The reality of DVD vs Blu Ray vs Digital Distibution. As of October 20 2009

[damndl0ser]

Loud_Hot_White_Box said:

heruamon said:

Loud_Hot_White_Box said:

Alby_da_Wolf said:
The most hilarious thing is: why didn't Selnor tell MS about the future of DD vs physical format BEFORE it lost billions on HD-DVD?

I'd put their losses at tens or hundreds of millions, but very good point.

Meanwhile Sony is doing DD, benefits further from all downloads of Sony movies anyway, and has Blu-Ray.

Based on what analysis?  Losses with WHAT?  Advertising?

Weren't HD laser diodes more expensive than the drives back in the day?  Even if not, yeah, they spent money on advertising costs plus whatever money they thought worth it to kick into their HD-DVD camp, considering that MS would have made money off their codecs, patents and such being used in HD-DVDs if that format had won.

If we're just talking over $10 million, then yeah, probably just advertising could do it -- plus all the salaries paid to MS people and all their "support" for HD-DVD, which wasn't free.  And if they had a money-making goal in mind, they spent money in the effort to make it.

http://asia.cnet.com/crave/2009/03/25/book-microsoft-promised-toshiba-hd-dvd-support/

HD-DVD was much similar to DVD and the diodes and the actual media cost much less than Blu-Ray to produce.  Your acting like Microsoft never sold any of those HD-DVD players and recouped any of its investment.   Sure they lost some money but to say it lost hundreds and hundreds of millions of dollars is rediculous.  Esp... considering they weren't the main investors of the format.