MS Pays Off Paramount – Paramount Switch-a-ruse To HDDVD Only

Comment from: Mr. Peabody
To the long comment above [in previous post]: Thanks for the really long advertisment for MS. Whether you like it or not, that’s the objective truth. MS has and is willing to continue to pay big bucks to keep their codecs prolific around the globe so that they can ultimately do what they’ve always, done, get us all hooked on their inner workings then screw us – at least those of us that don’t use Windows.

For being so amazing objective it’s amazing how subjectively your post is written. And your conclusion?
- “…lower cost…” – Less capacity lower cost, how does that make it a better technology for the end user? And over time I don’t believe that BR will cost any more than HDDVD.

- “…better features…” – I don’t see how that has been demonstrated in the article, and again, I think you would hard pressed to prove that has anything to do with the core technology, it’s what the developer brings to the table, the disk isn’t a limiting factor at all.

- “…easier production…” – Again, not a limitation of of the disk technology, not to mention that, along with your first point – “…lower cost…”, this has been the mantra of every MS sales rep. since the beginning of time – “Don’t use Macs…, Don’t use Apple…, Don’t use Unix…, Don’t use anything that isn’t MS because it’s gonna cost more…” Conveniently leaving out the truth which is that it’s not more expensive, if you do your own homework, and running MS products of any kind at any level always and without exception costs more to actually operate – period.

The DRM thing – again please put your ducks in a row – it’s not the disk technology, it’s the developer.

BR is clearly the way to go to get the best value per GB for the end user – period. Arguments about DRM and lower costs are nothing short of misdirection on the part of MS and it’s partners – and you can, and will, go to the bank on that.

IN RESPONSE TO:

Comment from: @ Comment from: @ Kevin under “John”
Good point. So, I went and read the “TVPredictions.com” article.

As soon as I realized the link went to that site, I knew automatically what to expect. I have been keeping tabs on many news stories for many months that have “HD DVD” in them, thanks to Google’s email alerts. Whenever I read a story from TVPredictions.com, the site seems extremely biased in favor of the Blu-ray camp. As my previous post noted: Blu-ray supporters are very defensive, which makes their articles, comments, blogs, etc. full of overly harsh criticism, name calling, and over-exaggerated conclusions based on less than all the facts.

There is definitely lots of propoganda out there. And, well, the Blu-ray camp seems to be doing their best at lobbying against Paramount and Dreamworks for making a well-informed, well-reasoned, and overall smart business decision.

My assumption is that anyone shedding their portfolio of Paramount and/or Dreamworks stock as a result of recent events will not be motivated by rational and astute business sense, but rather an emotional response due to their ties to, or favor of, Blu-ray. The smart investor, in my humble opinion, would see a company that has made a smart, reasoned, business decision based on plenty of research and forethought. This was not some knee-jerk reaction. Smart investors know that you don’t jump in when something looks hot at the moment with no promise of future performance… but you jump in when you believe that something is better, more stable, and has much more promise (in your estimation based on facts) of performing well in the future. If anyone looks into the other reasons (beyond just $150m) that Paramount/Dreamworks made this decision, I believe they will find their decision to be in line with the above reasoning.

The person with confidence of the strength of their position has no fear revealing the good points of the competition; to discuss and educate on what the counter perspective is.
It seems to me that Michael Bay’s 3 friends that support Blu-ray did not have such confidence, or simply had never given HD DVD a try, or are less than fully informed about the strengths and weaknesses of both formats. They threw him a line and he bought it, leading him to make a hasty post online about being open to doing Transformers 2. The next day he posted again. This time to confess he had been duped by his frenzied Blu-ray supporting friends, and after looking at 300 on HD DVD, he said “It rocks!” And then he commented that he would definitely be open to doing Transformers 2. He had taken some time to find out why Paramount and Dreamworks made the decision they did. Rather than continuing to be defensive, he actually gave the studios the benefit of the doubt and let them speak.

This is exactly why I recommend that people consult a “techy” friend they trust that will give them the truth (as far as they know) about both sides.

I admit to my friends the strengths that Blu-ray has, and correct them when they undermine the truth of the Blu-ray format (for example, people still think that Blu-ray discs all use MPEG2 as their compression codec, and that it would be substandard to do so. The reality is, some discs do still come out with the codec but it is not the only codec used, and some reviewers with better equipment than myself have stated that an MPEG2 Blu-ray transfer looked the same as the VC-1 HD DVD counterpart.)

I believe Paramount and Dreamworks decision is in the consumers (as a whole and not just a segment of Blu-ray consumers) best interest. I believe them when they say that they believe the HD DVD format to be more family friendly due to the price point of players, and better for business due to the lower cost of manufacturing (which can then be passed on to the consumer – if they chose to do so). I know the Blu-ray camp says that the price difference has lessened recently, and that’s true. But HD DVD players are still cheaper, and you get more functionality for your money with the promise of studios putting more and better features on their discs because they know that all players (since inception of the format) will be able to play any and all features they put on a disc. As long as that player carries the “HD DVD” official logo (sorry LG), it will be able to play it all. Blu-ray simply cannot make the same statement.

For me, I was just glad to see a studio make a decision to go exclusive with a format for reasons that WERE consumer friendly (lower cost, better features, easier production), rather than being motivated by better DRM to protect their intellectual property. I say “way to go Paramount and Dreamworks!”

IN RESPONSE TO:

MacDailyNews – Paramount’s HD DVD payola is anti-consumer

Paramount’s HD DVD payola is anti-consumer

Sunday, August 26, 2007 – 02:02 PM EDT
“According to the New York Times, HD DVD promoters are paying $150 million to Paramount/Dreamworks to pay for Paramount dropping its support of Blu-ray while retaining support of HD DVD,” Robert Smith reports for TVPredictions.

”Two years ago, Paramount announced that they would support both HD DVD and Blu-ray in the HDTV disc format war. Blu-ray has been selling two-to-one over HD DVD this year, and this includes Paramount titles,” Smith reports.

”Within the market for HDTV disc players, consumers have to be warned that they cannot depend on anything. I am advising all of my friends and associates to be wary of both formats now, and especially of the apparent commitments made by studios,” Smith reports.

”This decision of Paramount has seriously destabilized the already tenuous HDTV disc market and left customers in a greater state of uncertainty and mistrust that they were before,” Smith reports.

Full article here.

MS In Full TakeOver Mode With High-Def Optical Tech.

Comment from: Mr. Peabody
To put a fine on point on it, wittingly or not, you are in fact supporting a technology that Microsoft has, also in fact, provided much if not all of the technology for – directly. VC-1, for instance, is in point of fact a Microsoft invented technology. To try and distance your stand from any support of MS is nothing less than kidding yourself, assuming your doing it unwittingly.

MS already has a track record of doing this in audio and media with so-called WAV and WMA. When I came to work for the media production group that I work for now, it took me the better part of a year to de-program several of the production crew members who, bless their hearts, were adamant that WAV was some sort of default ISO standard – it isn’t, and has only recently begrudgingly been recognized as any kind of actual format by the ISO, and that, not because of any great addition to existing non-platform, non-manufacturer specific, already well established and truely universal standards, but because there’s just so many installations of Windows. To sharpen that edge a bit more many of the same good folks that I work with actually thought that “aif” stood for Apple Interchange Format. Not surprisingly a MS rep. had swept through the company about two month before I got here. It took a couple of years to undo the endless misconceptions that were left in his wake. And this isn’t the first production organization I’ve worked for where this exact tactic was played by MS and its partners.

What we see as a format war is nothing short of MS trying to gain complete control over the fundamental playback engine that could potentially be used by all movie watching homes on Planet Earth. Do you honestly think that MS would willingly divide that market up if they don’t have to? I honestly know that they won’t, if they can help it.

To say that MS is simply another supporter only demonstrates one of two possibilities: 1) You don’t understand half as much as you would have us believe, specifically about HDDVD; 2) You are in fact well informed of the real issues at hand, and are simply making yourself guilty of the very things you seem to dislike about Blu-ray supporters.

By the way, you’re welcome, and thanks for reading my post.

IN RESPONSE TO:

Comment from: @ Mr. Peabody
Hi Mr. Peabody,

HD DVD isn’t backed exclusively by Microsoft. They are simply one of it’s supporters (along with Intel). Supporting HD DVD doesn’t equal support for Microsoft… it just means that a supporter of HD DVD has something in common with Microsoft: support for HD DVD. That’s all. =)

The NY Times article that released the information about a $150 million payment/incentive to Paramount and Dreamworks also stated “Microsoft, who most prominently supports HD DVD has stated that they have not paid either company, but wouldn’t rule out the use of that tactic in the future.”

Microsoft wasn’t even involved in the decision, and has only commented on it when asked, stating they didn’t pay Paramount or Dreamworks any money, but wouldn’t rule out the use of that tactic in the future.

I don’t rally support for Microsoft. But I do support HD DVD, and do believe it to be the superior format for many reasons that I am convinced are valid and logical.

Just because I’m convinced doesn’t mean I’m not wrong. I’ve been wrong many times on various matters, and I’m not ashamed to acknowledge it. (I think we are worse off… more diluted… if we believe we’re always right even when we’ve been proven wrong). I just don’t see evidence that I am wrong.

I don’t believe that higher sales figures means one format is better than another. All we can reasonably conclude from sales figures is that one sold more than another. The reasons for that are varied and multiple. But one thing we can’t conclude is that higher sales equals better format. One only needs an intro philosophy class (with a good teacher) to see the logical fallacies abundant in that argument.

I think that Toshiba, Microsoft, Intel, Universal, Paramount, Dreamworks, Warner, and any other company that supports HD DVD and sees the advantages this format brings to the consumer are in the right.

I believe that Blu-ray has some real promise… but I believe the only real strength Blu-ray as a whole has is a good propaganda and marketing machine. That to me is the biggest thing going for Blu-ray. To me, that doesn’t make the format itself better.

The DRM specs are specific to the formats, but you are right (at least I think) that the use of the available DRM on a disc is up to the discretion of the studio producing the disc.

The reason I believe that Fox and MGM’s decision to stick with Blu-ray was motivated by the second available layer of DRM, is because I honestly see no other reason. The extra 20gb of space available on a dual-layer Blu-ray disc as opposed to an HD DVD dual-layer disc doesn’t seem to be proving itself to be that much of an advantage. It seemed like it early on… but then you see dual disc releases coming out on both formats. I don’t see the extra 20gb making Blu-ray discs any better than the HD DVD counterpart. (If anyone has a good example of where the 20gb DOES in fact make a Blu-ray disc better than the HD DVD counterpart, I really would be interested in knowing about it. Please post).

I know I’m posting on “Macdailynews.com,” but my argument that HD DVD is a better Hi-Def disc format said nothing about whether PCs are better than Macs. My argument isn’t about computers or computer companies. It’s about Hi-Def disc formats. Of which, I believe HD DVD has actually proven itself thus far to be the better format. (Not the one with the most available movies, or studio support, or marketing, or propaganda, or storage space… but the best OVERALL format for the producers of it, and consumers who buy and enjoy it).

Thanks for reading my post.

IN RESPONSE TO:

My first response to his previous post.

Adobe Flash Finally Get On-Board with h.264

Comment from: Mr. Peabody

@Jay Again says, “Say HELLO… to new standards and clearer video.”

And more to the point say hello to already established, and truely universal standards, as opposed to yet another proprietary Microsoft or Adobe standard, (which, even if it’s on “98%” of all computers, it’s still proprietary).

MW=”truth” – As in, and that’s the truth.

IN RESPONSE TO:

MacDailyNews – Adobe bringing HD video, high quality audio to Flash using H.264, AAC (iPhone Flash support?)
Wednesday, August 22, 2007 – 09:45 AM EDT  —  Apple Stock Quote: 131.07 (+3.50, +2.74%)

Adobe bringing HD video, high quality audio to Flash using H.264, AAC (iPhone Flash support?)

Tuesday, August 21, 2007 – 02:58 PM EDT
“Today Adobe, the San Jose software maker, will announce that it is integrating a standard format for high definition video into the newest version of its immensely popular Flash video player. Flash players currently sit on 98 percent of all desktop computers and hundreds of millions of portable and handheld devices. Sites like YouTube, ABC.com and NBC.com favor Flash over competing players like Apple’s QuickTime and Microsoft’s Windows Media, since Flash is relatively easy to develop for and videos play directly in the browser,” Brad Stone reports for The New York Times.

”Adobe will integrate support for H.264, and for the high-performance AAC audio standard, into the newest version of Flash, available for download today,” Stone reports.

”H.264 is an open standard and the result of an industry consortium. Apple added H.264 support to QuickTime two years ago and has been integrating it throughout its entire line of products this year. Microsoft has its own proprietary high-def standard, called Windows Media VC-9,” Stone reports.

Full article here.

Adobe’s press release here.

[Thanks to MacDailyNews Reader "KenC" for the heads up.]

MacDailyNews Take: Paving the way for iPhone Flash support? Apple clearly wants widespread H.264 and AAC support. Now the Flash plug-in for iPhone makes sense. In fact, we’d venture to guess that there is a high probability that Apple told Adobe to support H.264 and AAC, if Adobe wanted to get Flash onto the iPhone.

In early July, The Wall Street Journal’s Walter S. Mossberg reported, “At launch, the iPhone version of the Safari browser is missing some plug-ins needed for playing common types of Web videos. The most important of these is the plug-in for Adobe’s Flash technology. Apple says it plans to add that plug-in through an early software update, which I am guessing will occur within the next couple of months.”

Note: The advanced H.264 codec makes it possible for Apple’s QuickTime 7 (released April 29, 2005) to play back high-definition video on a personal computer without additional hardware required. Apple’s HD QuickTime gallery is here.

Adobe is following Apple’s considerable lead here.

Read My Lips, No Subscriptions

Comment from: Mr. Peabody

If Rubin thinks that model that follows after traditional cable subscriptions is the wave of the future then he’s about 20 years too late.

I’ve always been against subscription services for media delivery even back when there were [apparently] no alternatives – And if a guy like Rubin, with all due respect to his long years in the “business”, thinks that subscriptions are the way to go, then I’m absolutely positive that I don’t want to get stuck with yet another subscription model.

IN RESPONSE TO:

Tuesday, September 04, 2007 – 10:28 AM EDT  —  Apple Stock Quote: 142.189 (+3.709, +2.68%)

Columbia Records’ Rick Rubin dreams of unending music subscription fees and rendering iPod obsolete

Tuesday, September 04, 2007 – 09:09 AM EDT
Rick Rubin, co-head of Columbia Records, appears to be nearly as clueless as the rest of those making up the old guard music cartels. Rubin thinks that subscriptions are the future. Just like most other clueless music label dinosaurs. At least Rubin understands that the music industry is dead, even if he doesn’t understand what will save it.

”Seemingly overnight, the entire industry is collapsing. Sales figures on top-selling CDs are about 30 percent lower than they were a year ago, and the usual remedies aren’t available. Since radio is no longer a place to push a single, record companies have turned to television and movies,” Lynn Hirschberg reports for The New York Times.

”‘Until very recently,’ Rubin told me over lunch at Hugo’s, a health-conscious restaurant in Hollywood, ‘there were a handful of channels in the music business that the gatekeepers controlled. They were radio, Tower Records, MTV, certain mainstream press like Rolling Stone. That’s how people found out about new things. Every record company in the industry was built to work that model. There was a time when if you had something that wasn’t so good, through muscle and lack of other choices, you could push that not very good product through those channels. And that’s how the music business functioned for 50 years. Well, the world has changed. And the industry has not,’” Hirschberg reports.

”Columbia is stuck in the dark ages. I have great confidence that we will have the best record company in the industry, but the reality is, in today’s world, we might have the best dinosaur. Until a new model is agreed upon and rolling, we can be the best at the existing paradigm, but until the paradigm shifts, it’s going to be a declining business. This model is done,” Hirschberg reports.

”Rubin… says that the future of the industry is a subscription model, much like paid cable on a television set. “You would subscribe to music,” Rubin explained, as he settled on the velvet couch in his library. ‘You’d pay, say, $19.95 a month, and the music will come anywhere you’d like. In this new world, there will be a virtual library that will be accessible from your car, from your cellphone, from your computer, from your television. Anywhere. The iPod will be obsolete, but there would be a Walkman-like device you could plug into speakers at home… And once that model is put into place, the industry will grow 10 times the size it is now,’” Hirschberg reports.

”Rubin sees no other solution. ‘Either all the record companies will get together or the industry will fall apart and someone like Microsoft will come in and buy one of the companies at wholesale and do what needs to be done,’ he said,” Hirschberg reports.

Full endless article here.
MacDailyNews Take: As we explain fairly regularly, whenever clueless music industry types flounder about in the mainstream press: Business models that fly in the face of human nature are doomed to failure.

Human beings like to listen to favorite songs over and over. They like to own these songs, so that they can play them over and over. They do not want to pay someone an unending monthly rate in order to be allowed to hear their favorite songs.

1,000 excellent songs costs $990 (or $1290 for DRM-free, higher-quality EMI songs) for life, but to listen to them with a $19.95/month subscription plan for 10 years would cost $2394, for 20 years it’d be $4788, $7182 for 30 years, $9576 for 40 years, and so on – and that’s not even taking inflation into account! That subscription rate is going to increase over time, but once you buy a song, you own it for life at the price at which you purchased it — your deal gets better over time, not worse.

Now, for the limited amount of people for which a music subscription service would be welcome (those that can’t do basic math or who’ve been diagnosed with a terminal illness), we say, by all means, Apple should offer it – if it makes business sense (i.e. development and operational costs are less than profit potential).

Regardless of what happens, the fact remains: The labels want subscriptions to succeed because they dream of a recurring revenue stream, not because music consumers desire such a service. Just because subscriptions are what would preserve the old guard music cartels doesn’t mean subscriptions are the answer. Dinosaurs are extinct for a reason.

We can almost hear the greedy bastards in their music cartel boardrooms, “If only we could get them on subscription plans, if only we could get them on subscription plans…” Dreams of easy, constantly-flowing rivers of cash do not a successful business model make, but it’s no wonder that the music cartels dream of this model. It’s just so powerful that they can’t let it go and wake up. The subscription model is the rope that will hang these greedy bastards once and for all.

One more time: Business models that fly in the face of human nature are doomed to failure.

Now, for TV shows and movies, a subscription service makes perfect sense because it better fits human nature, matching the way people over the age of four consume those types of content than does outright purchasing. Not to mention, where do you store all of that content that you own, but are only going to watch once or twice? Most people can count the number of movies they’ve watched three or more times on their fingers.

We want to buy our music and subscribe to a TV shows and movies plan via Apple’s iTunes Store.

Rubin should stick to producing music, stop greedily dreaming of jukeboxes in the sky that continually rain down money into music cartel pockets, and figure out that it ain’t Microsoft that’s going to own the music business.

Apple Monopolizing NOR Flash Market?

Comment from: Mr. Peabody

@twilightmoon

Ultimately I’m happy for you that you’ve found ATT acceptable to work with, but comparing ATT with Verizon is roughly like comparing one felony criminal with another one – just my opinion obviously – but – - there you have it.

But glad you’re iPhone experience is going well, personally I love most Apple products and find them well worth the investment in every way.

IN RESPONSE TO:

Comment from: twilightmoon@mac.com

My mom and dad were down in San Diego near Mexican border (a bit north so not smack on the border but general area).

They made phone calls from within US, and were charged use of Mexican international phone towers!

AT&T;worked it out, my mom said they were very accommodating.

In fact, before my family got iPhones I read many people complaining about AT&T;on here saying how horrid their service was. We had numerous problems with Verizon. My mom had several occasions where she waited over an HOUR at physical store for VERIZON. Numerous cases of being treated horribly both in store and on phone.

AT&T;? Not one problem so far, never a wait anything close to an hour. Service that’s dependable, courteous, and for a cell phone company, efficient.

IN RESPONSE TO:

Tuesday, September 11, 2007 – 02:51 PM EDT  —  Apple Stock Quote: 135.92 (-0.79, -0.58%)

Apple monopolizes Taiwan NOR flash market

Tuesday, September 11, 2007 – 08:48 AM EDT
“Both Silicon Storage Technology (SST) and Spansion, who are said to have their capacities fully booked by Apple, have no additional capacity to fulfill demand from motherboard makers,” Hans Wu and Esther Lam report for DigiTimes.

”Given that Apple demands a considerable amount of NOR flash and that there is persistent demand growth from handset vendors in China, Spansion is said to have no additional capacity left, the sources said. Spansion rival SST, which focuses relatively more on the motherboard market, is said to have encountered a similar situation,” Wu and Lam report. 

MacDailyNews Note: NOR vs. NAND memory card architecture: NOR flash is typically used for flash memory that’s used to store and run code; it has fast read capability, but is slower than NAND for write and erase functions. For example, in the iPhone, NOR would be used for the operating system code while NAND would be used to store music, videos, etc.

”Citing the present supply situation, several leading NOR flash makers should continue to see their supplies being booked by Apple in the coming months, the sources stressed,” Wu and Lam report.

Full article here.