Talk:Comparison of high-definition optical disc formats/Archive 2

message: Under the argument put forth earlier concerning support (or lack their of) for blu-ray by MGM and Fox, shouldn't there also be a notation that Weinstein does not fully support HD DVD sinc ethey haven't released a movie in six months? Since Fox and MGM were noted in four months for not supporting Blu-ray, aren't we two months overdue?166.214.250.16 (talk) 15:19, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yea, Weinstein has gone MIA over the last 6, however they have still released more titles then MGM in total (9 vs. 7). So I would say that depending on your perspective they are both not supporting their respective formats very well. --Ray andrew (talk) 21:09, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's a really weak argument and actully an incorrect argument. Weinstein has released 11 films on HD DVD with the final 2 in June 2007. MGM has released 13 films with the final 2 coming out this past October and November. So by no means are the 2 currently comparable though you could have drawn that comparison 2 months ago. In fact, I believe you were arguing exacly that MGM should not be considered a true backer of Blu-ray specifically because of that while not arguing the same for Weinstein. To me that makes your comment to be more of a nasty aside meant to denigrate blu-ray support rather than an honest comparison. As is, a slow release schedule is by no means a no release schedule. And that makes all the difference. 209.183.34.46 (talk) 21:54, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well I may be wrong but I was just going by highdefdigest.com's count, which lists 9 movies as being released by Weinstein and 7 by MGM. So please tell me what extra movies they are missing for each. I'm not trying to ague that Weinstein has not gone MIA (thats clear), all I was saying that they have still (provided my count is correct) have released more movies then MGM.    —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ray andrew (talk • contribs) 00:58, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Weinstein: Black Christmas, Clerks II, Derailed, Feast, Harsh Times, Lucky Number Slevin, The Matador, Pulse, Scary Movie 4, School for Scoundrels, and Wolf Creek vs MGM: Basic Instinct 2 - Risk Addiction, Bulletproof Monk, Flyboys, Hart's War, Hoosiers, The Last Waltz, Mr. Brooks, Rescue Dawn, Rocky, Species, The Terminator, The Usual Suspects, Windtalkers courtesy of the stat sites.65.13.151.42 (talk) 04:37, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

text:  And that list actually didn't include Robocop and Home of the Brave which were both released in October 2007. Which would actually make it 15:11::MGM:Weinstein. As well as there's 1 dated Q1 title and several announced with no date given.65.13.151.42 (talk) 04:41, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry but I think you have some of those titles confused: Basic Instinct 2 for instance was released by Sony Home Ent. on Blu-ray . --Ray andrew (talk) 14:05, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Look up the distribution details on IMDB. It's produced by MGM but distribution is shared with SPE in the US. There's a few titles with situations like that. It's still an MGM title as evidenced by their logo being on the back of the case and SPE refenced as far as distribution.65.13.151.42 (talk) 02:19, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Call me crazy but I count titles by who actually releases them and in that case MGM has only released 7, if we were to count all the movies made by MGM then we would have to count some HD DVD's too that Warner now owns the rights to and has released. ;) --Ray andrew (talk) 14:12, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well sorry you don't believe because MGM shares the distribution rights with another company it doesn't count as them releasing it. Look, if you want some credibility as nonbiased you got to stop playing this game. MGM has been releasing films as of late and have had more of their films released. There's been a lot of catalog sell-off in their history so a lot of their films are owned by other companies now and aren't theirs. Not to mention international releases. But they do own the rights to several films still and they've been releasing them on Blu-ray. Now you argued that Fox wasn't supporting Blu-ray fully because they weren't releasing films. Now when the shoe is on the other foot and Weinstein has abandoned HD DVD completely you want to play coy and make swipes at Blu-ray. Fine. But don't expect others to take seriously any NPOV arguments you raise if you're going to show clear bias in your determination. MGM owns movies and shares distribution with other companies. They count. 166.214.40.117 (talk) 21:33, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: All that matters is who actually released the title, as they are the ones with the home video distribution rights. Sorry but it does matter, and its not a NPOV thing. For the record, from the beginning I have said that Weinstein has gone MIA, I was just pointing out that they are not the only studio thats released a pathetic amount of titles. --Ray andrew (talk) 14:39, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sometimes with license and share distribution rights. Studios collaborate. It happens. MGM is releasing titles. They just don't usually release their titles alone. If their release schedule is meager and pathetic then how about if they were HD DVD exclusive they'd be 4th in terms of release numbers right behind Paramount(39) and in front of Weinstein? That's clear POV to call it "meager" or "pathetic". When it comes to who is the distributor for a title, I trust Amazon and IMDB aren't going to be making errors about major details like this. Same with Lucasfilms and other studios who partner to release films. I guess you could say it's a failing of the Studio Support list in that there's multiple overlapping and sometimes confusing partnership and distribution deals. But we don't say Fox supports HD DVD or isn't releasing blu-ray titles because some of their partners and foreign arms don't ship blu-rays. As it stands, if you want a film that MGM owns the legal rights to (not distribution) there are well over a dozen titles and they're all on blu-ray. 209.183.34.49 (talk) 16:24, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Trust amazon then:  --Ray andrew (talk) 16:28, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

text: I am actually just about to add about this issue, but haven't got time to add it. MGM simply delayed the titles, with title announced to be released (after delay announcement) around father's day 2008. While Weinstein does not have any single release since Summer 2007. While I don't think it should be removed from the list, it should be given a note that their last HD DVD release was Summer 2007. Their representatives refuse to comment. http://www.highdefdigest.com/news/show/Weinstein_Co./HD_DVD_Backer_Weinstein_Goes_MIA_Speculation_Mounts/1105 .
MGM: http://www.highdefdigest.com/news/show/Street_Date_Changes/MGM/MGM_Bumps_Battle_of_Britain,_Bridge_Too_Far_Blu-ray_Releases/1141
--w_tanoto (talk) 21:59, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Weinstein support 

message: 100px|thumb|right|
100px|thumb|right
Blu-ray Disc	HD DVD
Buena Vista
* Walt Disney Pictures
* Pixar
* Miramax
Time Warner
* Warner Brothers²
* New Line³
20th Century Fox
Sony Pictures
* Columbia TriStar
* MGM1
Lionsgate	
NBC Universal
* Universal Studios
Paramount Motion Pictures Group
* Paramount
* Dreamworks SKG4
Time Warner
* Warner Brothers²
* New Line
DreamWorks Animation 
Weinstein Co.5
Seems to be some disputes over how the table should look. I think the above is fine (although not perfect). Lets say we discuss it. --Ray andrew (talk) 01:46, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Nice, needs color coding and the minors, but thats a good idea. Its debatable which stat to rank them on though... --Ray andrew (talk) 17:27, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

text: The current table is okay, IMO. I agree with ray about the rank (debatable). Just want to note: HBO is missing from the current table--w_tanoto (talk) 19:31, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well not to try and buffalo the idea but a Euler diagram can be made to scale the relative share of market. I can throw together something later tonight possibly. 209.183.34.47 (talk) 19:48, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: A color-coded pie chart might be better than either. The segment size could reflect market share and the segment colour allegiance (red/blue/purple/white). --Harumphy (talk) 20:32, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Titles released as a percentage of share would be better, in my opinion. Since we're talking support the shares per title would ultimately show the size of their support.209.183.34.47 (talk) 22:11, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Although thats an interesting idea it would be quite impractical to maintain (in a verifiable way), besides we already have the total release counts for each side to compare. --Ray andrew (talk) 22:29, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I don't see why it would need regular updates. It could just be tagged as "accurate as of x". And realistically it would help illustrate the true degree of support each side has and eliminate "they're not a big studio/distributor" arguments.65.13.151.42 (talk) 00:31, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Incase anyone is wondering, a good source for the various market share numbers is the-numbers.com, specifically for 2007 they have : --Ray andrew (talk) 21:04, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's a useful source. I've incorporated its figures (down to the 1% share level) into a pie chart as outlined above and shown below. --Harumphy (talk) 13:15, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

text: I'm not sure about the pie chart, i find it easier to read the way is was before. Having the market share data may be useful though so a table more like the one shown above but with colour coding might be better:
Distributor     	2007 market share	Format 	Notes
Paramount       	16.5%            	HD DVD 	HD DVD exclusive from August 2007 for 18 months
Sony/Columbia   	13.7%            	Blu-ray	
Buena Vista     	13.5%            	Blu-ray	
Warner Bros.    	13.4%            	Both   	
Universal       	12.0%            	HD DVD 	
20th Century Fox	9.5%             	Blu-ray	
But then the minor studios are still ignored. Chris_huhtalk 00:33, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

text: I think on the graph there needs to be a note about Paramount as until August they were also distributing on Blu-ray, so not all of the market share is actually for HD DVD. ~CT  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 154.20.138.89 (talk) 02:26, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There are words to that effect (more or less) in the adjacent body text. --Harumphy (talk) 09:35, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't mind the pie if they put the same colors next to each other. That would help the visual concept.--Playstationdude (talk) 20:41, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The idea was to put the studios in order of market share. --Harumphy (talk) 22:09, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Major Studio support table discussion 

message: For weeks we've had release stats sourced from the DVD Release Report in Home Media Magazine, which is presumably a credible published source. Now 70.119.37.244 is replacing these with different figures from an personal web site. The latter includes the discontinued Paramount/Dreamworks titles that used to be available on Blu-ray. I see from www.dvdempire.com that only 10 of the 30 Paramount Blu-ray titles are still in stock - the other 20 are listed as "discontinued by studio".
Although it's true that these titles were once released, surely what matters is the number that are available for purchase now . (The wording of the article needs tweaking to reflect this better.) Does anyone know of a better source for this than the one cited by Home Media Magazine?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Harumphy (talk • contribs) 18:26, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: HMM is pretty much the authoritative source on this topic. I will back you up on that. --Ray andrew (talk) 01:57, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There is a bit of duplicity going on with the reference to Home Media Magazine.  It is being quoted as a source, but the article mentions nothing of any HDM release totals.  The sites I referenced, Blu-raystats.com and HDDVDstats.com, where not some personal websites.  Instead, they are sites that track all products that are released for either format, providing information such as video or audio codecs used, imdb.com rating for the title, and its box office gross.  The totals were clearly sourced from this independent source.  I added a note about the 33 Paramount / Dreamworks titles that had been discontinued, since it seemed to offend a certain individual that the existence of these titles receive any acknowledgment.  These sites are updated weekly, so they will make it easy to keep the totals listed in this section up to date.  While HMM might be considered a more credible source, they are not tracking the release totals.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.119.37.244 (talk) 02:35, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Try looking at the bottom of page 4 of the current issue: . --Ray andrew (talk) 03:24, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If he's missed that then I can understand why he thinks it seems odd. There's a problem with HMM refs - we should stop linking them together, because some change weekly, but not necessarily at the same time as each other, while others don't, and now that people have started using startpage in the URL it's no good conflating refs on different pages into a single ref. I suggest we keep each HMM ref separate, except when they're pointing to exactly the same article in the same issue, and not worry too much that HMM will appear several times in the refs list. To make it even clearer, I suggest we use the 'cite web' style with HMM as the work and the article as the title. --Harumphy (talk) 10:38, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Release stats 

message: I propose to modify the weekly sales pie chart to put Blu-ray on the left and HD DVD on the right, to make the order consistent with the rest of the article. --Harumphy (talk) 10:57, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll second that. --Ray andrew (talk) 13:41, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Weekly sales chart 

message: Now that Thingg has been so nice to make separate pages for List of HD DVD devices and List of Blu-ray devices, I think we need to remove the lists from this article and just link to them. We could still have a summary of manufacturers and price ranges. What do you all think? --Ray andrew (talk) 19:15, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. Those articles need some work but that isn't a problem. Let's link to those lists and just have an overview here. --Harumphy (talk) 19:40, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Remove device list 

message: Every time i see this Sentence, "while most HD DVD movies are in the 30 GB dual layer format" i think so this means the Single sided - Single layer HD DVD is already Redundant as soon as Films began being released on HD DVD? can someone tell me what the 15GB HD DVD is used for if anything? If this is true then HD will be heavily reliant upon the release of the 51GB triple layer disc to be equal in single disc capacity. Although until the 51GB is actually available to buy to the consumer Blu ray remains with the largest capacity on a single disc. So i don't see the point in misleading in the table that regarding the 51GB even though its been annnounced, their is still no titles confirmed or a release date, let alone not available at present. So it should be noted in the article both that there are no planed titles for 51GB nor a release date to be available to the consumer. No matter whether the "Version 2 of HD DVD " disc was announced or undergoing testing it remains unavailable and reference to it should be removed from the table until it's available to buy, unless if its noted under the 'a' link thats it's not yet available. Denzelio (talk) 00:47, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 15GB is no more redundant then single layer DVD's. Just like DVD, although almost all major films are released on dual layer discs, some smaller films are released on single layer as its a tad cheaper. As to the other topics try reading the already in place talks on this and the other relevant page (Talk:HD DVD) as it has been discussed to death. --Ray andrew (talk) 04:36, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Agreed about 51 GB. There's clearly little consensus for including it in any of these articles (HD DVD, Blu-ray Disc or here), but a select few continue to add it in and it gets tiring removing it. I figure if nothing is announced by CES '08 (and by "announced" I mean an actual title and a ship date, as well as details on backwards compatibility, if any) then we should remove it once and for all and leave it as a footnote until the HD DVD folks get their act together. —Locke Cole • t • c 05:03, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

text: The table is primarily a comparison of the formats' official specifications, not what is on sale. 51GB is part of the HD DVD spec, so it should stay. 15GB is used for 7.5% of HD DVD releases  - presumably shorter films. The arrival of 51GB doesn't make 15GB redundant. It just gives producers another option. HD DVD will not be heavily reliant on 51GB, because 30GB is ample providing you use one of the modern codecs. Its main advantage is a marketing one, not a technical one, because it will stop the BDA touting their unnecessarily and expensively over-engineered extra capacity as an advantage. --Harumphy (talk) 11:21, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  is the 15GB HD DVD already redundant? 

message: I don't see any sources listed.  (The specific item I'm interested in is "Audio+Video+Subtitles".)  Also, the section for Blu-ray Video = 40 megabit/s.  Is that just a pure video disc.  Or are movies actually limited to only 40 megabit/s with the audio/subtitles occupying the remaining 8 megabit/s?  Thanks.  ----  Theaveng (talk) 19:58, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yep, video is limited to 40 mbit/s see this white paper (page 17). --Ray andrew (talk) 21:30, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Is there a way for a Blu-ray encoder (or HD DVD encoder) to bend the rules and stream 42-43 Mbit/s of video? (31 Mbit/s for HD)  ----   Theaveng (talk) 23:36, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It wouldn't be spec compliant so you probably couldn't call it a Bul-ray disc but I'm sure it could be done. Obviously there is no guarantee that it will play. --Ray andrew (talk) 23:59, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Where did the bitrate information come from?

message: As per WP:MOSDATE, I suggest we use the YYYY-MM-DD (inside double square brackets) format for dates. These will then be auto-formatted according to the user preferences, i.e. 2007-01-02 in your case. I've used these myself for a while but sometimes people change them. --Harumphy (talk) 18:09, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: In Wikipedia, there's always something new to learn.  Thanks for the pointer to the style guide (I had no idea that there was an auto-format date format] and agree with your suggestion. Barte (talk) 18:35, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

text: If you set the date format in your user preferences, auto-formatted dates will appear in your preferred format. (You need to log in.) IMHO having the 'least significant' element in the middle is stupid, but each to his own. Besides, you're missing the point - the date must be written as YYYY-MM-DD for the auto-formatting to work correctly.--Harumphy (talk) 10:43, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Date format 

message: http://www.engadgethd.com/2008/01/04/the-real-reason-why-warner-went-blu/ Enjoy! Axem Titanium (talk) 04:18, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: What is that a source for, exactly? —Locke Cole • t • c 20:19, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It is a source for the claim that it is rumored Warner accepted 500 million dollars to go Blu Ray JayKeaton (talk) 22:31, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Then it's not a reliable enough source because 1) it doesn't name any sources for that claim and 2) it's a blog. Call me when a major news outlet carries the story. —Locke Cole • t • c 22:35, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: There are plenty of sources that confirm that it is a genuine rumor that Warner could have accepted between 250 million and 500 million. It is a well established rumor, to find another source you would merely have to reach into the thousands of results Google will return and pluck one up. JayKeaton (talk) 22:39, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: So wait, Variety (a well respected trade publication) isn't a good enough source for New Line going Blu-ray exclusive (see section below), but any number of blog entries or forum posts (but no credible/reliable sources) is just fine for saying Warner Bros. was paid off? At any rate, that's not the way sources on Wikipedia work: you need a reliable source, not a thousand forum posts or blog entries (which would qualify as original research). —Locke Cole • t • c 23:09, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Variety may or may not be a good enough source, but Variety is the ONLY source with that information. But there are thousands of sources independantly speculating that Warner was "paid off". Forum posts and blog entries?  this story was posted on Engadgets front page by Ben Drawbaugh, EngadgetHD's chief writer in staff. And there are a lot of editorials and stuff that mentions the rumor. But again, like I said in the thread below, I'm not really bothered. If readers of this article read about the well established rumor or not doesn't bother me at all. That can be a little bit of history they can miss out on for all I care. JayKeaton (talk) 05:23, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Again, something better than EngadgetHD: that's a blog. Something more reliable than that would help a bunch. —Locke Cole • t • c 05:33, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Source for you! 

message: can we get rid of the backwards 2008-08-03 kind of date format? It's confusing as all hell, I don't know whether the middle or the end is the day and which is the month.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.125.174.81 (talk) 23:59, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: go to your "my preferences" section and request another format. Barte (talk) 03:04, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: date format

message: Although Warner has announced that they will be Blu-ray exclusive as of June 1, 2008, we have no way of comforming what the market will look like at that time. Until June 1 rolls around, we should either leave the present image (:Image:HighDefShare.svg) or have two images (previous one and :Image:HighDefShare 2008-06-01.svg). My personal opinion is that we should just keep the former one by itself until June 1, and then switch it to the other at that time. My reasoning is that Warner's announcment is well documented in the article, and readers will mentally insert the info that is changed in Image:HighDefShare 2008-06-01 after reading the section. Also, as stated previously, we have no way of knowing what the BD - HD DVD studio support will look like in June, so we should not include a picture that purports what it will be like then. However, we should also keep the present written information as it is (more than) adequately referenced and accurate to what other very respectable sources (LA Times, NY Times, Wall Street Journal, USA Today, Reuters, AP, Bloomberg, etc. ) are saying. At this time, I think the section accurately presents what has taken place and is well written. However, the controversy over the pie charts is getting ridiculous and it needs to stop. I feel my proposal is a good way to at least partially satisfy all parties while staying in line with Wikipedia's standards and presenting an accurate account of what Warner has decided. Thingg (talk) 17:47, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: As I've muttered elsewhere, I think the disagreement revolves over whether the pie chart and the lead paragraph represent policy or practice.  Warner has stated its policy: exclusive support for Blu-ray, as of now.  In practice, that means continued support for some HD DVD titles, presumably until May. I think the chart and graph should reflect the current policy, because that's how the notable secondary sources you listed above have interpreted it. But I can see the other side of the argument, and do agree that either way, one chart would be better than two.Barte (talk) 19:13, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The pie chart is simply inaccurate as it stands now.  Warner does not support both formats, they support Blu-ray.  They stated they will continue to release HD-DVDs until the end of May, but this is not the same as supporting the format.  I think there may be confusion regarding 'technical' versus policy-based support.  No doubt, Warner will continue to provide technical support for the products they sell.  Nevertheless, as far as policy goes, Warner is clearly in the Blu-ray camp.  To suggest otherwise is contrary to all of their statements on the matter.  --64.142.82.28 (talk) 19:39, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The pie chart should reflect the situation as of right now, not what it will be. regardless of whether they are going to be BD exclusive in the future, the fact remains that at the present time, they support both. As I said before, the actual text clearly and accurately makes this fact apparent. I personally have no problem with including a graph of the market share as of June 1, as long as we keep the graph that shows the present state of the industry. However, if we include a graph of the future in exclusion to the graph of the present, we may find that that graph is very inaccurate come June. Even though it is very unlikely, its not impossible that Paramount will tell HD DVD to stuff their money, give it back, and go BD exclusive. Likewise, its also possible that Universal, which has no contractual obligations to HD DVD, will go BD exclusive in the interval. However remote these possabilities are, the future is a volatile thing, and it is very hard to predict. (Anyone hear of the IBM exec in the '70's? "There is absolutely no reason for anyone to ever have a computer in their home.") Either way, the fact that Warner has agreed to be BD exclusive after Juine is well stated in the section and there can be no doubt after reading it that that is the case. And again, I personally have no problem including a graph of what we think (based on reliable sources and common sense) the market will look like in June as long as we also include a graph of the present state of things. Thingg (talk) 21:18, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with the anon, while Warner may continue to release discs for HD DVD, the landscape has changed (as has the manner in which they will temporarily continue to support HD DVD). The most obvious change is in their release schedule: HD DVD releases will be timed to come out after the DVD and BD release. Then of course there's the media coverage which says this has already happened, not that it's "going to happen". Even Warner is pretty clear on this in their press release. My biggest issue is with having two images; maybe it looks okay in other peoples displays, but in a 1680x1050 display the two images push in to the sections below them (which just looks bad). —Locke Cole • t • c 23:04, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I actually agree partially with both arguments. However, I feel we need to end this edit war and I think this is the best way to do so. As with any compromise, few parties will be completely satisfied, but I think this way will keep the article accurate and "pretty" (gotta agree with Locke against having two pics. My moniter formats it correctly, but it still looks weird.) while adequately satifying everyone. Either way, I personally don't really care which way the argument goes, I just want to reach some sort of a consensus, and I feel this is the easiest way to accomplish this. Thingg (talk) 02:04, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

text: I think thats a fair compromise, although the "future" chart should be subtitles with something like Expected studio support after June 1 or something like that, to make it clear that things can change. --Ray andrew (talk) 22:25, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: An attempt to reach an agreement regarding the pie graph

message: The coverage of the Warner announcement has included quotes from several analysts who think the tipping point has come in Blu-ray's favor, as well as a press statement from Toshiba vowing to press on.  No doubt, we'll hear more at CES.  In the spirit of "covering the controversy", I'm tempted (if I have time) to add some of this, with the appropriate attributions and footnotes--but don't want to enter into a revert war.  I haven't seen any analyst quotes favoring HD DVD, but would also want to include if they exist. Any thoughts? Barte (talk) 20:12, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It's probably best to wait until CES plays out next week before taking this step.  There could be some developments there that tip the scales in either direction.  For example, Universal could decide that Blu-ray adoption is now inevitable and begin releasing on that format ASAP, depending on their contractional status with the HD DVD PRG.  Perhaps Spielburg makes a sudden about face and allows Paramount and Universal to release his catalog titles on HD DVD.  Maybe a major retailer or two declares they will stop stocking HD DVD.  These are just a few things that could pop up at CES.  Any of these or other events would certainly impact the future of both formats.70.119.37.244 (talk) 22:20, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

text: This is an encyclopedia, not a newspaper. So we can take our time to digest the implications slowly. There's no rush. Let's wait for facts to emerge. That said, it's clearly a seismic shift in the format war and I don't see how HD DVD can survive in the North American market. The European market, which is potentially just as big but at an earlier stage of development, has different film distributors and may play out differently. --Harumphy (talk) 22:52, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Speaking of Europe, in the studio support section, there is a lengthy write-up about European studios publishing for HD DVD.  However, there is no mention of any exclusivity to that format or mention of Blu-ray's standing with any European studios in general.  Additionally, I'm fairly certain this section hasn't been touched in some time.  This would probably be a good time for someone, if they have the time, to go analyze the current situation for Blu-ray in regards to these studios and to see if there have been any significant changes since it was written.  I know that a few on the HD DVD list (Studio Canal, for example) are releasing on Blu-ray.70.119.37.244 (talk) 07:08, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tipping point? Covering the controversy 

message: Does anyone object to me replacing the "Hardware Support" section with a reference to List of Blu-ray Disc devices and List of HD DVD devices? I feel that including the information in both plaves is kind of dumb, and it makes this article incredibly long. Any objections? Thingg (talk) 21:33, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: No objections here, thats what I suggested a while back, but I did not receive many comments. --Ray andrew (talk) 22:28, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

text: I agree. --Harumphy (talk) 22:53, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Sounds good to me. —Locke Cole • t • c 22:59, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. (btw, that trimmed an impressive 18 KB off this page...) Thingg (talk) 01:58, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

text: The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 
The result of this discussion seems to be One chart, exclusive; a pretty overwhelming display of consensus. Feel free to continue discussing this as new issues arise, but I'd like to believe we can put this issue to rest (at least temporarily) and move on. —Locke Cole • t • c 03:00, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hardware Support section 

message: One chart, with the image presenting both Warner Bros. and New Line as being exclusive to Blu-ray Disc.
* Support I keep seeing more coverage from notable pubs that reflect this viewpoint. Here's one from the AP: "Only two major U.S. studios now support HD DVD, while five support Sony's Blu-ray disc. Warner is the last studio to put out movies in both formats, but will stop publishing HD DVDs in May."  Note the distinction made between de facto support and temporary measures. Barte (talk) 02:38, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: *Comment "In North America, four of the Big Six film studios exclusively support Blu-ray and two exclusively support HD DVD. Warner Bros. <footnote, footnote>. Warner, which supported both formats until Jan. 4, 2008, will release HD DVD titles on a delayed basis until June 1, 2008." The AP story I cited below did this more elegently. Barte (talk) 00:06, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I've tried my hand at a rewrite of the (actual) first paragraph that attempts to take both sides of this debate into account.  And I think that a modified caption might help reach consensus on the diagram:  "Major US film distributors' declared format support (2007 US box office share). Note: Warner Bros. has announced withdrawing support for HD DVD as of Jun '08."  With that more tentative wording, I'd argue that Warner could be shown in blue.  I'm less confident about New Line, which has issued no formal statement. My thanks to the Harvard team below for their suggestions on this. Barte (talk) 07:14, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: One chart, exclusive

message: One chart showing Warner Bros. and New Line as supporting Blu-ray Disc; on a separate page multiple historical charts updated at key dates where studios changed / modified support.  See discussion below from Harvard group for more explanation. Dietdrpeppercan (talk) 17:22, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: One chart on main page, multiple historical charts on a separate page

message: No chart at all until June 2008
*  —Preceding unsigned comment added by NikaE (talk • contribs) 17:37, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: No chart

message: Hi, I am one of a group of students at Harvard Law School who has been given an assignment to become involved in a dispute on wikipedia and help resolve it. We wanted to let you know this to allay any fears that we were alter egos of other parties already involved in this dispute since we have low levels of contributions to wikipedia. Other usernames involved in this are: drdietpeppercan, tpseive, gorby007, deejay100, nikae, anna v v. We have come up with some other options and will be adding them to the poll, and are willing discuss them in more detail here. Lk37 (talk) 17:16, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I take your collective point: one's definition of the the term "support" will color (sorry) one's view of the chart. In the context of the article, I prefer your second definition over the first and would argue that, as the policy was clearly stated in the press release, it isn't particularly inexact. But a related question, per WP:PTST, is how notable secondary sources define it.  See above for more on that.  Barte (talk) 23:41, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: If the problem is being created by the use of the word "support" in the title of the pie chart, wouldn't your objections perhaps be resolved by making the language more precise? If the chart was titled "Major US film distributors' current release format" then that would be in line with the first definition of support. If instead it was titled "Major US film distributors' preferred format" then that would be in line with the second proposed definition of support. But then maybe this is circular, because then I suppose the same argument will occur over what language to use.Lk37 (talk) 01:29, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: This again may mitigate in favor of two charts, one each for each of these definitions? --NikaE (talk) 19:30, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Harvard Law School

message: I'm unclear on the concept of the Warner boxed quote on why the company made the switch.  Seems redundant and slightly POV given that it's the only quote in the article, but thought I'd ask before striking.Barte (talk) 16:29, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree 100% with Barte's objections. Also, on a purely presentational note, its inclusion and subsequent reformatting of the section makes it seem cluttered and very unprofessional. In addition, it makes the pie chart, which is the most important graphic in the section, smaller and almost impossible to read without clicking on it to make it larger. And as Barte already said, it is very POV and in addition (in my humble opinion) is completely unnecessary. (If someone wants to put it on Wikiquotes, be my guest, but it doesn't belong here.) Thingg (talk) 17:14, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Ya, if for no other reason than to reduce clutter, this should go.  And, I agree, it is very redundant, as the substance of Warner's given reasoning for the move to Blu-ray is covered in the article already in a way far more neutral. 70.119.37.244 (talk) 03:16, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Warner boxed quote 

message: As we move towards consensus about how to display Warner and New Line on this graph during the spring transition phase, I though it might also be best to shift it from only covering 2007 Box Office sales to instead cover a larger period of time.  For example, the basis for the data of this chart could be the following link from the same website currently used for the 2007 figures [].  This link has a comparison of the box office grosses for all studios from 1995 to present.  Changing it to this larger sample size would give a truer picture of the economic impact of each studio (less prone to spikes) and provide a simple solution to the problem that would arise when deciding what to do with 2008 box office grosses. I had previously posted this in the poll section, but, with the "visit" from the Harvard students, I thought it would be best to move this here, as that section is way too cluttered now as is. 70.119.37.244 (talk) 03:22, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: If someone can find the data, that'd be a good idea. Thingg (talk) 18:25, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: This link has the data  70.119.37.244 (talk) 01:45, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sample size used for Studio Support chart 

message: http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/dc409afa-bd75-11dc-b7e6-0000779fd2ac,dwp_uuid=e8477cc4-c820-11db-b0dc-000b5df10621.html?nclick_check=1
--w_tanoto (talk) 03:30, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd wait until we got an official Paramount statement before adding this to the article, but definately something to watch. 70.119.37.244 (talk) 04:27, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Nothing hard in that article, just idle speculation. --Ray andrew (talk) 05:34, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

text: UPDATE: http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601101&sid=aQMGgh2LV_bU&refer=japan  --w_tanoto (talk) 06:18, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The Financial Times has some serious egg on its face.  I wonder if they will update and correct their erroneous report.  I wonder if other news sources that have parroted the false report will, too. Proctor spock (talk) 11:39, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Paramount to back blu-ray again? 

message: Wouldn't it be better to have the :Image:HighDefSales.svg pie chart using the same colours as the studio market share pie chart. Its not a major thing, but would make the article look a bit nicer. Chris_huhtalk 12:23, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Fair comment. Next time I do the weekly sales chart I'll bring the colours into line with the studio share chart. --Harumphy (talk) 23:29, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  High def sales image 

message: Same way they (supposedly) made VHS win.  So what happened?  Is the Adult industry not as powerful as some people claim?  ----  Theaveng (talk) 13:10, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe this is mentioned in the HD DVD and Blu-ray Disc articles, but the general consensus, as put forth be ABC news, is that most of the adult industry content is distributed via the Internet rather than physical discs and thus will have little impact (if any) on this format war. Also, DVD is more than enough for most stuff. In addition, there is some debate on whether the adult industry had an impact on the Beta - VHS war either (Even today, the porn industry accounts for less than 0.5% of the video market). Regardless, as this article states, less than 20 adult films have been released on BOTH formats, compared to nearly 500 other films for both formats. And yes, the adult industry does not have nearly as much influence as a lot of people claim. Thingg (talk) 18:22, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

text: High profile porn companies already distribute their stuff on Blu-ray. Sony has clarified that they won't "control" anyone in what they do with their licenses. And even if they weren't distributing porn on Blu-ray, I'd agree with Thingg above. — Northgrove 21:27, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  I though the porn industry was supposed to make HD DVD win? 

message: Just saw this story , looks like there will be no "transition period" as with warner. --Ray andrew (talk) 22:31, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Image now changed. --Harumphy (talk) 23:20, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Newline exclusive effective immediately

message: incase anyone cares.  I spoke to a high level panasonic executive and the first 2.0 BD-live standalone player will be released in may 2008.  Blu ray confirmed it will be a panasonic but referred me to panasonic on the date only saying sometime in 2008..also the ps3 will be firmware upgradeable.of course....... Several toshiba reps have advised me that toshiba has no intention of ever releasing a HD DVD recorder for a computer that does not come bundled in its highend laptop or a high end pc.  They claim other manufacturers can make it if they desire but toshiba will not be makeing them.  seeing as toshiba makes most of the HD DVD equipment.. that does not bode to well for adding a recorder to your system.  Also blu ray straight out announced the format war was over..and that they were the winner.. in thier presentation.  I thought it was kinda cocky but interesting none the less. the HD DVD booth was very empty when I went by..well the blu ray booth was packed..  wish I could source myself.. but I guess till I find a written source these stay out of the article.. -Tracer9999 (talk) 06:42, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Well if you read the news reports from last year they announced themselves the victor then too. Fox even put out a pretty humorous "projection" of Q1 2007 sales  --Ray andrew (talk) 18:44, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Please stop making derogatory comments to anyone who posts in this talk page. Anyone, including you, has a right to suggest content for inclusion in the article. If you feel it necessary to comment, please do not make personal attacksJ.delanoy (talk) 19:36, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: How is what I said derogatory? I just stated the fact that the same proclamation of victory was made last year, and gave a humorous (in my opinion) aside about a ridiculous chart fox released at the same time.--Ray andrew (talk) 20:41, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Do I count as a reliable source?  When I passed the booths on Tuesday, my observations were the same.  I think you could count on one hand the number of attendees in the HD-DVD booth. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:27, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: CES 2008

message: Not again. Compromise was reached Ray: a large and very reasonable group of people concluded that the image should show Warner/New Line as Blu-ray exclusive. Perhaps it's time to let the issue go and move on to something else? And a quick counter point: while Wikipedia may not be a democracy, it is also not an anarchy (see WP:NOT if you're in disbelief). —Locke Cole • t • c 02:55, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: No disbelief here, I am not trying to create anarchy, just trying to carry on a debate. While I may be the most vocal editor opposed to the current chart, I am not the only one who is raising objections. The following editors have also raised objections: JayKeaton, Crossmr, Tracer9999, Proctor spock, Squiggleslash. Thats six editors including myself, is your "majority" willing to ignore our objections? --Ray andrew (talk) 04:04, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Please note that polls on Wikipedia are not binding and do not overrule Wikipedia policies such as WP:Crystal_Ball JayKeaton (talk) 05:12, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: What does WP:Crystal_Ball have to do with anything? That policy has to do with unverifiable future events. Warner's dropping of support for HD-DVD is verifiable, and it's already happened. Almost every single new story that has covered the Warner switch has explicitly stated that Warner is dropping support for HD-DVD, and this image is under the section "Studio Support". Even when the stories discuss the fact that they will still be releasing HD-DVDs for a few more months, they make it clear that it's simply residual from earlier agreements. Cogswobbletalk 05:39, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: This isn't a crystal ball.  It's not prognostication.    It's WB telling us exactly what they have decided.    It's no different than George Bush saying, "I will not run again for president."  Might he change his mind, ignore the constitution, declare martial law, and run anyway?  Sure.  Anything is possible.  ---->Nevertheless the article about George Bush states that this IS his last term as president, because any REASONABLE person knows that Bush won't be running again.  George Bush told us exactly what he is doing.  Warner Brothers told us exactly what they are doing.  ----  Theaveng (talk) 12:07, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: But on a chart showing presidential status, wouldn't the Bush color be different than, say, Bill Clinton's: "Transitioning to ex-president" vs. "Ex-president" Barte (talk) 16:45, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Please note that polls on Wikipedia are normal, and pretty much guaranteed when a small number of editors attempt to ignore consensus to push their POV. Please also note that while WP:NOT may be policy, it is up to us, as editors, to interpret policy. Obviously if the editors who supported showing WB/NL as Blu-ray exclusive felt we were in fact violating WP:NOT they wouldn't have supported it. But they did.. so there you go. —Locke Cole • t • c 06:52, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

text: The way it is currently phrased with stated preferences is entirely accurate and presents a NPOV of support. When Paramount and Dreamworks dropped Blu-ray there was no graph but the chart they were listed on moved them under HD DVD completely with an asterisk only showing past support. This was in spite of many of their films being available to own on blu-ray and in fact many are still available to purchase right now. If you want an "asterisk" to show Warner will honor their pre-CES release schedule then fine. But their support is for Blu-ray and there's no equal balance to their support remaining. 65.13.151.42 (talk) 05:50, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Ray, you're engaging in what amounts to a filibuster, an attempt to continue debate without end and all the while maintain the original status quo. You'll forgive me if I won't willingly fall in to that trap. Every concern, every concern you've raised has already been raised. Raising them again doesn't change the fact that nobody seems to care! You, your sock puppet, and a handful of other editors do not get to magically ignore consensus. Ignoring consensus and revert warring just got the pages protected, meaning everything that could be updated with these articles is being held up because you're throwing a tantrum over the chart. And I refuse to participate in any further "debate" or "discussion" with you except to state again, emphatically that I think the chart showing Warner/NL being Blu-ray exclusive is the correct chart to show readers. Now I'd like to get on with editing other parts of the article and updating it with pertinent information unrelated to that chart. But your actions now keep me (and other editors) from doing that. —Locke Cole • t • c 06:52, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Locke you are engaging in what amounts to strawman argument. Polls are normal but they are also non binding, otherwise we could have all sorts of crazy polls that could potentially break official policy. And this talk page isn't the correct area to dispute policy. Locke you said on this talk page that "safely declare HD DVD dead", which would not at all be in accordance with wikipedia policy. "Officially declaring HD DVD dead" on an article would be an amateurish and a newbie move. The facts are that the chart is meant to reflect "Major US film distributors' format policy [for releases inside the US]" and what are Warner doing with HD DVD until June? They sure do have a weird way of exclusively not supporting a format by selling movies on it for six more months and advertising that same format on their website >_> JayKeaton (talk) 07:37, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: On the matter of this chart, I've said all I have to say. Feel free to beat the drum some more, but my opinion remains unswayed and my points still stand. —Locke Cole • t • c 07:41, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

text: I apologize for including you In my list, I did note that you did have some objections at the beginning of the discussion. Your name has been removed. --Ray andrew (talk) 17:47, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Enough

message: Wikipedia clearly states that consensus does NOT mean total agreement.    You can still have one or two stubborn holdouts who refuse to "play nice" ("some vocal and unreconciled folk, some who operate outside the law."), and yet still have overall consensus within the group.    That's what we have here.  95% of the people like the chart as is... there are one or two bullies in the playground who are unreconciled/operating outside the law, and keep reverting everything.  Nevertheless we still have consensus.  -----  It only takes 75% of the States to add a permanent change to the United States' Supreme Law;  you don't need 100%.  Likewise, you don't need 100% on wikipedia to reach consensus on a change.  Those who insist you do are pushing forward a logical fallacy that is contrary to Wiki's stated rules.  ----  Theaveng (talk) 11:58, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually you will find that only 11 people voted for the result there, so if there are two "bullies" that are playground (or whatever you were mumbling about), that still only makes 84 percent of people who like the chart as is. Or maybe there are 5 people that don't like the chart as is, that means only 68 percent agree. And since that chart was put up the caption was recently changed from "format support" to "declared format support" to "format policy" and then finally "stated preference as of 1/2008" was added to it. How could anyone possibly know what they were really voting for when the caption of that chart keeps changing? Is the chart showing current format support? Is it showing current release policy? Is it showing how releases stand right now, how they stand in six months time or what has been "stated preference" in six months time? Is the cart showing actual release formats right now or is it reflecting actual release formats in a 20th of a decade from now? It's hard to tell because some people keep changing the caption in an attempt to try and fit the chart into their own bias. Those same people have admitted that they just want to see HD DVD "declared dead" and they aren't interested in making it factual like saying "as of June 2008". They just want that chart as blue as possible while damning the facts that get in the way of that blue. It is them that are the bullies, they want that chart a certain way and to hell with the facts and what is best for wikipedia. JayKeaton (talk) 16:00, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: False, false, and false.  Several of "those people" have stated they would be happy to change the WB blue to a WB blue/red stripe (or an asterisk that says "effective 6/2008).  To categorize them as unwilling to modify the graph is to lie.  -----  I would be happy to modify the graph myself to a purple/blue stripe if I knew how to edit SVG images (which unfortunately does not work in Paint).   Which is what OTHER people should have been doing (people like Ray Andrew) rather than erasing the chart from all existence.  ----  Theaveng (talk) 17:06, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry If I knew before that all I had to do to instate a compromise was learn how to edit the image, I would have done so by now. Unfortunately I am not that good at it, but I will give it a try.--Ray andrew (talk) 17:52, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Blue and purple, please.  Not blue and red. Barte (talk) 18:02, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: agreed.. blue-purple -Tracer9999 (talk) 18:39, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I am editing the image right now, but I can't figure out how to overlay blue stripes on the purple background.  It's quite puzzling.  ----  Theaveng (talk) 18:42, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Done.    I couldn't create stripes, so I came-up with a compromise image where "dark blue" represents WB's transition from Neutral to Blu-ray.  It's already been uploaded and should appear in the article shortly.   ----  Theaveng (talk) 19:18, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Thats what I was thinking too. So if your ready for a good chuckle take a look at my best attempt on the right. Thats why be need some help from the original images maintainer. --Ray andrew (talk) 18:53, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: You're out of luck. I'm the image's original maintainer and I don't know how to do SVG stripes either. --Harumphy (talk) 19:54, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Ergo ergo ergo, a striped chart with a notation would be much better than what is up there now. It would also be accurate, because it is not our job to come to "conclusions" no matter how "perfect" they seem to you. Calling a fellow editor "stupid" or "narrow minded". I just want the truth, as it is easily reported, to be shown on here. "Spinning wheels, apologists, propagandists, deeds (!?!), stipend"... no offense mate, but most of what you said was incomprehensible jargon and spin. On a thread like this is it so hard to accept that there will be a high level of bias? I don't have time for bias, it's just more work for the same outcome which is that facts and reliable sources need to be posted. And what was even the point of the chart if it is just going to be later renamed to reflect what certain editors want it to reflect? The renaming of the chart was going on even while that poll above was active too. It doesn't take good faith to accept that there is bias in here, it just takes common sense and at least one working eye to see it. JayKeaton (talk) 17:09, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The poll options were quite clear.  Do you want all Blue WB slice.  A striped WB slice.  An all red WB slice.  Et cetera, et cetera.  There was no reason to feel the poll was confusing.  ----  Theaveng (talk) 17:15, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

text: False.  Not "everyone" wants it to be binding on the Disc specific articles.  ----  Theaveng (talk) 18:39, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Blue or purple in the pie section suggests no HD DVD involvement at all. The extra colour needs to be RED, not purple or a darker blue. A blue pie with small spaced out red pinstripes through it or something if you have to, but the extra colour in there definitely needs to be red for HD DVD involvement. JayKeaton (talk) 03:41, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Is New Line also in transition? Barte (talk) 19:48, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: No, I think they were going exclusive immediately. Other then that I think it looks good. --Ray andrew (talk) 19:49, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: With that caveat, this works for me.  Interesting, the color scheme is the same as in the "Major Studio support table discussion" above. Barte (talk) 19:53, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: That's because the image under "Major Studio support table discussion" is automatically updated every time the image changes.  ----  Theaveng (talk) 20:04, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Looks fine except New Line should be regular blue due to the already-effective change. Can a chart amended as such be posted on both the Blu-ray Disc and HD DVD pages as well? --Cheesemeister3k (talk) 20:28, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Fixed.     New Line should now appear blue.  ----  Theaveng (talk) 20:38, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Awesome. Ship it! --Cheesemeister3k (talk) 20:42, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

text: On my display Newline still seems to be a different shade of blue, not the same as warner but not the same as the other. Anyone else seeing this? --Ray andrew (talk) 23:21, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, it's slightly darker than the others. It's a minor nitpick, to be sure. --Cheesemeister3k (talk) 23:25, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  It looks identical on mine.  I'll upload a different version.  (later).  Okay I uploaded a version that directly samples the Newline color from the blue slices.  ----  Theaveng (talk) 12:41, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Looks good. Better than stripes.--w_tanoto (talk) 14:25, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Blue and dark blue is a little confusing, as there is no purple anywhere else on the chart. It's just throwing in a whole new colour. I sort of imagined blue with red stripes, more like a pin stripe than uniform stripes, or another blobbed colour. Darker blue really is quite confusing, does Warner support Blue Ray more than Sony Pictures even though Warner is printing HD DVDs for the next 6 months? JayKeaton (talk) 03:26, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I already tried to add stripes and couldn't get it to work, so I came up with this compromise.  WB was formerly Neutral purple.  Now they are transitioning to bluray blue.  Purple mixed with blue creates dark blue.  And it clearly states what that color means (transition to Bluray).  Don't like it?  Then get off your butt, and create a new picture!  (laughs).  I'm just joking of course.  ;-)  ----  Theaveng (talk) 12:41, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Support this chart. Good work!Pisomojado (talk) 10:39, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

text: I did try and make a suggestion copy of the chart, but I'm really skilled enough in adobe to know how to import that kind of image (colours are all wrong when I tried to open it, some kind of school boy error on my behalf), let alone make a visually appealing image. I have to say that I am impressed with Thingg's image below. What do you think? JayKeaton (talk) 14:00, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: What is the meaning of Consensus?

message: Done.   I couldn't create stripes, so I came-up with a compromise image where "dark blue" represents WB's transition from Neutral to Blu-ray (neutral/purple mixed with bluray/blue creates dark blue).  It's already been uploaded and should appear in the article shortly.   ----  Theaveng (talk) 19:18, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Is New Line also in transition? Barte (talk) 19:48, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: No, I think they were going exclusive immediately. Other then that I think it looks good. --Ray andrew (talk) 19:49, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: With that caveat, this works for me.  Interesting, the color scheme is the same as in the "Major Studio support table discussion" above. Barte (talk) 19:53, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: That's because the image under "Major Studio support table discussion" is automatically updated every time the image changes.  ----  Theaveng (talk) 20:04, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Looks fine except New Line should be regular blue due to the already-effective change. Can a chart amended as such be posted on both the Blu-ray Disc and HD DVD pages as well? --Cheesemeister3k (talk) 20:28, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Fixed.     New Line should now appear blue.  ----  Theaveng (talk) 20:38, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Awesome. Ship it! --Cheesemeister3k (talk) 20:42, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

text: On my display Newline still seems to be a different shade of blue, not the same as warner but not the same as the other. Anyone else seeing this? --Ray andrew (talk) 23:21, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, it's slightly darker than the others. It's a minor nitpick, to be sure. --Cheesemeister3k (talk) 23:25, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  It looks identical on mine.  I'll upload a different version.  (later).  Okay I uploaded a version that directly samples the Newline color from the blue slices.  ----  Theaveng (talk) 12:41, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Looks good. Better than stripes.--w_tanoto (talk) 14:25, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Blue and dark blue is a little confusing, as there is no purple anywhere else on the chart. It's just throwing in a whole new colour. I sort of imagined blue with red stripes, more like a pin stripe than uniform stripes, or another blobbed colour. Darker blue really is quite confusing, does Warner support Blue Ray more than Sony Pictures even though Warner is printing HD DVDs for the next 6 months? JayKeaton (talk) 03:26, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I already tried to add stripes and couldn't get it to work, so I came up with this compromise.  WB was formerly Neutral purple.  Now they are transitioning to bluray blue.  Purple mixed with blue creates dark blue.  And it clearly states what that color means (transition to Bluray).  Don't like it?  Then get off your butt, and create a new picture!  (laughs).  I'm just joking of course.  ;-)  ----  Theaveng (talk) 12:41, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Support this chart. Good work!Pisomojado (talk) 10:39, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

text: I did try and make a suggestion copy of the chart, but I'm really skilled enough in adobe to know how to import that kind of image (colours are all wrong when I tried to open it, some kind of school boy error on my behalf), let alone make a visually appealing image. I have to say that I am impressed with Thingg's image below. What do you think? JayKeaton (talk) 14:00, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Created a chart with Dark Blue to represent WB

message: Well it looks like for some titles there wont even be a "short window" (the phrase used in warner's press release) between the Blu-ray and HD DVD release. Details for the upcoming release of Twister on May 6 were just released, including the fact that both formats will have the same release date.  --Ray andrew (talk) 19:13, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: This is no surprise.  Most of these movies are already in the studio, being compressed & cleaned for HD DVD format.  WB is not going to just drop the project and lose all those labor hours.   ----  Theaveng (talk) 19:27, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Twister is probably an exception to the rule, as it is running up against the date that Warner will cease HD DVD distribution.  Having said that, Warner hasn't given any hard dates for the delays they will place on HD DVD releases just yet.  It could be they won't actually delay them, or it is could end up that these titles never actually ship.  It would appear that the language of their contract with the HD DVD PRG prevents them from canceling announced titles while the contract is still in force.  However, there could be a loophole to this clause in that they could just delay, delay, delay, until after June 1.  Judging from the negative reaction many consumers felt towards the nonchalant way Paramount canceled all their Blu-ray titles overnight last year, I would be surprised if they did this.  However, until some of the new Warner HD DVD titles start showing up, we won't know for sure. 132.170.161.3 (talk) 19:43, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Looks like Warner is starting to clarify the delays, based on some release date changes on Amazon.com.  New releases, starting with 'The Invasion', appear to be getting delayed 3 weeks from the day and date releases on DVD and Blu-ray.  It is still unclear if catalog releases, such as 'Twister' and 'Bonnie and Clyde', will be delayed at all. 70.119.37.244 (talk)  —Preceding comment was added at 21:03, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Warner has now stated that all newly released movies will have a 3 week delay compared to there Blu-Ray and DVD equivalents.  Warner HD DVD catalog titles release dates are unaffected. http://www.highdefdigest.com/news/show/Release_Date_Changes/Warner/Warner_Outlines_HD_DVD_Separation_Plan_Delays_Invasion,_Jesse_James_HD_DVDs/1364 JBC1468 (talk) 09:29, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Warner now is delaying all titles, including catalog titles.  This includes 'Twister', which will now be released on HD DVD on May 27, 4 days before WArner stops all HD DVD distribution. 70.119.37.244 (talk) 05:17, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: If WB is delaying all HD DVDs by three weeks, they can hardly be called "supporting both", can they?    WB is essentially trying to discourage HD DVD purchase, in favor of either Blu-ray or standard DVD.  ----  Theaveng (talk) 18:41, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  "short window" not in all cases apparently 

message: Just a suggestion here. I made this image by using the radialGradiant SVG command to add purple to the graph as some people suggested. If you want some modifications made, please let me know and I will try them out (or, just make the modifications yourself, I still have the original version on my computer so I'm not worried about losing it). Also, I'm not trying to start another argument here, its just an idea. Thingg (talk) 04:36, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: This one is certainly more visually pleasing and gives it more of an artistic/professional look. JayKeaton (talk) 13:57, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I like the shading for blue and red used in the chart immediately above, but object to the use of a color that implies Warner Bros.'s announced intention to go Blu-ray Disc exclusive in June is presently in effect.  So an even purple shade halfway between the red and blue used is my preference.  (This can, of course, become blue on June 1st, provided the announced event takes place.)  Purple is good, but it should be even.  The transition from releasing Blu-ray Disc and HD DVD to being Blu-ray Disc exclusive takes place between May 31st and June 1st, per the official announcement. Like the beginning of a new year, the event has not taken place until the ball has finished its descent. Unlike the beginning of a new year, the prognostications of a movie studio five months out are uncertain.  Although it seems likely this will come to pass, it has not yet. Proctor spock (talk) 16:01, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Whatever the color, the "key" should still say "Transitioning to Blu-ray." Barte (talk) 16:48, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, this one is missing the key for the third colour scheme saying June 1st thing, the little box at the bottom thing. JayKeaton (talk) 17:06, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Whoops, forgot to make that. I'll get on it Thingg (talk) 17:07, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: How's this? Thingg (talk) 17:38, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks great ^_^ JayKeaton (talk) 17:44, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

text: I'd like to see it on the actual page--so as to see whether the text would be large enough to be readable. Barte (talk) 18:00, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

text: I Like it. I personally don't mind the colors in this chart, but if others have objections I might suggest we just use some totally different color (ie, green, orange) for warner. --Ray andrew (talk) 18:04, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: If text size is an issue two of key boxes could be put on top of each other which would leave a little more room for slightly bigger text. There is a little more white space that could be used before the image becomes cluttered. JayKeaton (talk) 18:11, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

text: I can read it on my 1680 x 1050, but it'd be nice to have a slightly larger font.  Could we get away with fewer words?  "Both formats: Blu-ray after June 1, 2008." Barte (talk) 18:37, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. btw, just so you know why there are 11 (12, I had to fix it again) different versions of this listed on the pic's page and why it takes me a while to get new version up: Wikipedia's software makes the image look slightly different than the software I use to view SVGs. Namely, Wikipedia leaves me less space on each end of the pic, so I have to guess where Wikipedia's limit is as best I can and then upload a different version to make sure. Quite a few times, Wikipedia has formatted my pic incorrectly so I have to go back and try more stuff to get it to look right. Anyway, I hope this pic satisfies your concerns, Barte. (I used font size-"14" for the text on Warner) Thingg (talk) 18:52, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks good to me. Thanks for doing it. Barte (talk) 21:15, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

text: I made a few modifications. Is this version better as far as clutter/cramming goes? (I'm not adamately opposed to doing the asterisk solution, but I'd rather not do it unless we end up with no choice.) Thingg (talk) 23:11, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It looks a little better.  I still would like to see Warner Bros evenly purple with the corresponding key box saying (just) Both.  Then maybe the details could be saved for the caption, so no asterisks would be necessary. Proctor spock (talk) 00:12, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd prefer the key as we have it.  The chart should reflect Warner's Jan 4th announcement, which said, Blu-ray exclusive as of June 1st. By contrast, imagine Paramount announcing that it was adding Blu-ray support.  That....would be "both." Barte (talk) 01:04, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

text: This is also a chart I can get behind.Pisomojado (talk) 10:41, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I object to the text.    If WB is delaying all HD DVDs by three weeks, they can hardly be called "supporting both", can they?     WB is essentially trying to discourage HD DVD purchase, in favor of either Blu-ray or standard DVD.  ----  Theaveng (talk) 18:42, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: A blue and purple image

message: A change to the Adult Studio support section - http://uk.news.yahoo.com/pocketli/20080108/ttc-another-studio-drops-hd-dvd-over-blu-57dbc65.html JBC1468 (talk) 09:20, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes I believe this was added to the article but was removed by Petertorr employee of Microsoft who claimed it was false.  The problem is him is that this was reported via Yahoo, Tgdaily and other sources.  I say where there is smoke there is fire.  The source for HD DVD seems to be biased as well.  I think we should correct this article to the current state of the reporting.   --Kibbled bits (talk) 19:26, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: "Toshiba's woe's hit another low point with the announcement that another movie studio..." Where's the announcement?  That's the cite. Barte (talk) 19:51, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Adult Studio Support - Digital Playground drops HD DVD for Blu-Ray 

message: A change to the European independents section -
"BERLIN — Constantin Film, Germany’s leading independent producer-distrib, is following suit in the wake of Warner Bros. decision to go with the Blu-ray format.
Up until now, Constantin had supported both HD DVD and the Blu-ray technology, but as of March 1, new releases will be appearing solely in Blu-ray."
http://www.variety.com/article/VR1117978808.html?categoryid=19&cs=1
http://www.heise.de/english/newsticker/news/101667
http://www.engadgethd.com/2008/01/11/germanys-constantin-film-ag-drops-hd-dvd-goes-blu-ray-only/
Denzelio (talk) 09:22, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Germany's Constantin Film AG drops HD DVD, goes Blu-ray only 

message: The disc comparison table implies that the 3 Region codes are mandatory (that's how I read it at least), but even at the Blu-Ray wiki, "Blu-ray discs may be encoded with a region code,..." (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blu-ray#Region_codes), and the last sentence states "As of early 2008, about two-thirds of all released discs were region-free." and provides a link to http://www.blu-raystats.com/.  So maybe the "Table Comparing the High-definition Optical Media Formats" needs to be updated to reflect this, maybe with a footnote stating 2/3s of all released discs were region free? Open to suggestions. JBC1468 (talk) 09:52, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see how its misleading, just like DVD, Blu-ray has the "feature" of region coding, and just like DVD its use is optional. --Ray andrew (talk) 16:29, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Is the region code even supported in the 1.3 standard?  Vegaswikian (talk) 23:23, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It is I believe (assuming the "1.3" you refer to is the Bonus View or Final Standard Profile). But I wonder if NPOV is satisfied by only noting that Blu-ray supports it, even if 2/3 of all released titles don't actually use it (as opposed to DVD, where the vast majority of titles were region locked). Kind of like saying "Guns kill people" in an article on firearms, but not noting that many firearms never see use. :P —Locke Cole • t • c 23:32, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I am not sure an analogy to firearms is particularly relevant to a discussion of high definition optical disc formats.  I agree with Ray andrew that the table accurately describes the region codes for each format. Proctor spock (talk) 00:03, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It's an analogy, but the logic holds. —Locke Cole • t • c 05:11, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: No, not really. Proctor spock (talk) 05:55, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

text: I see the analogy but am not sure if that's the best analogy.  However, I get the point.  I'm just trying to point out that this "feature" may be seen as a good thing by (some) studios and a bad thing by end-customers so I'm not sure how it'd hurt to footnote with an "e" stating that in practice, the region codes are more often not used than used or something to that effect.  This comes up because, like Locke Cole pointed out, DVD nearly always uses there DVD region codes, unlike Blu-Ray's practices. JBC1468 (talk) 07:20, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Region codes not exactly mandatory 

message: If we can't all agree on this one, maybe we should just hang it up until June 1st. Barte (talk) 15:43, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The chart is fairly useful.  Personally I think there was no need for a new one- the WB situation could have been explained in the caption.  But, this one with the green seems fine too.  We don't need to all agree. Friday (talk) 15:50, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

text: PS If I was going to nitpick, I don't like the wording.  Instead of saying "supports both" first and then adding "Blu-ray exclusive after June", it should be the opposite.  It should say "Blu-ray (HD-DVD still available through May)", putting the emphasis on the most important aspect of this.  But, this is a fairly minor complaint.  Friday (talk) 15:53, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: If you feel confident about that, I invite you to apply to have the article be unprotected. Meaning you can assure the administrators that another edit war won't ensue.  Otherwise, I assume that "fairly useful" is different than--"indispensable". Barte (talk) 15:59, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: SUPPORT. A chart provides a kind of instant clarity I find indispensable. Any accurate chart is better than no chart.  I, for one, think that Friday's solution is an acceptable compromise. Please, let's put an end to this silliness.Pisomojado (talk) 16:09, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: At this point, as long as the chart is accurate, I don't really care what it looks like. However, I don't think simply removing the chart is a good solution. Thingg (talk) 16:24, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Also, as of my previous comment, we have collectively written 2771 lines of code comprising 30099 words and 164736 charecters since Jan 4 on this talk page. Imagine how much better Wikipedia would be if we could just stop arguing over this and had spent the time writing 30000 words in actual articles... Thingg (talk) 16:30, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

text: We did agree on one. How about we block the editors who ignored the consensus view and let it end that way? It's far simpler, and gets us past this filibuster they've got going thanks to the article being protected. —Locke Cole • t • c 02:43, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Locke, there obviously isn't consensus, and the fact is to say that Warner is NOW Blu Ray exlusive or that Warner is now exlusively supporting Blu Ray is a bare faced lie. Just because you keep saying that WB is something, doesn't make it true. You will have to wait 6 months. JayKeaton (talk) 08:28, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I direct your attention to the poll above where consensus was reached. I know you like to ignore that, for whatever reason, but that's what people agreed to prior to Ray andrew and his sock deciding to unilaterally take over the article. —Locke Cole • t • c 14:31, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  How about  ''no'' chart? 

message: Or can I remove the "neutrality" tag? J.delanoy (talk) 18:32, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: remove it. the label clearly shows warner current and future stance.--w_tanoto (talk) 18:42, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Yes. Remove it. --Harumphy (talk) 18:57, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Remove it.  The matter has been considered ad nauseum. Barte (talk) 19:50, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I do not consider it neutral.  But at the moment I am not going to fight it, though I may talk about it.  What a difference a day at the mill makes. Proctor spock (talk) 23:13, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Remove it. Neutrality has been established.Pisomojado (talk) 03:23, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Does anyone still dispute the neutrality of the picture in the article? 

message: Anyone can upgrade it? I can't change it. 65% to BLU (Week/YTD), and 62% (SI).--w_tanoto (talk) 18:43, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Done.--Harumphy (talk) 18:56, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: This needs updating again. 85% to BLU (Week), 74% (YTD), and 63% (SI) 70.119.37.244 (talk) 16:32, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  2008 nielsen number graph 

message: There's an indirect reference to this under the Major Studio section.  For the time being until there's something more official, I think this falls under the category of press speculation, and should be removed.  But thought I'd ask. Barte (talk) 07:08, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Reasonable.  Also FYI- there are denials of this too: . Friday (talk) 15:10, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: This story that Variety broke basically stated that Universal's exclusivity arrangement with HD DVD has reached the end of their agreement, and that they are now free to release on any format of their choosing.  Universal has yet to announce any plans to release on Blu-ray just yet.  In response, Universal has issued generic statements of continued support for HD DVD that are similar to statements Warner put out in December about HD DVD.  They have stated that they have not changed their current policy of support for HD DVD, which is your standard meaningless denial that cannot be construed as lying if they do a sudden about face.  I would probably keep any references to rumors of potential support switches out of the article until Universal (or any other studio) make an official statement. 132.170.34.45 (talk) 16:02, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: We're in agreement here.  I just removed. Official statements are probably key.Barte (talk) 20:52, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Variety reports Universal to end exclusivity--no source given 

message: According to  and , both Fox and WB were on the brink of dumping Blu-ray and going with HD DVD only, until Sony came up with payments of $120m and $400-500m respectively to go Blu. The Pittsburg P-G author is open about his bias and Gizmodo's credibility wasn't enhanced by its childish TV-B-Gone stunt. That apart, what does anyone else here make of these reports? --Harumphy (talk) 11:09, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It appears that the writer of this article, Don Lindich, removed the portions of this article containing the rumored payoff when he posted the article on his personal blog.  Apparently, he did so when Steve Feldstein, Fox's senior VP of corporate and marketing communications, contacted him to let him know that he was being misled by someone.  For more info on this subject, check this link.  70.119.37.244 (talk) 14:51, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

text: In terms of being included in the article, this is one of those stories, seems to me, on the cusp, but not quite ready. Clearly, there is an inside story. But reports here still are pretty sketchy.  Lindich is inferring a lot, but reporting very little.  Gizmondo refers to its "reporting" but is also quite vague. (And I agree, Gizmodo's credibility isn't riding high, here.) So I think we should wait, but with an an eye out for more. As a business case study, the HD format war is worthy of a book; perhaps when the dust settles, some enterprising reporter will write it. Barte (talk) 15:56, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pittsburg Post-Gazette and Gizmodo story 

message: A change to the European independents section -
"Germany's own Senator Home Entertainment is reportedly following in the footsteps of Constantin Film AG and will stop supporting HD DVD. Notably, any films that were already scheduled to arrive on HD DVD will supposedly still ship, but after March 1, 2008, the studio will be supporting Blu-ray exclusively."
http://www.engadgethd.com/2008/01/16/germanys-senator-entertainment-follows-constantin-goes-blu-ray/
Denzelio (talk) 08:01, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Germany's Senator Entertainment AG follows Constantin Film AG dropping HD DVD for Blu-ray 

message: Is this: "Although Blu-ray has sold more discs, the HD DVD group claims that the attach rate (the number of movies bought per player) is higher for HD DVD than for Blu-ray." still true?  The cite is from May 2007. Barte (talk) 18:38, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't have exact numbers, but if you look at the "Since Inception" numbers (above) Blu-ray has only sold about 2x the number of discs. If you look at hardware (including the PS3) they have probably sold around 5x to 10x the number of players. That means a lower attach rate. Peter Torr (MSFT) (talk) 00:22, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I removed the reference because the May '07 citation was dated.  I don't have the background to reword or make the case per your analysis.  But feel free to give it a try. Barte (talk) 00:30, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with the removal. Since that Blu-ray has gained in number of players sold (standalone), and I think the 2007 YTD number is 49:49 BD/HD DVD with 2% goes to dual format.... Or, should we count PS3 as well (but my objection is that toshiba never wanted PS3 to be counted as player, but surprisingly, they counted it for the attach rate - which trigger a response from BDA). Best to delete it because the two sides has different method of counting.--w_tanoto (talk) 14:15, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  HD DVD attach rate claims.