    news:f44krt$18tj$...
    >



    > I got my wife a small Rolex a few years ago and yes it only looses a few
    > seconds a day



    looses !?



    --
    Gareth.

    That fly... is your magic wand.
    http://www.last.fm/user/dsbmusic/
     
    the dog from that film you saw, Jun 5, 2007
    #16
  17. Super Mario

    Guest

    On Jun 5, 5:33 pm, "mark johnson" <> wrote:
    > <> wrote in message
    >
    > news:...
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    > > On Jun 4, 10:15 pm, Heinrich Galland <> wrote:
    > >> In article <>, infiltrate

    >
    > >> <> wrote:
    > >> > > Exactly...you gotta pay for quality.
    > >> > wrong. sure sometimes its like that but a lot of times thats the way
    > >> > the
    > >> > marketers want you to think. i have a $20 timex non-digital watch that
    > >> > for
    > >> > the last 5yrs has kept perfect time even after it getting banged,etc...

    >
    > >> As apposed to Rolex which cost $20,000 and looses a minute or two a day!

    >
    > > A Rolex has a mechanical movement as opposed to a quartz movement and
    > > most are certified chronometers which means they are accurate to
    > > within -2 to +3 seconds a day (I believe somewhere around there). If
    > > your Rolex loses a minute or two a day it needs to be serviced. Not
    > > saying Rolexes are the best watch for the money but they keep good
    > > time (for a mechanical watch), have a great service network (you can
    > > send in your Rolex for service and it will come back looking new every
    > > time), are really durable and hold their value well due to Rolexes'
    > > iron hand and savvy marketing. Whoever wrote this is obviously
    > > talking out their ass as not too many Rolexes are $20k maybe a solid
    > > Platinum Day Date. Comparing a Rolex to a Timex is like comparing a
    > > classic European sports car to a KIA and saying the KIA gets better
    > > mileage.

    >
    > lol
    >
    > I got my wife a small Rolex a few years ago and yes it only looses a few
    > seconds a day, but its quite expensive to get serviced every year. The watch
    > cost me around $7500- Hide quoted text -
    >
    > - Show quoted text -


    Yeah I only have mine serviced every few years. Every year can be
    expensive and is not necessary though Rolex recommends that (of course
    they would).
     
    , Jun 5, 2007
    #17
  18. "mark johnson" <> wrote in
    news:f44krt$18tj$:

    > I got my wife a small Rolex a few years ago and yes it only looses a
    > few seconds a day, but its quite expensive to get serviced every year.
    > The watch cost me around $7500


    To each his own. The day I spend $7500 on a watch is the day I call it
    quits. That kinda scratch buys a lot of blu-ray discs! :)


    --

    Aaron J. Bossig

    http://www.GodsLabRat.com
     
    Aaron J. Bossig, Jun 6, 2007
    #18
  19. Super Mario

    Goro Guest

    On Jun 5, 2:39 pm, "the dog from that film you saw"
    <> wrote:
    > "mark johnson" <> wrote in message
    >
    > news:f44krt$18tj$...
    >
    >
    >
    > > I got my wife a small Rolex a few years ago and yes it only looses a few
    > > seconds a day

    >
    > looses !?


    obviously, these are magic Rolexes (Roleces?) that release seconds
    back into the wild.

    -goro-
     
    Goro, Jun 7, 2007
    #19
  20. Super Mario

    fredman Guest

    On Tue, 05 Jun 2007 19:02:18 -0000, The alMIGHTY N
    <> wrote:

    >On Jun 4, 4:18 pm, SHaKeY STeVe <> wrote:
    >> khee mao wrote:
    >> > "Super Mario" <Use-Author-Supplied-Address-Header@[127.1]> wrote in message
    >> >news:...

    >>
    >> > > ..By cutting the price of the BDP-S300, Sony has in effect severed the
    >> > > link between the PS3 and Blu-ray players. If a video enthusiast just
    >> > > wants a Blu-ray player, the PS3 is no longer an option because it's now
    >> > > too expensive.

    >>
    >> > 'enthusiast' and 'too expensive' in the same sentence?

    >>
    >> Exactly...you gotta pay for quality.

    >
    >Which begs the question... is the cheaper BDP-S300 a worse Blu-Ray
    >player than the PS3?


    Came accross this from DVDtalk.com the other day:

    "In HD player news, the Sony Playstation 3 recently got a massive
    firmware upgrade that improved both its DVD and Blu-ray playback
    capabilities. Upon its original release, the PS3 could not upscale
    DVDs beyond 480p, something that many people with HDTVs require. Now
    it has the capability to upscale all the way to 1080p through HDMI.
    Per DVD Forum standards, the PS3 will not upscale regular DVDs via
    component. Some owners contend that the upscaling on the PS3 is on par
    with more expensive upscaling players by companies such as Denon.Even
    more exciting is that the PS3 is now capable of outputting 1080p 24hz.
    1080p/24 has been something a lot of HD aficionados have been
    clamoring for. On top of that, the player also supports RGB, BTB, and
    WTW. This allows for a much wider range of color and overall better
    image reproduction. Also, for people who actually use the PS3 to play
    games (suckers, I know), the PS3 can now upscale and smooth the image
    quality of PS2 games. For many, these additions have made the PS3 the
    premiere Blu-ray player on the market." Cheers.


    regards,


    =======
    fredman
    =======
     
    fredman, Jun 9, 2007
    #20
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. R420
    Replies:
    29
    Views:
    831
    Jordan Lund
    Aug 7, 2004
  2. Joe Thousandaire

    Re: BLU-RAY Confirmed for PS3....Well, Almost

    Joe Thousandaire, Aug 5, 2004, in forum: DVD Video
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    413
    Joe Thousandaire
    Aug 5, 2004
  3. Isane Clown Perkoff
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    369
    Captain Jack Harkness
    Mar 8, 2008
  4. Blig Merk
    Replies:
    66
    Views:
    1,906
    StickThatInYourPipeAndSmokeIt
    Apr 27, 2008
  5. avd
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    1,555
Loading...

Share This Page