@MikeB

Quote:

In your opinion maybe, but in my opinion asking ridiculous questions may provide some food for thought.

Fine Mike. To me escalation of the ridiculous statements is not going to help keep this thread meaningful. BrianK can easily turn around and say the same, that his statement was "food for thought" for the longterm future of media disc formats, including Blu-ray.

Quote:

streaming would kill Blu-Ray.

Well you don't have a crystal ball. I certainly prefer internet movie rentals via Itunes to Blu-ray ownership for almost all titles. You don't have a time machine, just like everybody else.

Quote:

I think it's all just FUD

But Mike, the HD-DVD vs Blu-ray battle was long fought and not easily won by Sony. Certainly people could have had an honest opinion during that time that HD-DVD was going to be the victor. It hardly would have been spreading FUD to say thats how one saw it.

Quote:

"When Blu-ray was introduced in late 2006, a 25-gigabyte disc cost nearly $1 a gigabyte, though it is about half that now." (from the 2009 article) Since when is well cheaper than $0.052 per gigabyte now (compared to 2007) half of $1.000 dollar per gigabyte? You claim I make ridiculous comments, but seriously reread your own comments.

I said it nicely to you before and I'll say it again. Please check with the source then. He provides his email address, he is not hiding anywhere. YOU decided the numbers should be based on "25K SL replication, even less for higher production runs and/or DL". The article does not say under what conditions those prices existed at that it quotes. You don't get to decide, because you want to show a cheaper cost what conditions the writer needs to be referring to. He did not specify the conditions of the order(s?) that made him think that was a valid price to say.

If the author's numbers are based on a different order size and/or other conditions its not fair to compare it to this page that I am guessing you paraphrase from:

http://wesleytech.com/blu-ray-vs-hd-dvd-replication-costs-revealed/111/

And BTW this page, is it valid for sure? Do you have a second source for validation? Are you sure it has no typos? Are you sure this other author's "confidential industry source" was correct?

If anyone is spreading FUD, it appears it would be you. Again you try to work the numbers. You don't like whats quoted, so you go out looking for something to dispute it to make it a more favorable picture for Sony. Whatever you find out there on the internet will do. Who cares if its not sure that apples to apples right? Its about seeming reasonable at first glance but not really being. If it were really about the truth, you'd find out the conditions under which the NY Times got its numbers before doing just what was convenient to shoot them down just to make Sony look better.

Last edited by fairlanefastback on 29-Apr-2009 at 11:26 PM.
Last edited by fairlanefastback on 29-Apr-2009 at 11:25 PM.
Last edited by fairlanefastback on 29-Apr-2009 at 11:24 PM.
Last edited by fairlanefastback on 29-Apr-2009 at 11:10 PM.
Last edited by fairlanefastback on 29-Apr-2009 at 11:08 PM.

_________________
Pegasos2 G3 running AOS 4.1 and MorphOS 2.0
Amikit user, tinkering with Icaros VM (AROS)
EFIKA owner
Amiga 1200