Solid_Snake4RD said:
jarrod said:
Solid_Snake4RD said:
jarrod said:
Solid_Snake4RD said:
jarrod said:
Solid_Snake4RD said:
jarrod said:
Solid_Snake4RD said:
jarrod said:
| Solid_Snake4RD said:
SONY owns much more than 25% in blu-ray sales,don't just go on bullshiting.SONY bore the biggest loss on BLU-RAY and also sacfrificed their biggest brand name at that time to make it succesfull.also blu-ray just became successful because of PS3.
|
Sony's the 2nd largest license holder in the Blu-ray Group, right behind Matsushita (Panasonic) and right ahead of Philips. And honestly, they're likely nowhere close to 25% each...
|
they are
u think SONY bore all the losses for them?
|
Sony didn't bear ALL the losses, though they did essentially sacrifice their PlayStation business as trojan to kill HD-DVD. That was Sony's miscalculation alone though (they thought PS3 would lift BD, not that BD would sink PS3), Panasonic, Philips, Hitachi, Samsung, LG and the other founding members of the BDA aren't going to hand Sony their royalties out of pity. Sony has a big investment and significant holdings in the format, but they aren't even the biggest taker, and there's pretty much no way any one single company involved is getting as much as 25% of the pie alone.
|
SO u think SONY thought that even with BDPS3 high price PS3 was gonnabe number one place from the start?.............lol
SONY,PHILIPS,PANASONIC are the owners of BLU-RAY.no other company gets anything
oh and it was SONY decision to put BD in PS3,IT was but it was at the cost of more royalties.What if SONY didn't put BD in blu-ray,nobody would have gotten anything so SONY would have the highest share ahnds down
miscalculations just down't happen like that when investing BILLIONS
HITACHI,SAMSUNG,LG get nothing.they were just the consortium members that came along to support and had a few of their says in customising for their BD products
like them many had started DVD consortium too but only 9 original companies that made the format got the royalties
|
The BDA collects royalties. Panasonic, Sony & Philips are the biggest license holders in it (in THAT order) but Hitachi, Samsung, LG, Thomson, Pioneer, Sharp and MIT are all also founding members (founding as in 2002). They split the royalties, after the forum's taken in operational costs.
And there was absolutely no "royalty-trade-off" for the format's inclusion in PS3, if there were it'd have been reported throughout the industry. And yes Sony thought they'd be #1, their arrogance and hubris was at an all time high, with comments from company execs saying they could sell PS3 for the first six months with zero games if they wanted, and that consumers should get a second job if the price was too high for them.
Sounds to me like you should do a little research here and stop making things up...
|
there are no royalty trade offs but if SONY was only receiving a low share then why would they invest and lose the most.
like if you had 70% in a business you were running you would put in more effort and time and hard work,but if it was only 20% you would be very lazy.
founding members don't get anything,they are just their to support.if they like a format and its specs they support it as in the future they are going to be selling it
oh i did my research,all those figes out there are just rumors and shit thoughts of the many analyst.
". And yes Sony thought they'd be #1, their arrogance and hubris was at an all time high, with comments from company execs saying they could sell PS3 for the first six months with zero games if they wanted, and that consumers should get a second job if the price was too high for them."
you really think they would say we are pricing it high and making loss and every damaging our brand and doing it so that other BD members profit and sao that are shareholders suffers
how many times Nintendo in the GC and 64 era and MS in the last two gen bukkshitted people with that kind of info,many many times
|
There was no share trade off for PS3. Period. Sony and Philips were the 2 original developers of the format, Sony actually sacrificed share in order to get more companies onboard (to ensure the format's victory). In fact not just the founders (LG, Sharp, etc) collect royalties, even later comers to the standard take a share. Warner's estimated to be the 4th biggest taker thanks to their patents, and they were an HD-DVD backer early on...
Also, no comments from either Nintendo or Microsoft even come close to the BS Sony was spouting at the start of this gen. From "handheld ghetto" to "second job", Sony really managed to put themselves in class all their own... which made their epic fall from grace all the more enjoyable to watch.
|
i am not saying there was any share trade off but SONY had bigger share from the begining adn so they invested
SONY didn't sacrifice any share and those partners and other founding memebers don't get shit,you think SONY will lose,tarnish their brand and earn money for their competitors
lol WARNER wouldn't have shit in blu-ray,they were exclusive to HD-DVD and now they get a share...........lol
also sony didn't really need so much backing to trade off share as they single handedly made blu-ray succesfull atleast in the market adoption side
AARON GREENDBERG has been bullshiting us all this GEN and just because they said it doen't mean that were their intention.STEVE BALLMER announced BLU-RAY for 360 twice and then MS official canceled.
fouding memebrs of DVD
only 9 get royalties
|
The were 9 founding members for BD too, which I listed earlier. And admittedly part of the reason for Warner's high royalty take was likely to entice them onboard and put that final nail in HD-DVD... but the fact is there's a lot of mouths to feed when it comes to Blue-ray, and Sony's share isn't exactly overwhelming. Sony's actually been one of the main companies trying to drive down fees (and thus royalties) too.
Kaz, Harrison, Reeves and (especially) crazy old Kutaragi make Greenberg look positively tame. Seriously, no one except maybe old man Yamauchi compares to Sony's team of terror this gen.
|
i listed 10 founding members and only 9 got the royalty
EVEN if WARNER didn't come on board,HD-DVD was already dead.you think just to bring them aboard SONY would dacrifice their future profits when they have already done so much and don't really need to do much as HD-DVD was coming to an end.
the fees that SONY is trying to drop is cause as the opticle media's age progresses to makr them cheap you have to cut down on royalty cost.but this doesn't reduce percentage and this is done by all partners
as if royalty costs are down.more discs would be sold and more disc would bring in small amounts individually but together they will bring money money.
about the SONY exec comments,my point was that even if they said it they didn't expect it to sell well that that price and if they say it won't then negative publicity and shares will collapes
|
