Sony Paid Warner Bros. $400 Million to Go Blu-Ray? 487
eldavojohn writes "How much would you pay to be the leading video media technology right now? Is $400 million too much? Sony didn't think so and this article speculates that's how they won the Hi-Def format war. 'With billions of dollars in global sales at stake, experts had predicted the Toshiba-Sony battle would go on for years - not unlike the 1980s battle of videotape formats between VHS (Matsushita) and Betamax (Sony). That war lasted a decade, leaving Sony battered and humiliated. So how did this epic battle come to such an abrupt end? The answer lies in part with the bruising Sony experienced with Betamax, which, like Blu-ray, was also the better product on paper.'"
free market? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:free market? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:free market? (Score:5, Insightful)
So you agree with the crowd that wants to ban gay marriage?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Corporations are not people.
Re:free market? (Score:5, Insightful)
Ban corporate gay marriage! (Score:3, Funny)
Hmmm. From now on, no more corporations telling each other to "bend over"?
Dunno.
Re:free market? (Score:5, Insightful)
Longer answer, there are plenty of things we don't allow people to decide to do together. For example, kill each other. Doesn't matter one bit whether it's in private, voluntary, or not, it's simply not allowed. Likewise, things like bribery and collusion are regulated against because the majority find them unacceptable and detrimental to the general public welfare. Until somebody comes up with a consistent, coherent, universal ethical system (and nobody yet has), we're stuck with "mob rules" on a case by case basis when it comes down to it. Either that or barbarism and anarchy. Unfortunately, if the majority find gay marriage unethical (I certainly find no such thing), then we're stuck with that until and unless they become more enlightened.
That is... unless you've got a Philosopher King in mind for us?
P.S. Corporations are not people anyway. Here's the difference: people are assumed to have all rights naturally, and laws are made to restrict those rights. Corporations are assumed to have no rights naturally, and laws are made to grant those rights. Big damn difference.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:free market? (Score:4, Insightful)
Speaking of the Gummint butting in... whatever happened to the DOJ's investigation of claims that Sony was deliberately sabotaging the HD-DVD consortium? [afterdawn.com]? (In 2004, no less).
The EU also fined Sony, Fuji, and Maxwell for price fixing [techluver.com]... a sign of things to come?
Last July, the EU started investigating why Blu-Ray was winning [arstechnica.com], wondering "whether improper tactics were used to suppress competition and persuade the studios to back [Sony's] format."
*shrugs*
Re:free market? (Score:4, Insightful)
Here's a thought exercise for you guys: Wipe the slate clean, everybody starts from zero, Adam Smith's extreme younger brother is in the hizzy.
Now, exactly how many seconds pass before two or more similarly skilled people start pooling their resources to reduce cost/corner the market? You'd go from 0 to Microsoft in no time flat with this method.
Re:free market? (Score:5, Insightful)
Not to worry — there is no such thing.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
re: irrelevant comment ... but thanks for playing (Score:3, Insightful)
The fact is, the general public barely bought into EITHER HD-DVD or Blu-Ray disc. They're still buying regular old DVDs!
This was merely a case of some businesses getting behind a potential future "standard" for a media format, while others went with another concept. 95%+ of the public rejected BOTH options as too costly
Re:free market? (Score:5, Insightful)
In this case, however, it could turn out to be better for the consumer. If there hadn't been these bribes, who knows how long the format war would have lasted? I bought into HD-DVD and I think that it was the superior (for the consumer) product, but without these dirty tricks, the format war could have gone on for years longer, and any customer who wanted to upgrade to HD would have to either buy two separate players (or one combo player which is much more expensive and which doesn't include all of the features of any one player) or relegate themselves to only buying movies from studios who support that format. Worse, it might be a trend that the studios realize they could push further--imagine if each studio had its own format (as you see with DRM downloads, in some cases) requiring its own player?
That doesn't mean that allowing bribery, collusion, etc. is better in the general case.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I agree that HD DVD were the better one from the perspective of the users (Weak DRM and no region codes) but in the longer run that may also have hampered the technology with studios trying to drag their heels a bit, until even worse DRM schemes were introduced on the download services.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
The first and foremost (for any system of extremely progressive taxation) is real tax havens, I dont mean illusary non-citzen ones... but the very real threat that a society that implements extreme taxation on its resource leaders will litterally suffer expatration. People would swear off their american citizenship and be gladly welcomed into ameniable nations (and would apply for citizenship there... which w
Re:free market? (Score:4, Insightful)
It's like saying someone isn't conservative just because they support gay marriage.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:free market? (Score:5, Insightful)
It's spelled 'we, the people', dumbass. The 'problem', such as it is, isn't the system, but your particularly shitty implementation of it.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:free market? (Score:4, Insightful)
Cheers.
Re:free market? (Score:5, Insightful)
It's spelled 'we, the people', dumbass. The 'problem', such as it is, isn't the system, but your particularly shitty implementation of it.
We got to see at least three major (and differing) implementations of Marx' setup. The number of deaths from it climbs up into the hundreds of millions, all told, and in places like North Korea, still climbing at horrific rate. Problem is, too many people are eager to claim their actions in the name of "the people", but the reality ends up being just the opposite. I think the USSR lasted approximately three years before it stopped being about "the people" and started being about "the state" (and yes, there is a distinction).
Capitalism (as practiced) isn't exactly a perfect system either (far, far from it). Quite frankly, it can outright suck at times. OTOH, it does have a tendency to keep its body counts down to a much more acceptable level.
Socialism? Cool... now who gets to fund it all when the majority of a populace figures out that they can do just fine without actually having to work for what they get? Ayn Rand may have been a nut case, but she does have a point - even economics has an ecosystem that requires each part of it to function well enough to survive. Humans are too damned lazy in nature to be eager about providing excessively for others in a system where they objectively don't have to.
Now here's the weak link in your arguments as per the free market... Collusion only works for as long as the people are willing to fund it. If not enough people buy Blu-Ray gear to justify the costs going into it, it eventually dies. If something freer, easier, and cheaper comes along (pick at least two) Last I checked, a lack of Blu-Ray gear won't prevent me from eating tonight, nor will that lack prevent me from drinking clean water, or having a nice warm environment in which to sleep tonight. This in turn leads to apathy among the larger population, which in turns leads to...
Re:free market? (Score:5, Interesting)
I hate to break it to you, but no, we didn't. Last I checked, Marx wasn't a big advocate for totalitarianism.
Re:free market? (Score:4, Interesting)
There really isn't; economic structure and political structure are intrinsically inseparable. There are uses, at times, for analytically pretending that there is a wall between them and that they can be examined in isolation, just as there are uses for all sorts of fundamentally inaccurate assumptions in simplifying analysis of various problems, but in reality they both fundamentally concern the same thing and they are intertwined at the most fundamental level. Economics is about the distribution of goods and services. Politics is about the distribution of power. But power is fundamentally the ability to get people to provide you the goods and services you desire: it is, precisely, the same thing as "wealth".
Now, in many systems (particularly, the kind of democratic capitalism the West aspires to), there is an effort to try to have, at the same time, virtually unlimited and unregulated concentration of "economic wealth" while maintaining an equal distribution of "political power". Inevitably, also, this effort fails because the two quantities are inseperable. Each is simply a different way of referring the capacity to get other people to do what you want.
Re:free market? (Score:4, Insightful)
Or rather, it confined it's holocausts to the 18th & 19th century
they'll be back
Re:free market? (Score:5, Interesting)
I wouldn't be so sure... Mao managed to wipe out (roughly) 100+ million of his own people during the "Great Leap Forward"... over 10% (at the time) of China's entire population. The USSR comes in at a somewhat close second, and only had a peak population of ~300m during the 1980's. I'd have to go dredging numbers (population vs. deaths during a given Purge or Gulag expansion period, and esp. during the starvations in the Ukraine), but I'm fairly willing to wager that as a percentage of the whole, it was a whole lot safer (odds-wise) to live in 18th/19th century England than it was to live in 20th Century Russia.
It's one thing to get killed due to willingly working under unsafe conditions and the like. It's another entirely to get executed or sent to die in a slave labor camp, just because the neighbor down the street reported you as a 'counter-revolutionary' to the local authorities. You're still perfectly free to walk away from the latter situation with at least a reasonable chance at continued survival...
Now as to whether or not free and open Capitalism would ever get to the point where millions are killed off due to malice on the part of those at the top of said system? Remains to be seen. OTOH, it's a lot harder to pull off than if you were in, say, Stalin's boots...
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Well, no. What are usually characterized as implementations of Marx's setup are solely the various major derivatives of Lenin's setup, which replaced Marx's requirement for an advanced capitalist society with an active, politically mobilized, proletariat aware of and leading the restructuring of society with a narrow activist elite vanguard leading in the name of the proletariat as a shortcut, because there was no prospect of
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
In practice, can you point to one example where collusion failed and a pick-2 solution arose?
Actually, yes:
The Movie Industry.
No, seriously, the movie industry. Around 1911 or so, the entire movie industry was controlled and locked by Edison and a heavy collusion with manufacturers of motion picture equipment. Every bit of movie equipment (including film(!?), cameras, lighting rigs, and projectors) was to be rented, period. In response, a group of filmmakers ran off to California, built their own equipment, and proceeded to make movies. The result is Hollywood and the MPAA. While we can all
Re:free market? (Score:5, Insightful)
There's nothing insightful about your post; it's typical anarchist rhetoric, bound to no historical precedent or foresight.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The key lies not in the existence of the gap, but the reason for its existence. Increases in the wealth gap are totally immaterial if they are accompanied by a general rise societal welfare. For example, if t
Re:free market? (Score:4, Insightful)
That's a nice bit of ideology; in practice, the policies sold as "free market" amount to letting a narrow group, backed by the coercive power of public institutions acting to protect their narrow interests under the flag of "property rights", etc. This is especially true of "deregulation" efforts, which usually are, in fact, efforts which recast regulations into the form preferred by the leading firms in the regulated industry, and serve largely to protect them from competition and protect and reinforce their dominant position.
There is a reason that the biggest advocates of so-called "free market" policies are exactly the people that the theorist to whom "free market" advocates like to pay lip service, Adam Smith, warned must always be particularly distrusted when advocating policies because they can be counted on to do so out of narrow interests that will almost invariably be opposed to the public interest, organizations of merchants and manufacturers in particular industries.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Ideas for the state-sponsored requirements:
- archival grade 100 years at room temperature
- compatible with all existing hardware sitting *somewhere* in the offices in some backwater county office
- mil-spec version available and compatible with all other equipment
- export restriction to everywhere outside North America.
- support for people with all kinds of disabilities including but not limited to complete acephalia
Re:free market? (Score:5, Insightful)
Yeah right. (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
No more HD-DVD? (Score:5, Insightful)
We know step 2... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Market Isn't Even Ready (Score:3, Interesting)
Now call me when we have the bandwidth to stream HD, and we're not paying a premium for discs and when we all have large screen hi def tvs that actually can utilized the enhanced resolution.
That being said, let Sony blow their wads.
Re:Market Isn't Even Ready (Score:5, Insightful)
Conversely, I think the lack of high quality downloads would actually spur increased demand for the delivery of high quality content though other means (in this case, HD discs.) If people have high def TVs, they are going to want high def content. If they can't get high def content from the internet, they will try to get it from high def media.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Conversely, I think the lack of high quality downloads would actually spur increased demand for the delivery of high quality content though other means (in this case, HD discs.)
And how is DVD-A doing in comparison to AACs from iTunes? In the music industry, people value convenience a huge amount more than quality (or, rather, fidelity). It will be interesting to see if the video industry is different. DVDs gave better quality and convenience than VHS and CDs gave better quality and convenience than analogue tapes. I can't think of a single instance where consumers have been forced to choose between the two and gone with quality.
A second PC (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Significantly.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
"Hrm. Your cable box has a DVI port and the TV is HDMI. Best Buy will charge you $100 for that cable. Let's order it online for $15 and use component for now. Plug the component video output of the cable box into the component input of your TV. No, that's compos
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
But remember, the industry holds the strings. All they have to do is start releasing new movies on Blu-Ray before they release them on DVD, and DVD dies sooner or later. Downloading DVD images that have been reformatted to 4.7GB with DVDShrink is one thing. Downloading DVD images of movie that yo
Re:Market Isn't Even Ready (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Well, I know a lot of people with laptops that have displays capable of at least 720p. Sound quality may not be great, but they can show a high-def movie in an honestly OK quality.
I don't know quite so many people that own HDTVs. (Actually, I haven't asked in most cases, so I could be underestimating, but you get the idea.)
The penetration rate for something that can display a high-def movie via download is much higher than HDTVs. Granted the experience won't be as great, but it's a place to start. Once
Re:Market Isn't Even Ready (Score:5, Informative)
Or... (Score:4, Insightful)
Granted, geeks know that the DRM on blu-ray is harsher than that on HD-DVD, but if your just joe Movie Watcher does it really matter?
Just a thought.
Re:Or... (Score:4, Insightful)
HDDVD also had a path to higher capacities. From a movie-watcher's perspective, BluRay has absolutely 0 technical advantages. In terms of a storage medium it has some advantage, but not one HDDVD couldn't have matched easily enough.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
No, nobody has considered that because it's meaningless - especially to Joe Movie Watcher. Both HDDVD and BluRay have more than enough space to provide existing movie content. Look at most HDDVDs, there's usually quite a bit of free space even with extras etc...
Well, yeah, there is enough space on there for the current model we have for watching, but what if we change the model? What if instead of a season of television spanning 4 DVDs it just spans 1 blu-ray disk and is all in 1080p?
If you're at best buy, and you ask the sales guy the difference between Blu Ray and HD DVD, what is he going to tell you that is relevant to your inerests?
Is the DRM model on each relevant? Well, if you need to talk to a sales guy at best buy, then chances are you don't even know w
Re:Or... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Or... (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Or... (Score:4, Interesting)
I don't see a real compelling reason for something to be able to play 8 hours of uninterrupted content for the home market. Those that need that kind of play time are a insignificant minority. The only reason for increased capacity would be when the move comes to the next higher resolution format, which will involve new hardware anyway.
-BbT
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Or... (Score:5, Interesting)
Not entirely true. It had at least ONE major advantage, less market confusion with DVD.
I've seen at least two instances personally (not counting the numerous anecdotes mention here on slashdot
With Blu-Ray, there was much more of an instinctual "This is a new format that needs a new player".
I'd also wonder if Blu-Ray's choice of using Blue for their media vs HD DVD's Red made a difference from a psychological point of view. Most people associate Red with Danger, while Blue is usually associated with Calmness.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Bullshit thrice over.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Or... (Score:5, Insightful)
3-layer HD DVDs was just a PR stunt. None were ever produced, and I'm willing to bet that none of the existing HD DVD players could read them, so it might just as well have been a new format that nobody would have adopted.
Sony demonstrated much, much higher numbers of layers on Blu Ray discs as well.
Re:Or... (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Or... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Wait, no it doesn't. Because they were consistently twice the price.
Umm... no. (Score:2, Interesting)
Most people simply don't care. And the two formats were neck-and-neck for
Re: (Score:2)
Better? No... Won't go that far.
The fact that it uses DRM at all makes it lose at least 90 out of 100 points on scale of usability.
The fact that early adopters are out however much they spent on players that cannot be upgraded to watch current rev media, drops another 90 out of 100 points.
Right now, we're at -80 out of 100 points on usability scale.
Next we have media costs. blu-ray media costs more to manufacture, therefore raises purchase price. Drop an
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Blu-Ray was different.. I'll give you that much...
Better? No... Won't go that far.
The fact that it uses DRM at all makes it lose at least 90 out of 100 points on scale of usability.
Wow, the last 10 years of DVD must have been rough on you, seeing as DVDs have DRM.
The fact that early adopters are out however much they spent on players that cannot be upgraded to watch current rev media, drops another 90 out of 100 points.
Original profile 1.0 Blu-ray players can watch all movies and all special features on current and future discs, except for picture in picture. Kinda like how original DVD players didn't have access to all current DVD player features, and how my DVD players can't play the "enhanced multimedia content" that requires a PC drive. Curses!
Next we have media costs. blu-ray media costs more to manufacture, therefore raises purchase price. Drop another 50 points.
Strange that the extra few pennies per disk (and dropping) hasn't lead to Blu-ray discs cos
Re: (Score:2)
Has anyone considered the remote possibility that Blu-Ray won out because it was the better of the two formats? It stores more data. From an end user perspective, isn't this pretty much the #1 thing that matters?
Not really. Your average end user doesn't know anything about the amount of data storage available on a disc unless the sales person used it in the sales pitch. They know about as much about disc capacity as they do about DRM.
Assuming the above to be true (my personal anecdotal evidence seems to suggest it is), from an end user's perspective who DOES understand DRM effects AND storage capacities, there was no clear winner. HD-DVD had less restrictive DRM, and a bit less potential capacity. It's also wort
Re: (Score:2)
The only thing Blu-Ray had going for it was its data density. I would hardly call it a supperior format when it costs 2-3x as much for the media and the hardware.
Re:Or... (Score:5, Interesting)
No, I'd say capacity was the #2 thing that mattered.
#1 was: Blu-Ray discs don't get scratched.
"Geeks" here on
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
#1 was: Blu-Ray discs don't get scratched.
Blu-ray discs do scratch and it is debatable whether the harder surface of the Blu-ray disc is a benefit to the consumer.
HD-DVD media is made of the same material used in standard DVD media. It is pretty cheap and easy for the average person to resurface a DVD. When a Blu-ray disc does get scratched, it is far more difficult to fix. If you try to use a DVD-doctor on a Blu-ray disc it doesn't help. The only fix I've heard for a scratched BD is to trash it and purchase a new one.
Does anyone know of a chea
Re:Stores more ... per layer (Score:4, Informative)
Of course, neither the 3-layer HD-DVDs or the 8-layer BDs are relevant to the format war, because there were never any plans to use either for movies and set-top players can't read them, anyway.
Holy rumor mill, Batman (Score:4, Insightful)
Other than analysts' speculation of payoffs, there's nothing that could be considered fact in this article. Pass.
I guess free market means bribes (Score:3, Insightful)
(1) The betamax people like to claim that betamax was "better" than VHS. This is simply not true. It had some features that were better than VHS, but VHS had features that were better than Betamax. It all came down to the fact that VHS was cheaper and allowed for longer record times.
(2) The amount of money Sony just sent is proof that Blue-Ray sucks.
Re:I guess free market means bribes (Score:5, Insightful)
BS.
The HD-DVD camp did the very same thing, yet where is the moral outrage? Hypocrisy is alive and well on
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
1) It's "Blu-ray".
2) Paramount were paid $150M to switch to HD DVD only. Based on the number of titles being put out (or market share), Paramount were paid far more relatively than this rumoured amount for Warner.
Betamax wasn't better. (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Betamax wasn't better. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Betamax had porn too. My dad's collection was all betamax... uhh, don't ask me how I know.
Re:Betamax wasn't better. (Score:4, Funny)
And here's me thinking the porn industry was going to decide this battle.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
-BbT
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Even for /., bad summary and headline (Score:5, Informative)
Should read:
Really, other than the really obvious things we all know (Sony won the format war), there aren't any facts in the article, just speculation and some rather weird ideas from a variety of sources. Like Professor Xavier Dreze and his suggestion that "PlayStation buyers
Re:Even for /., bad summary and headline (Score:4, Interesting)
Yes, they supported blu-ray over hddvd incidentally. Ie if the PS3 had been hddvd they would have bought it all the same. The market skew toward blu-ray by way of ps3 sales was NOT on blu-ray's merits over HDDVD, it was simply by virtue of the fact that that is what the PS3 came with.
Everyone picking a stand alone player had to agonize over whether to go bluray or hddvd.
If the PS3 had somehow been available in two flavors
It came with hidef (which they wanted or at least saw value in), it happened to be bluray which they mostly didn't care about, so that's what they got. People buying a ps3 wanted a ps3 and took whatever hidef player it came with.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
"Incidentally" is not "unwittingly", though. I tend to agree that most probably did so "incidentally" (it may have been important to buyers that it was an HD player, but which format probably wasn't important), but "unwittingly" suggests that not merely unconcerned with the fact that buy buying the PS3 and media to play on it they were supporting Blu-ray, but unaware that they were doing
Well there's an explanation I didn't see coming (Score:2, Redundant)
I mean, after "Never get involved in a land war in Asia" and "Never go in against a Sicilian when death is on the line", the most famous rule is "Never back Sony in a format war." And here they are, winning one!
So yeah, throwing flagrant amounts of money at potential customers kinda changes the calculus a bit. Sony media format marketing without bribery* is like the getting the dog to play with the ugly kid without the steak tied around his neck.
*Well, to be perfectly fair, Sony's 3.5" floppy diskette forma
$ony? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:$ony? (Score:5, Funny)
Plus and Minus (Score:5, Informative)
Now BluRay won the consumer war, but it is unclear if the professional disk version called XDCAM [wikipedia.org] will win the professional format, as pro video folks moving beyond tapes are also looking at flash-based systems like DVCPRO P2 [wikipedia.org] , and even Sony now offers professional XDCAM EX on SxS [wikipedia.org] flash memory.
Just Sony? (Score:5, Informative)
Maybe Sony did pay Warner the big bucks for the commitment, but I'd be surprised if they're the only ones making deals like this.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blu-ray_Disc_Association [wikipedia.org]
I hate that point. (Score:5, Interesting)
Well, yes, there are a lot of members, but Blu-ray is still Sony's. They not only have the most invested in Blu-ray, they have the most to gain:
1) They developed the hardware platform entirely on their own and gain royalties from the format's sales
2) The success or failure of their gaming console is tied inexorably to the success or failure of the format
3) The decision to splinter off from the DVD Consortium, following the DVD Consortium's choice of HD-DVD as the next format (supposedly chosen because it would be ready sooner), was entirely theirs. Broader industry support came after that decision, and was reportedly driven by studio fear of Microsoft. Without Sony, there's no format war.
There's a very very good reason that people associate this format with Sony - it's their format, it's just supported by other people. Lots of people support the CD format but that doesn't make it any less Sony / Phillips' format.
Rehash of rumor from HD-DVD fan blog (Score:4, Informative)
The Original source is Dan Lindich, he has since edited the story to remove all references to money changing hands. Read some of his blog, he hates Blu-Ray with a passion and has always recommended HD-DVD, still doesn't recommend Blu-ray, even it won the format war, here is his now eidited story:
http://www.soundadviceblog.com/?p=758 [soundadviceblog.com]
From Digital bits:
"As it happens, I've actually spoken about this today with Fox's senior VP of corporate and marketing communications, Steve Feldstein, who echoed something Warner's Ron Sanders has also said in recent days: "The kind of money they're talking about [in these stories] isn't worth jeopardizing a multi-billion dollar business." In other words, payoffs would not have impacted Fox and Warner's decisions. Feldstein also told me that when The Pittsburgh Post Gazette piece broke, he contacted Lindich immediately to let him know that he was being misled by someone. When Don posted the same piece on his own blog, it was edited to reflect this. Specifically, the references to $120 million and $500 million payoffs were gone - something that's worthy of note."
http://www.thedigitalbits.com/mytwocentsa149.html [thedigitalbits.com]
Basically bitter Fan can't see writing on wall, sees conspiracy instead.
The facts were Blu Ray disks outsold HD-DVD disks for every single week of 2007, by the last weeks of 2007 there were more standalone Blu Ray players sold than HD-DVD players sold, despite HD-DVD being massively cheaper. HD-DVD was toast before Warner announced.
Slashdot, all the quality of Digg, without the quantity.
I wonder if Nintendo and Microsoft see... (Score:4, Interesting)
The PS3 cost Sony even more. (Score:4, Interesting)
Even if this specific rumor turns out to be false, the broader implication that Sony was willing to sacrifice to ensure the success of Blu-Ray is undeniable. For a while Sony's use of a Blu-Ray player in PS3s was considered a blunder. The fact is, Blu-Ray is more important to Sony than the PS3 was. If coming in behind their competitors in this video game generation is what it cost to make Blu-Ray the HD standard, Sony is perfectly happy with that. Of course, there remains the possibility that Blu-Ray will turn out to be a competitive advantage for the PS3, in which case it would be so much the better. The point is, from Sony's perspective, it didn't matter if the Blu-Ray turns out to be good for the PS3 or not, because they consider it a win either way. If it is, they're obviously happy, but even if it isn't, they're still happy because they still win by massively inflating Blu-Ray's install base. For Sony, Blu Ray>PS3.
In contrast, to MS the 360 was a much higher priority than Toshiba's HD-DVD. MS has been trying to get into our living rooms for over 10 years now. (Bill Gates was already obsessing about it in The Road Ahead and that book was written 13 years ago.) All things being equal they'd prefer Toshiba to win and Sony to lose, of course, but it wasn't important enough to them for them to risk 360's success on.
Welcome to Sony (Score:3, Interesting)
Total Speculation (Score:4, Insightful)
$400 million isn't much (Score:3, Funny)
Re:First (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Unless, of course, like most early buyers of Blu-ray, your Blu-ray player happens to be a PS3.