Talk:High-definition optical disc format war/Archive 1

Archive 1

No point in showing studio support anymore

What is the point of still showing Paramount as HD-DVD exclusive or changing Universal to neutral? The format war is over and was over the second Toshiba admitted defeat. So there is no reason to change the history of the format war. Universal only went to blu-ray when toshiba admitted defeat. It had stayed HD-DVD exclusive from day one so no reason to make changes after the fact. Anyone who wants to read up on the format war will be confused because you are treating it like its still ongoing when it was over the second toshiba said so. And so in fact, this page should have kept Universal as HD-DVD exclusive and not neutral because it wasn't neutral. You dont see the page on the VHS vs. Betamax war showing sony as one of the companies supporting VHS. The fact is Universal went to blu-ray after the format war was over and therefore all references to current exclusivity should be frozen to the second leading upto Toshibas announcement. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.83.80.13 (talk) 09:21, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

I almost agree, though I think the fat lady hasn't sung until Warner releases their final HD-DVD sometime in May. Also, I have updated HighDefShare.svg to indicate that Universal have released their final HD-DVD as announced by this article:

Home Theater: Atonement—Universal (HD DVD)

InternetMeme (talk) 16:16, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

I would disagree with the idea that everything should be frozen the second that Toshiba dropped HD DVD since it would be confusing if this article had no new information after that point in time. This article should reflect the state of the two formats as long as HD DVD players/discs are still being sold at retail. I checked on the Videotape format war and it does a good job of covering VHS and Betamax long after VHS won with information on Betamax all the way up until 2002. --GrandDrake (talk) 20:13, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Thoughts

First, I'm not entirely certain we should totally excise the corporate support sections from the Blu-ray Disc and HD DVD articles. Obviously some of this is relevant in one form or another in the main article for each format. Second, we may want to use Videotape format war as a guide for structuring this article. We have more details available this time around, of course, so where we have reliable sources we should expand on details where possible, but the videotape article ought to work as a guide. Thoughts? —Locke Cole • t • c 08:32, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

This article is similar to the other one. I think it would be better to merge these two articles, and use the name of this article. Comparison of ..... blah blah blah is too long to remember anyway.--w_tanoto (talk) 11:01, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

There's still enough of a difference between the formats to justify the separate articles. However, I do agree that much of the content from Comparison of high definition optical disc formats will be relevant here. Eventually, however, that article will be unnecessary when HD DVD ceases being released altogether (because then the only meaningful differences will be of a technical nature, small enough to be in a table format rather than an article format). —Locke Cole • t • c 11:11, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

as I said in HD DVD talk, I said it would be better to merge both article when HD DVD is no longer existed. By the looks of current announcements and rumours, it won't be long.--w_tanoto (talk) 11:14, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Tanoto. We're making sweeping changes a little too quickly here. Let's wait a couple weeks at least for things to pan out, then merge all articles about HD DVD and the format war into one.Pisomojado (talk) 00:19, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is an encylopaedia

Wikipedia is an encylopaedia, not a newspaper. While we may sometimes mention wide speculations in articles, we DO NOT take them as fact. We can and should wait since there is no deadline. Therefore while it is fine to mention the reports about Toshiba, they should not be treated as factual until and unless Toshiba confirm them or officially annouce they are withdrawing support. Nil Einne (talk) 07:27, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Quite right, but a press release from Toshiba is not necessary if other reliable sources have already stated that Toshiba has (or is) pulling out from the format. Please see WP:V. —Locke Cole • t • c 07:32, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

You seem to have misunderstood WP:V. Toshiba aren't pulling out of the format war until and unless they annouce they are. The fact that other reliable sources are speculating they are from anonymous sources does not met the threshold of verifiablity for Toshiba pulling out of the format war Nil Einne (talk) 08:44, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Also I forgot to mention, all sources I have seen have been quite clear that all they are saying is that an anonymous sources in Toshiba have said it is going to happen and that Toshiba hasn't officially announced anything. None of them have said it HAS happened which is a big difference. As I have already said, there is nothing wrong with us reporting the speculation but there is a big difference between us reporting speculation as speculation and treating speculation as fact Nil Einne (talk) 08:55, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

It isn't speculation though, the Reuters source as well as the NHK source both indicate people within Toshiba are telling them they're pulling the plug. An announcement is, at this point, merely a formality. These sources are also using terms like "dead" (see the NY Times) which are the present tense. WP:V is quite clear here, we don't need a primary source (and in fact, primary sources are discouraged) to tell us something like this, we just need a reliable source. —Locke Cole • t • c 18:58, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

While it's moot now, you've said it yourself. They are quoting (anonymous) people within Toshiba. By definition that is not an official statement. Anonymous people say a lot of things, often they right, but not always. Anonymous sources from a company is basically counted as speculation. It is always a bad idea to use reliable sources quoting anonymous sources as fact. Note that no one is talking about primary sources. Secondary sources can and do differentiate between offical annoucements, which we have now, and rumours coming from within the company, which we had before Nil Einne (talk) 12:37, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Page title

Since I notice this page was moved from History_of_HDDVD_vs_bluray_formats, I felt I should explain the rationale for picking that name over the more obvious High_definition_optical_disc_format_war, and that is this - Laserdisc#MUSE_LD which is also an high-def optical disc format :P I say either move the aricle back, or include MUSE. Mrdini (talk) 22:06, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

See WP:NC, but in short, that page title wasn't really appropriate. Further, MUSE LD wasn't part of the format war, so isn't really relevant to this article. This article title also presents a neutral point of view by not placing any emphasis on the participants but rather in the event itself. Finally, this name is consistent with existing articles about these formats (for example, Comparison of high definition optical disc formats). —Locke Cole • t • c 22:11, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Please replace "war" with something better. This is not a war. --WS (talk) 12:05, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I refuse. "War" is the correct word as this is what has been used in the media to describe the event. —Locke Cole • t • c 17:02, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Support. The title does not relate to a war. A more fitting word should be used.--Always Ahead (talk) 02:31, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

PS3 decided outcome?

The PS3 essentially won the war for BD, yet there is no mention of this in the article. Maybe one line in the intro and a few more later? --Zojj (t,c) 12:12, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

If you have a source for this, go ahead and add it. Otherwise it can't be included because without a source, it's just speculation. ArcAngel (talk) 14:24, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Also adding to Blu-ray's momentum was the gradual increase in sales of Sony's PlayStation 3 home video-game console, which also works as a Blu-ray player. Sony has sold 10.5 million PS3 machines worldwide since the machine went on sale late 2006. [1] Berserkerz Crit (talk) 16:10, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

The PS3 may have helped BD, but saying it "won" the war seems like an overstatement. A larger factor seems to be the studios which chose only to produce BD titles.--66.162.55.2 (talk) 20:51, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Well here is my train of thought: 10x more PS3s than HD DVD players => 2x-3x more Blu-ray disc purchases & rentals => Warner switch => End. This is true, but as ArcAngel said needs a source. --Zojj (t,c) 22:00, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

One thing many people forget is that all PS3 games are distributed with the Blu-ray disc. This steadies the disc production schedule as games are released periodically and printed in a far larger number (at this point anyway) than movies. This makes Blu-ray disc manufacturers happy and profitable.--Revth (talk) 01:19, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Well the Blu-ray Disc article is pretty referenced on this and information it's in intro section. --Ciao 90 (talk) 18:38, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

How the PS3 led Blu-ray's triumph —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.25.39.22 (talk) 22:52, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Added a paragraph on it using the BBC link above and one from The London Times (as sighted on AVS Forum) Barte (talk) 21:18, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

That is Bullshit have you seen ps3 sales? Their getting their asses handed to them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Casey QuestionMark (talk • contribs) 05:53, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Is this a joke?

Is this page some sort of joke? It is written as if this so called "war" was like a military conflict. I half expected to see combatants and casualties listed at the bottom. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hoj ferwerk (talk • contribs) 14:04, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

It is not, but I understand your point. =) You are probably one of many people that didn't notice this "war". Blu-ray vs hddvd didn't last nearly as long as betamax vs vhs. --Zojj (t,c) 14:25, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

This format war went relatively unnoticed by a lot of people, as it ended while the technology is still pretty much in the early adopter stage, unlike the VHS/Betamax format war, which went on well into the point where many people adopted the technology.--66.162.55.2 (talk) 20:50, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

All the same, I think "war" is the wrong word to describe this, unless that seems to be the media consensus term. And even so, calling it a war trivializes war. People die in wars. Maybe this should be called "high definition optical disc format competition?" Because capitalism is about competition. Daniel Case (talk) 14:33, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

War means lots of different things. For example there is a war on drugs (a war on stuff), a war on terrorism (which a war on a tactic)... Some people talk about a war on Christmas. Then there are also culture wars, browser wars and history wars (not historic wars). As Madcoverboy mentions, format war is a well established usage of the word 'war'. Nil Einne (talk) 16:55, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Many sources have referred to this as a format war, hence the name is correct. —Locke Cole • t • c 17:02, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Format war is well-established within the literature and in popular culture. Madcoverboy (talk) 14:44, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

War is "war" Refer to War of Currents and Console Wars, this article should be like that. Kamuixtv (talk) 08:59, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Is this a joke'. Its not like people were killed . Its just a some bs between BLU-RAY or HDVD . HD-DVD lost in the war Rio de oro (talk) 14:41, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

This page does look like a joke with the military style table showing "Belligerents, Commanders, and Casualties and losses." Lets be encyclopedic people! 68.216.61.194 (talk) 15:27, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Paramount and Universal back to Blu

• Engadget

New titles comming soon please update the article. --Ciao 90 (talk) 18:36, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Merge Articles

As the format wars is officially over, I propose to merge these articles:

• Comparison of high-definition optical disc formats
• High definition optical disc format war

under the name of High definition optical disc format war to make it parallel with Betamax/VHS War See my talk above--w_tanoto (talk) 19:55, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Merge It's rare for me to vote for merge so it must be for a good reason. My reason? Since you said the format war is over the need for both articles has passed. FaithLehaneTheVampireSlayer 20:03, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Holding this discussion on two separate talk pages is a bad idea. Anyways, I do not support the merge for the reasons I stated on the other talk page. —Locke Cole • t • c 20:09, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

There will always be enough of a technical difference to warrant this articles continued existence. However, perhaps this article can finally grow to include a comparison of the other HD optical disc media that are out there (available or announced). I do agree that a large portion of the info there (specifically studio support and perhaps sales history) belongs in the "format war" article rather than here. —Locke Cole • t • c 20:03, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm agnostic. Either merge or separate as spec comparison and format war histories--as Locke Cole suggests here. Either way, a fair amount of rewriting will be inevitable as the format war moves from present to past tense. If I had to choose, I'd tip toward the latter. Barte (talk) 20:20, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I am thinking an alternative: taking out as much as possible from Comparison article regarding Blu-ray and HD DVD, while adding HD-VMD and CH-DVD to the page. WHile this page will be exclusively for Blu-ray and HD DVD (as they are the ones that involved in format war). I am neutral as well, but seeing two articles with almost the same content confuses me, and making maintenance difficult.--w_tanoto (talk) 20:26, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I would say move all the information in the "comparison" article in section 2 (Comparative support) and below into this article and expand the remaining information in the other article to include information about VMD and CH DVD. Thingg^⊕⊗ 20:38, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Redirect one of them to the other.--Playstationdude (talk) 20:42, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

That doesn't really address the issue at hand. —Locke Cole • t • c 20:46, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't see why this has to be a big deal. Just move all the information that was included in the other article to educate users on the progress of the format war into this article and add info into the other article about VMD and CH DVD and any other HD discs that are out there. This would mean that pretty much all of the info in section 2 and higher (section 2, 3, etc.) in the other article would be removed into this article. (which is kind of like what Locke Cole proposed earlier) Does anyone have any objections? Thingg^⊕⊗ 21:04, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

nope. if we all agree, then just remove the merge tag. :)--w_tanoto (talk) 21:07, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Keep as is. Both articles are uniquely needed; the one we are trying to merge is a list of information, and not all of the formats there fit into this article. _contribsSTYROFOAM☭1994^TALK 22:43, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Oppose. Although it would maybe be good to have a subset of that in this article, those 2 have articles have completely different subject matter. ViperSnake151 00:37, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Oppose for the reasons stated above. JayKeaton (talk) 01:44, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Partial Merge - Content related to the format war should be merged into here. The other article should be left with just spec comparisons. Other HD media formats should also be added to that page. PaleAqua (talk) 02:45, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Merge - People looking for more detailed information on the format war should only have to go to one place. The two articles already overlap quite a bit. The article should open with blow by blows of the fight, then close with the techno-babble for those few obsessed with comparing detailed specs of current vs superseded technology. This would be consistent with the treatment of the Betamax VS VHS format war. (Also, "Comparison of high definition optical disc formats" is the kind of hopelessly clunky title only an engineer could love.) Pisomojado (talk) 07:24, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

They overlap because large chunks of prose was cut and pasted from both the HD DVD and Blu-ray Disc articles... if this article actually went in to the history in as great as detail as it should, there wouldn't be nearly as much overlap. This article, if anything, complements Comparison of high definition optical disc formats because this page serves as a readable history (currently if you want to see how the landscape has changed you'd need to troll through the article history of the Comparison article). As to the naming, it's a neutral name that doesn't choose sides– sort of like Comparison of web browsers (see also, Browser wars). —Locke Cole • t • c 07:36, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I think we all agree that the articles need condensing. I also agree that the two articles complement one another. The complement each other so well, they should be one article! That's why I support the merge.Pisomojado (talk) 19:48, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Ideally, it'd be nice see a single article that does both--presents a readable history, perhaps in synopsis form, followed by something more complete. Both articles will need to be reorganized, and--with hindsight--cleared of extraneous factoids that weren't as important as they originally appeared. It would be nice to do honing process on one article, not two. Barte (talk) 07:50, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Oppose. There are four articles that need to be considered here, not just two: Blu-ray, HD DVD, Comparison of high definition optical disc formats and High definition optical disc format war. It seems to me that in the long run we'll need one article to describe the format that survived (Blu-ray) and one to describe the format that is now obsolescent and which will become a historical relic (HD DVD). The technical comparison between the two and the timeline of the format war will form part of the history of HD DVD. From Blu-ray's point of view, the spat between the two will be a blip of receding importance - just as the spat with Betamax is a blip in the history of VHS. Therefore I suggest that it would make more sense to incorporate the comparison and format war articles into the HD DVD article, with a reference to it from the Blu-ray article. Quite how such a four-way merge could be organised is another matter. --Harumphy (talk) 12:57, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Harumphy, it sounds like you actually support merging, but want to merge the four articles into two, is that right? You mention the Betamax vs VHS format war in your argument. But look at the way Wikipedia has treated that format war, creating a precedent, an easy model for us to work from. There are three pages! One on Betamax, one on VHS, and one on the format war between them. Is there any reason we shouldn't treat HD DVD vs Blu-ray the same way? Merge!Pisomojado (talk) 19:48, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose. One deals with history and the other technology. The two articles are divergent enough in topic and developed far enough to justify standing on their own. --StuffOfInterest (talk) 13:50, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I disagree. Both articles cover the history OF a technology and the battle over it. The only purpose of the "Comparison of high definition optical disc formats" article is to weigh one format against the other. That information is a vital part of the story of the history of the battle between the formats.Pisomojado (talk) 19:48, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Seems to me that one deals with history and the other deals with technology and, in less detail, history, as well--which is where they overlap. But I take Harumphy's point--there are four articles, and more than one way to merge them. I'd just like to see less overlap. Barte (talk) 16:04, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Merge a) I went to the "High definition optical disc format war" page and was looking for comparison and technical info, only to find it somewhere else, I think it should be on the same page because that's where people would go for a comparison. b) the comparison article wasn't so well structured I thought, and would benefit from the rewrite/condensation involved in a merge. 218.143.30.5 (talk) 02:01, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Merge See War of Currents. The style of this article should be like that. Kamuixtv (talk) 09:05, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Merge per Pisomojado --Ciao 90 (talk) 12:53, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Merge --Cheesemeister3k (talk) 16:31, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

• Merge - I was instinctively minded to oppose (since a technical comparison of two formats is an entirely different topic from evaluating the 'format war' between them). However having seen what a small amount of Comparison of high-definition optical disc formats is actually devoted to the said comparison, as opposed to huge amounts about the format war, which is completely irrelevant to the subject of the 'Comparison...' article - do we talk about the Windows/Linux struggle for market share in the Comparison of operating systems? Since Comparison of high-definition optical disc formats does not seem to be sticking to its subject, we'd be better off without it. Cynical (talk) 16:43, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Actually this is exactly why you should oppose: now that this article exists, much of that material can be brought over here, and the technical aspects can be fleshed out better in the Comparison article. —Locke Cole • t • c 06:41, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Seems to me it's a tie.... I think we should go with Locke Cole's idea. That is to take out as much information as possible from comparison page, and put it to the war page, then add the other HD formats to the table--w_tanoto (talk) 23:12, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Some of the information here would do really well in a time-table over there. Barte (talk) 23:40, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Article reorganization

This article needs to be completely reorganized. It is a mix of current status and past events; these should be separated. The first section should show current status of the format war (for now). A second section could show the comparison of the discs. Following should be the history of the war, detailing each major event in chronological order. All studio support and sales data should go here. For now, the timeline shows this, but should be rewritten into prose. Opinions? --Zojj (t,c) 02:08, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree that the article needs to be reorganized. However, at this point the timeline can and should be scrapped entirely. Most of its information is redundant of the info in the article, and the rest should be moved into the article or is just trivia. The most blatant reason to remove the timeline is that its primary source is a thread on a discussion forum, which completely fails WP:V. The timeline should not be readded. -- Wikipedical (talk) 02:23, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

By that reasoning, every unreferenced wikipedia article should be blanked. Everything in the timeline is verifiable, it just lacks the reference tags for now. Currently the timeline is more helpful to the reader than the prose. The timeline should stay in the article until it is merged, to avoid loss of information. I'll respectfully wait for more opinions before adding it back. --Zojj (t,c) 03:52, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Note that "the timeline is more helpful to the reader than the prose" is completely subjective. -- Wikipedical (talk) 04:33, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

That it is, and I find it more useful as a historical chronology of the format war than the current prose. This article should be reorganized such that it mirrors the timeline, but with more detail and, of course, references. —Locke Cole • t • c 06:03, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Where's the side that says they both suck?

Well? 70.58.5.220 (talk) 06:48, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Fear, uncertainty and doubt --Ciao 90 (talk) 10:29, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

A valid point, where is the sources that say most people don't even need either format? JayKeaton (talk) 00:56, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Maybe but this is a discussion on how to build up this article not an open forum to share personal opinions. FaithLehaneTheVampireSlayer 16:40, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Not enough mention of the PS3

The PS3 had a profound impact on the Blu-Ray format. I think more information should be added regarding the PS3 and its role in Blu-Ray. Malamockq (talk) 02:30, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

There is no statistics for this, only tech media perception, analysts and articles. --Ciao 90 (talk) 12:51, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Malamockq. The PS3 is the biggest reason for Blu-Ray's victory and it's not even mentioned in the article. Unfortunately, I don't have time to edit the article, but here's a couple cites from CNET and BBC News that someone can use as resources.

Thanks to PS3, Sony enjoys spoils of HD fracas

http://www.news.com/8301-10784_3-9874808-7.html?tag=nefd.pulse

How the PS3 led Blu-ray's triumph

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/7252506.stm

12.10.248.51 (talk) 14:24, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Microsoft is trying to quiet fears about it impacting the XBox

Microsoft says end of HD DVD won't hurt Xbox 360 - CNET.com

Missing information

Skimming this article, there seem to be a couple of areas where it's particularly weak:

• There's lots written from the industry point of view - which studios, retailers and manufacturers supported which format - but very little on consumers. How many of each format were sold, did the proportions change over time, how did this consumer adoption affect industry support, etc.
• The article is very US-centric. Up to a point that's inevitable, as the US is the biggest market, but I'd still like to know whether Carrefour or Tesco favoured one format, as well as knowing about Wal-Mart.

--OpenToppedBus - Talk to the driver 11:56, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Military conflict infobox

The inclusion of the military conflict infobox in the header is fully absurd, and I'm surprised it has been around so long. The flip side, however, is that it presents the information in a very useful and concise manner. Perhaps the infobox should be transcluded (see WP:TRANSCLUSION) and the titles changed to be less ridiculous. -Oreo Priest 17:03, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

to me, it's sound like a real war taking place somewhere (Tokyo, Japan - as it said in the article). Don't really like the words on that box.--w_tanoto (talk) 17:08, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. Barte (talk) 17:55, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't know if it was ever serious. It was added by an anon [2] who has made a number of vandalism edits (along with some which look useful). I suspect it may have been WP:POINTY rather then serious Nil Einne (talk) 11:06, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Studio alliances needs to be fixed!

It says during the height of the war studios such as paramount and unviersal supported both... But thats completely wrong. Universal supported hd-dvd only from the start right until the end. Thats misleading. Paramount and Universal only went blu-ray after Toshiba ended the format war. If your going to write studio alliances, it should be Warner, Sony, Fox, Disney for blu-ray and paramount and universal for hd-dvd at the ehight of the format war. The second toshiba announced they were quitting hd-dvd the war was over so theres no point in saying universal supported blu-ray during the war because it didnt.

I removed Universal--I think you're right, but kept Paramount, which had supported both. Barte (talk) 02:47, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks its more correct now and it lets people know how it went down. At the height of the format war it was only Universal supporting HD-DVD alone, while Paramount and Warner were neutral and Sony, Fox, Disney were Blu-ray. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.83.80.13 (talk) 00:07, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Why is paramount shown as only blu-ray after toshibas announcement? I know they stopped supporting it after the 28th but they still released 2 movies after on march 4th which would signify they still supported it till the 38th. I think that whole pie chart needs to be removed as it does not accurately reflect any time of the format war or studio alliances. Someone needs to create three which show how it was after the big changes, ie. paramount to hd-dvd, warner to blu-ray etc... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.83.80.13 (talk) 08:36, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Rename: Attempts to avoid format war

For me sounds like a magazine so rename it to "Attempts of a unified format or Attempts of unification". Kamuixtv (talk) 06:13, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Graph should be line graph

The graph would be more informative if it were a line graph, reading left to right by year, in order to see the increase in blu-ray over time and give a sense of how it changed. Especially now that Toshiba has given up, the current pie graph is pretty meaningless. Tempshill (talk) 06:19, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

OTOH, a "historical" chart, labeled as such, might be quite useful. For example, a chart showing the state just after Warner switched to Blu-ray. Barte (talk) 14:52, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

HighDefShare6.svg

Main page: Talk:Comparison of high definition optical disc formats § Image:HighDefShare6.svg

I don't want to start either an edit war or controversy so I'm asking here before I make any changes. This image HighDefShare6.svg before Toshiba indicated the HD War had ended had Paramount and Universal as purely HD. Now obviously these companies are now adopting BluRay as a distribution format as they want to distribute to their customers in the best available format. Where I'm going with this is.... Shouldn't the graph provide an indication of how the market was split prior to the announcement Toshiba made with a comment stating this was how the market was split before the format war ended? Chappy^T_C 19:27, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree, the image before the HDDVD "surrender" was a more accurate depiction of the extent of the format war. Perhaps another could even be made for consumer electronics companies (Sony, Toshiba, etc.) Obviously now that it's been all but resolved, everyone will be on Blu-Ray and the chart will be all blue. Madcoverboy (talk) 00:09, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

The image was originally made for the Comparison of high definition optical disc formats, historical images could be easily provided (please though, if someone takes the initiative here, please upload them to Commons, not to Wikipedia). Is there interest in this to warrant creating multiple images? Or should we make a timeline graph as suggested above. —Locke Cole • t • c 01:06, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

I do think a timeline graph makes sense, even more so than a historical pie chart (though there's no reason the article couldn't have both.) There's a temptation in the article text not to stay strictly in chronological order so as to highlight large events, like the Warner move and its repercussions. And to group, say, studios with studios, distributors with distributors. But for that very reason, a timeline is really useful; it's another way of looking at the same history. Barte (talk) 02:53, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

http://www.reuters.com/article/innovationNews/idUSN2862363520080229

looks like newline is now part of time Warner this could get confuzing —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.186.146.2 (talk) 00:57, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

they maintain their own identity and its own distribution, but operate under Warner. They just announced a BD title (Orphanage) post the announcement.--w_tanoto (talk) 01:03, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Top selling HD discs and sales pie chart?

Where did these two things go!?! JayKeaton (talk) 18:17, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Gone but not forgotten. Gone from here because, IMO, they are not about format comparisons, which this article now more strictly is. But they could fit in the format war article as historical snapshots. That's my take, at least. Barte (talk) 19:01, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

This IS the format war article. JayKeaton (talk) 08:48, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I only recall seeing the charts in the comparison article. Was either ever here? I've clicked on a few historical revisions, early and late, but don't see them. Barte (talk) 14:35, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Causes for Toshiba decision

The article currently lists two causes for Toshiba's decision to abandon HD DVD: Warners defection and PlayStation 3 sales. Both of these are backed by citations from prominent news sources that have made the cause-and-effect connection. There may be other factors, as well, of course--but these need similar backing: a reference to a notable secondary source has made the link. Barte (talk) 21:55, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Actually, on the official HD-DVD site, Toshiba lists the loss of a major studio and decision by retailers to drop support as reasons for leaving the format war... So im guessing WB leaving, and Wal-mart and Best Buy siding with blu-ray as the de-facto reasons for dropping hd-dvd support. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.83.80.13 (talk) 10:07, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

It's not over

HD VMD is a contender, aiming to be a "come from behind" player in price and in scalability of capacity due to its ease of adding layers to increase capacity. Current discs already have 4 layers VS 2 on DVD, Blu-Ray and HD-DVD. Toshiba announced they were working on a 3-layer HD-DVD and Toshiba claims Blu-Ray can be scaled up to 4 or even 6 layers. That's a feat I highly doubt is practical (or possible) with reflective technology due to the reduction in capacity successive layers require in order to be read through lower layers. The fluorescent technology used in HD VMD (and its predecessors the Constellation 3D VMD and whomever it was that bought C3D's assets and failed to reach market with it renamed the Digital Multilayer Disc) allows for all layers to have the same capacity. In contrast to the prior two companies, New Medium Enterprises ("new" medium? this tech is getting on towards a decade old, could've had 100+ gig discs already if the prior companies had any marketing smarts) has a player available, the ML777s, which is their second model after the ML622s. Personally, I'm rooting for HD VMD 'cause I don't care much for Sony, especially after their audio CDs with the rootkit. http://community.tvguide.com/blog-entry/Dvd-Guy/3rd-Hi-Def/800024210& —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bizzybody (talk • contribs) 08:19, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

The market don't care about Sony Haters, minorities rooting for a dead-born format, Blu-ray is the de facto standard live with this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.79.199.86 (talk) 13:51, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Dual-Format Players

One important difference between this format war and the VHS-Beta war is the fact that this time, consumers had the option to purchase players that could read both formats. Have any citation-worthy sources discussed this aspect of the format war? KarlBob (talk) 06:33, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

My impression from what I've read is that the dual-format players were too costly to have any impact one way or the other. While they represented a way to hedge ones bets, for the price of a single dual-format unit, you could have bought one of each. Barte (talk) 06:03, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Data about the PS3 being a huge factor

Where Sony had the killer edge is that its Playstation 3 (PS3) computer games console comes pre-fitted with a Blu-ray player.

So as Sony has sold 10.5 million PS3 consoles since it was launched in late 2006, that is 10.5 million Blu-ray machines already in homes around the world, before you add sales of stand-alone Blu-ray players.

By contrast, Toshiba has sold only one million HD DVD machines. source BBC news

The article appears now, to lack any analysis. Here is the section of the article that is not well written...

===PlayStation 3===

Sony's decision to incorporate a Blu-ray Disc player as a standard feature of the PlayStation 3 video game console also helped ensure the format's eventual triumph. By the time Toshiba ceded the market, about 10.5 million of the Sony consoles had been sold worldwide versus an estimated 1 million HD DVD players – including both standalone units and the add-on player for Microsoft's Xbox 360 console. This equipment gap was a factor in Blu-ray titles (including the ones bundled with the PS3) outselling their HD DVD counterparts two to one in the United States and three or four to one in Europe. Sony's strategy came at a cost. The company initially sold the PlayStation 3 at an estimated loss of more than US$200 per unit that resulted in a total loss estimated about $3 billion, but analysts, such as Richard Hooper, with Screen Digest, expect Sony to recoup far more than that.

I think that the way this section stands, its not written well (I have been tutoring my brother on ACT english) so I can speak for many, that this section needs to support the main idea of the article--not an incoherent amalgamation of three seperate ideas.

1. You can't compare the 10 million PS3's sold to the 1 million HDDVD players while omitting how many standalone Blu-ray players were sold. What if 600,000 standalone blue-ray players were sold? That would be a lot different than 2,000,000 or 9,000,000. In each context, the PS3 changes the market share or deficit from 37.5% market share to 91%, or from 66.6% market share to 92.3%, or from 90% market share to 95%.
2. This equipment gap was a factor I'm guessing that this means that the Xbox add-on was a hastle, compared to the hasslefree ability for PS3 players to play blue-ray titles, right from the box-- no modifications necessary. However, my interpretation is speculative only. I own neither, and am only guessing the meaning.
3. The company's selling the PS3's at a loss of $200 per unit should be support the main idea of the article. It is true that sony will recoup profits because they won the format war, however this fact could be omitted here, and put on the Blue-ray page. I would however keep and include this italicized gerund, but find a statistic of how it affected high-def market share between sony and toshiba; omit the statistic about how sony expects to gain considerable ROI by selling their PS3's at a loss.

I came here looking to find how the PS3 was a factor in the high-def war, as many people in the future will also. Its an excellent business school case study. Yeah I know I could have spent half the effort and fixed it myself, but I dont know where to find the relevant statistics to make this a featured article or good article (if its not already one). This section of the article needs to know the size of the relative impact of the PS3 to the standalone Blueray players. And also how many less blue-ray players (in the form of PS3 players) would be in american (and/or european households) if the blue-ray were sold at a $200 loss (which we already have--10 million players), how many would be sold at a $100 loss (maybe 5 million less? guessing), sold at breakeven (maybe 90% less?). I actually know some business calculus and could answers these questions if I were able to guess the demand inelasticity by plugging it into the price function p(x), but it would be WP:OR and I'm sure the statistics are out there somewhere, but I dont have subscriptions anymore to those fine research article websites. Sentriclecub (talk) 15:47, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Archive 1