Will Warner support Blu-ray?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Shifty Geezer said:
Dunno about you but I'd like a physical disk to backup my material to. Streamed movies is all waell and good and somethng I appreciate, but I want something to store my HDR hidef home-made movies on. Though I guess eventaully Google will supply the whole worlds data storage requirements including multiple backups and mirrors of every file ever produced...

Yes, I completely agree with you and Vysez above. Local storage is here to stay and my guess is that we'll move to a system like DC already has in his home, a nice Terabyte(?) RAID.

So DC, when you upgrade your system to Star Trek technology, can I have your old "obsolete" stuff? ;)
 
London-boy I agree with you, except in the case of PC-Engine. Problems with him have been going on for a long long time, and enough is enough. It's not acceptable that he be allowed back. This forum is struggling enough as it is, to keep discussions civil, and having him back, should make things really fun. :(
 
mckmas8808 said:
Come on people DVDs are even supposed to be copied and tossed around the house today. So how is this any different? If you buy a Blu-ray movie and want to watch it in another room just walk you lazy butt to the first room, remove the disc, and play it on your other Blu-ray player.

It's been like this for years what's the problem? Screw MS for wanting to take the movie off the disc and zap it around the house knowing that this would probably lead to more people just not buying the movie and just pirating it. [/rant]

But at the same time you want your Locationfree tv...from your ps3 to your psp, ok. When you get bit by the streaming bug, come back to me and rant again.
 
mckmas8808 said:
Come on people DVDs are even supposed to be copied and tossed around the house today. So how is this any different? If you buy a Blu-ray movie and want to watch it in another room just walk you lazy butt to the first room, remove the disc, and play it on your other Blu-ray player.

It's been like this for years what's the problem? Screw MS for wanting to take the movie off the disc and zap it around the house knowing that this would probably lead to more people just not buying the movie and just pirating it. [/rant]

There are a lot of us out there that want this- just because you don't doesn't mean it's a bad thing.

Plus, Microsoft certainly doesn't want people pirating Bluray movies. Microsoft's VC-1 is a mandatory codec for Bluray playback devices. I am sure that they are interested in getting studios to use their codec for production over Mpeg 2 or Mpeg 4. If that's the case then they probably make a little bit of cash off any Bluray disc that's sold which uses VC-1.
 
MoeStooge said:
There are a lot of us out there that want this- just because you don't doesn't mean it's a bad thing.

I'm not saying it's a bad thing. I think it good actually. I personally would like to have the technology. But MS stating that they are basically against Blu-ray just because of this one feature is laughable. They don't have an issue with the physical sturcture they have already said that.

The point is MS fears losing with their personal thoughts with what movies are supposed to be. Hell Billy boy wants Blu-ray to be the last physical media EVER!! I can promise you most people don't feel the same as he on that subject. The movie companies probably hate the thought too. Most people don't want to download movies all the time and saving them to a hard drive. We want physical media.
 
Ty said:
Yes, I completely agree with you and Vysez above. Local storage is here to stay and my guess is that we'll move to a system like DC already has in his home, a nice Terabyte(?) RAID.

So DC, when you upgrade your system to Star Trek technology, can I have your old "obsolete" stuff? ;)

I don't think he meant there won't be a need for local storage or backup usage. He's saying that using physical media as a form of distribution will be on the way out. We already starting to see that some software are distributed solely via the internet, as well as software updates and patches.
 
TrungGap said:
I don't think he meant there won't be a need for local storage or backup usage. He's saying that using physical media as a form of distribution will be on the way out. We already starting to see that some software are distributed solely via the internet, as well as software updates and patches.

Ah, fair enough though I don't believe in the short to mid-term, the bandwidth to homes will grow enough to keep up with the byte size of HDTV material.
 
Ty said:
Ah, fair enough though I don't believe in the short to mid-term, the bandwidth to homes will grow enough to keep up with the byte size of HDTV material.

I guess it depends on what is your definition of med-term. BillG thinks when broadband reaches the level of HDD video (purposed by BR/HD), we could see the both BR/HD will be phasing out and there won't be a replacement. This is assuming you have full faith in broadbrand making greate stride in bandwidth.

Now of course, if you think the HDD quality purposed by BR/HD won't be enough (as in if you think 720p/1080p/i isn't good enough, or whatever they finally decide upon), then we might need to utilitize a new form of media to distribute the content, unless broadband can satisfy that requirement.
 
I think I've said this before, but I'll repeat:
How many homes will have the needed hard disk storage space to make managed copying and streaming of their High Definition movies anything other than something they'll be able to sample with a few discs.
Add to that HD content from TV if the PC is used as a PVR and soon youll have very little space available.

A HD movie disc is what, 25 Gigs.
A 250-500Gig hard drives are what will be found in most homes.
If all my DVD's today were HD-DVD's I would be able to fit just 10 or 20 movies on the HD, assuming there'd be nothing else on the HD, like an OS, apps, high definition multichannel music, high resolution images...
But as it is, it isn't uncommon to have a 250Gig HD in their XP Media Center PC today and already have it full without any HD movies in it (uh... like I do).

Being limited in space, there is a need to prioritize what will be put in the hd, and I know copying my HD-DVD's there would be pretty low on that list. Most of the space in my case would be used for PVR functions (and standard definition content).

I just dont see it as a mainstream consumers desire to invest a lot of money and time to set up and maintain a 1 Terabyte server just for streaming their HD movies.
People are lazy and short of time, and just taking out the disc from the shelf and popping it into the player seems just so much more simpler.
 
mckmas8808 said:
I'm not saying it's a bad thing. I think it good actually. I personally would like to have the technology. But MS stating that they are basically against Blu-ray just because of this one feature is laughable. They don't have an issue with the physical sturcture they have already said that.

The point is MS fears losing with their personal thoughts with what movies are supposed to be. Hell Billy boy wants Blu-ray to be the last physical media EVER!! I can promise you most people don't feel the same as he on that subject. The movie companies probably hate the thought too. Most people don't want to download movies all the time and saving them to a hard drive. We want physical media.

I don't think we want physical media so much as we want TRUE OWNERSHIP. I don't care what format it comes on as long as I own it, can do with it as I please, and I don't have to pay for it again.

Anyway, my original point was that their beef with Bluray was not due to Sony being a competitor in the console realm, it was due to their desire for the managed copy and their plans for the future. I'm not saying that MS is out to protect the consumer- none of those companies are, they are out to protect themselves. Sony doesn't care about you, Sony doesn't care about the consumer beyond what is necessary to still be in business- neither does Microsoft.
 
rabidrabbit said:
A HD movie disc is what, 25 Gigs.
A 250-500Gig hard drives are what will be found in most homes.
If all my DVD's today were HD-DVD's I would be able to fit just 10 or 20 movies on the HD, assuming there'd be nothing else on the HD, like an OS, apps, high definition multichannel music, high resolution images...
But as it is, it isn't uncommon to have a 250Gig HD in their XP Media Center PC today and already have it full without any HD movies in it (uh... like I do).
Though what you say is true, you're missing the beautiful and perfect future wanted for us. On your 250 GB HDD you only ever have one film. You pay $3, download Spiderman 3 and watch it. Then you want to watch the originals again so pay $3 for Spiderman 1 and then (after watching it) pay another $3 for Spiderman 2, which each overwrites the previous film buffer. Then to recap on the whole trilogy pay another $3 to watch Spiderman 3 again. Having enjoyed Spiderman 3 so much you go round your mates. You DO NOT take your disc with you and let them watch it off your copy. That is evil piracy. Instead they pay $3 to watch Spiderman 3 over their connection. (Possilby they'll have to pay an extra fee of $1 for each person viewing. After all 6 people watching a film only paid for once is evil piracy and funds terrorists and drug barons)

Without ownership it becomes pay per view and storage only needs be enough to store one movie (until streaming is sufficiently fast you don't need to store it).

Long term the idea that you can buy a movie and store it on your HDD to transmit around the house seems unlikely to me. You may still be able to broadcast encrypted data around your house (so people outside or next-door can't see it too) to watch a streaming movie, but ownership seems unilkely. And for all MS's complaining aren't spearheading this philosophy by wanting to not sell OS's but license them, so cheapskate scum like me can't just buy one OS and use it because it works and I don't need to upgrade, but instead have to pay MS every year for the privilege of using a computer.
 
Note especially the bolded parts.

MICROSOFT'S CHOICES.

Microsoft at first stayed out of this tug-of-war. Instead, it focused on selling its software to both sides. The Toshiba camp first agreed to use a piece of Microsoft software, its VC-1 code, that squeezes content onto the disk, then decodes it for viewing. Then, in September, 2004, the Blu-ray backers adopted this chunk of code as well -- in exchange for a public pledge of neutrality from Microsoft. "We wanted them to join us," says an insider who is close to the Blu-ray Disc Assn. "But we compromised on neutrality."

That neutrality has unraveled over the past year, as Microsoft increasingly came to see Blu-ray as a risk to its fortunes. In May, Sony confirmed that it would include Blu-ray in the new PlayStation game console beginning next year. Microsoft's Xbox wouldn't have such capability. Then on June 15, the Blu-ray camp decided against using Microsoft's IHD technology to add interactive features to Blu-ray disks, opting instead to stick with software based on Java technology.

FIGHTING PIRATES.

In July, Sony decided to refine the Blu-ray standard in a way that would have far-reaching implications for Microsoft. Sony wanted to win the support of Twentieth Century Fox Film Studios, long Hollywood's leading advocate for tough anti-piracy measures. So Sony agreed to add safeguards developed for Fox by San Francisco's Cryptography Research, which could prevent Blu-ray movies from being ripped to a computer's hard drive.

Fox execs say their decision became a no-brainer, because of the extra protection and because as many as 30 million PlayStations might be sold in the next three years. "They have a Trojan Horse that will play a critical role in igniting the market for this product, and when they do, we intend to be in that market with them," says Michael Dunn, president of Fox Home Entertainment.

The move was a serious blow for Microsoft's Xbox. The company had decided to hold down costs by not including a next-generation DVD player in the game console. Instead, it planned to stream high-definition content from a PC sitting in one room to the console, which would be attached to a television. But Cryptography's safeguards meant studios could block their content from being taken off the DVD. That was the reason for Gates's exchange with Stringer at the conference. Gates wanted Sony to drop such technology, but Stringer wouldn't budge.

Andy Parsons, a Blu-ray spokesman, says the Cryptography technology does not block content from being moved around a network, but the association has yet to finalize details of whether it will allow for managed copying of the disk as Microsoft demands.

http://www.businessweek.com/technology/content/oct2005/tc2005106_9074_tc024.htm
 
Yes the fact that Blu-Ray is in the PS3 is reason enough for MS to oppose Blu-Ray. All this talk about managed copy is a red herring. What did you expect MS to say, "We don't like Blu-Ray because it's in the PS3, our main competitor in consoles."?

Just imagine if Blu-Ray got the support of all the movie studios. MS had introduced X360 touting the HD capabilities but it's the PS3 which can play back HDTV movies without a Media Center Edition PC or some other expensive setup (which may never get support as streamed movies to X360 may not be HDTV resolution due to the lack of an HDMI output).

They have to minimize this potential advantage any way they can.

The MS guy at AVS denies people will use the PS3 to view HDTV movies. Says only "childless males" will bother hooking up the PS3 to the main HDTV in the home.:rolleyes:

So while most people won't bother hooking up a PS3 to an HDTV, they will hook up an X360?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
wco81 said:
Most people at AVS don't trust Amir on a lot of things. Way before MS dropped their "neutrality" and endorsed HD-DVD, people could tell where MS was because of Amir's posts.

There's a lot of skepticism about his claims about how iHD is better than BD-J, which he accused of being too complex with too many methods and classes, higher memory footprint, etc.

Of course MS doesn't want anything with Java to do well.

But some studios have cited their preference for BD-J.

And the irony is all but one studio is in favor of iHD and that one studio isn't owned by SONY...

I guess that means SONY actually likes iHD more than BD-J. So much for that argument, but hey I guess I'm just seeing things and making up stuff like MS...

It's apparent that Amir has more credibility than at least one person that posts over at AVS and here...
 
MoeStooge said:
Anyway, my original point was that their beef with Bluray was not due to Sony being a competitor in the console realm, it was due to their desire for the managed copy and their plans for the future.
The problem is, managed copy is one property of AACS which is also adopted by Blu-ray so what Bill Gates claimed about managed copy and Blu-ray is pure FUD.
 
Bill Gates is the consumer advocate?!?! LOL! Can I "manage copy" Windows on more than one computer in my home. NO! Maybe Bill just can't stand that Blu-ray choose Java over MS software offer.
 
one said:
The problem is, managed copy is one property of AACS which is also adopted by Blu-ray so what Bill Gates claimed about managed copy and Blu-ray is pure FUD.

Did you mean managed copy is one propery of AACS which is also adopted by HD-DVD? Not just Blu-ray?:???:
 
one said:
The problem is, managed copy is one property of AACS which is also adopted by Blu-ray so what Bill Gates claimed about managed copy and Blu-ray is pure FUD.

Why not tell the complete story instead of posting more FUD especially when you erroniously claim FUD coming from BG?

Here let me help you out. It doesn't matter that BR also uses AACS. The fact it also uses BD+ means MMC in AACS can be disabled. This basically means the mandatory part of MMC becomes optional aka not mandatory which defeats the whole purpose of MMC in AACS in the first place. IOW you're not guaranteed MC in BR like you are with HD DVD even though both use AACS.
 
PC-Engine said:
Why not tell the complete story instead of posting more FUD especially when you erroniously claim FUD coming from BG?

Here let me help you out. It doesn't matter that BR also uses AACS. The fact it also uses BD+ means MMC in AACS can be disabled. This basically means the mandatory part of MMC becomes optional aka not mandatory which defeats the whole purpose of MMC in AACS in the first place. IOW you're not guaranteed MC in BR like you are with HD DVD even though both use AACS.

So basically of BDs if a movie company wanted to stop it like Fox then they could. But a movie company could also allow it if they wanted too? Is that what you are trying to say?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top