First, they lost to the gamer-crowd, not to Sony. They also lost to Nintendo, if you want to fire the war.
Second, you can't trust anybody who wants your money.
I know what you are trying to do but you fail with it.

Wow, GeoHotz must have wrecked that security good, huh? And it got to the point where Sony were helpless to do anything but to remove it? Are you shitting me here?

Could you imagine Microsoft discontinuing Windows support once somebody found a vulnerability in the Operating system, or MySQL or PHP being discontinued after their last major security exploit? No, neither could I, which is why I don't buy Sony's story that they had no other choice BUT to remove it...

Who cares.  Blu-Ray is here and everyone loves it.  Well, everyone who matters that is.  And for the record, you can thank Warner Bros. for the collaspe of HD-DVD and the flourishment of Blu-Ray.  WB saw their DVD's sales dipped 5% during the 2005 Christmas shopping season compared to the previous year while ther HD sales (HD-DVD and Blu-Ray) were abysmal.  They saw that consumers were on the fence about the new HD medias, and it hurt their sales.  So WB did the logical thing by the supporting of Blu-Ray exclusively, and that's when the dominoes started to fall.  True story, bro.  Stop hating.

MS never fully backed HD DVD so I don't see how you can call it a fiasco. The only fiasco they had when it comes to gaming was the RROD problem with the early versions of the 360.

You're painting an incredibly simplified scenario. Let me add some points:

1. At the time of WB switching support, HD-DVD WAS the dominant of the two formats (though still an incredibly small amount compared to DVD), both in media sales AND standalone device sales. If WB decided to just suddenly pick and choose ONE format (whereas other companies were indifferent with supporting both formats), the market factors would have pointed towards HD-DVD.

2. And WHY did WB decide to not support both formats in an emerging market, like other studios? They struck a deal with Sony for lower royalties and licensing fees and in exchange for exclusitivity. 

You really don't think that WB just suddenly decided to suddenly support the market trailing one of the two emerging formats for no reason, did you? But what can I expect from the same guy who was openly touting about eviscerating somebody who outlined a security flaw in Sony's system? Yes, I remember you...

Your making a lot of assumptions there and not taking note of the following point the other OS removal was optional not mandatory...

Furthermore i am not defending the removal nor promoting it... People were saying it was removed with out user consent which is not true, and that it was removed because no one used it which is also untrue... Sure sony could have left the other Os feature enabled and disabled online gaming, but they could not of directly affected what people could do with the other os feature. Still not saying it was the right choice as i didnt get to enjoy the other os feature but had planned on using it, and did think about agreeing to its removal before installing the update.

1. HD-DVD WAS the dominant format.  Not true.  More studios including WB were supporting Blu-Ray.  Also, marketshare sales in favor of Blu-Ray were like 2:1.

2. If WB could have afforded to support two formats then they would have.  But they didn't because the people weren't buying it regardless of any contracts.  Giving you the benefit of the doubt, the contracts just made it sweeter.

And I remember you, too.  Always hating.  :)

I do also remember from research earlier this gen various reputable articles about the Difference between bluray and hdvd and blu ray was / is superior format in that it could contain a lot more memory... Not sure about other factors though as i dont recall that being discussed reported in depth at the time as i would have probably taken note of it...

Read the reply again. I said HD-DVD was the dominant format in SALES (ie. The things that CONSUMERS have control of), not support. And of course BluRay would have more studio support, after all, HD-DVD was from a pure electronics company and BluRay was from an electronics/media conglomerate. They can use their own marketshare in one market to affect other markets. That's like saying that McDonalds has a bigger lunch menu than IBM.

You're talking about affordability for WB, then READ MY INITIAL reply, in which I explicity stated that HD-DVD was a LOT cheaper in both initial capital and cost to produce media per disc. If cost was an issue to WB, they would have went with HD-DVD. Your statement is false. HD-DVD sales at the time of the announcement were above BluRay sales, but BluRay was VERY slowly catching up (although it was something in the realm of 56% of WBs HD-DVD sales when the announcement was dropped, if I remember correctly). 

If you truly do remember me, then you'd remember that it was me defending somebody who did no wrong against the crowd of haters (including you) demanding this person's head on a pike. Who's the hater, again?

Sure, the removal was optional, but how did one's online capability go if you refused to remove it? That's like saying you have the option to get your teeth smashed in with a hammer, or your fingernails pulled out with pliers. you still have a choice, right?

The other thing they could have done (like any other company does when they find a security vulnerability) is FIX IT, not just remove support altogether. Their reasoning stems from the fact that they'd have to invest in a feature that was giving them no forseeable return, and used the hacking news as a legitimate reason to drop support.