Talk:Format war

Order ?

Wouldn't a chronological order be appropriate?--Hhielscher 20:58, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't think it particularly necessary, but it could hardly hurt. I don't know if it would be maintainable though -- depends on how obvious it was that it was to be kept chronological. Haikupoet 23:55, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I would support a chronological order. Peter S. 16:22, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Ok, done. I have also tried to order entries within each decade (by approximation). Should we really order with the oldest one first? Peter S. 21:52, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

H/W Support for Video Data compression

Perhaps it is worthy to mention the hardware support for different mayor compression formats. Windows Media and DivX have more widespread support in the hardware as opposed to Real and Quicktime. Quicktime is supported as a container format on the Sony Clié and in AVC (mpeg 4 part 10). Real is not widely supported. In China there are some hardware players that support it, since they 'have' a lot of 'backup' copies of tv series in this format.

Digital Recording

Another less

AM Stereo

Although not widely recognized, with the right equipment, AM stereo was capable of equivalent or greater fidelity than FM, which is 50–15,000 Hz. AM broadcast stations are spaced at 10 kHz intervals in the US, but stations are never assigned on adjacent channels in the same region, and the broadcast signal can exceed this bandwidth. At least one receiver employed a 10 kHz notch filter to reduce interference and extend bandwith. With the Carver TX-11a tuner used as the receiver, listeners in blind testing were unable to distinguish the difference between an over-the-air AM stereo signal and non-broadcast studio program material. --Blainster 18:16, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tape formats

The article says: Portable audio tape formats: 8-track and four-track cartridges versus Compact audio cassette, but the compact audio cassette appeared 7 years after the introduction fo the 8-track. It was more of a succession than a format war, although both coexisted for some time. Otherwise, we could list wax cylinders vs rubber vs shellac vs vinyl vs 4-track vs 8-track vs compact cassette vs compact disk..... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 132.79.14.15 (talk • contribs) 14:58, May 25, 2006 (UTC)

It was, in fact, a head-to-head competition. The cassette was introduced in 1963, one year prior to the 8-track's 1964 entry to the market. Perhaps you are referring to the development of high-fidelity cassettes in 1971 (when Dolby-B was added). Prior to that year 8-tracks had lower noise and arguably higher frequency response. So the analogy you offer is not apt. --Blainster 22:33, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

x2 vs K56flex

For some time, online providers were required to maintain two modem banks for what was then high-speed access.

So, was this a requirment of some officiating body? or a requirment of market forces? I think this statment is pretty vague. If it was market forces, it would be more clear if it were "For some time, online providers were forced to maintain two modem banks for what was then high-speed access."

Good point, it was just a marketing tactic, not a requirement. --Blainster 16:44, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Blu-ray vs HD DVD

10 Reasons Why High Definition DVD Formats Have Already Failed. Shawnc 06:57, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I like especially the line "The high definition DVD formats, however are really just the same source material packaged in two different wrappers". I think we could add something like it to define "format war" properly (e.g. "the content is the same, companies just battle about the media wrapper"). Peter S. 07:26, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I seem to remember seeing a device that could play both BluRay and HD-DVD. Can anyone back me on this?

Mac v. PC

Isn't Macintosh versus PC a format war? Jack Daw 08:25, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't exactly classify mac vs. pc a format war. No more than Chevrolet vs. Ford is a format war... Cburnett 20:40, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Using Chevrolet vs Ford is not the bext example... since they are both cars/trucks. Mac advertises themselves in their commercials as NOT being a PC (even though they are)Altho I agree that it should not really be discussed on THIS page, it should have some sort of link to a mac vs pc site or page.

What about Firewire vs USB?

Closer but not exactly the same speed at a given moment KungFuMonkey 03:49, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The operating systems are more at war than the hardware. Oicumayberight 01:13, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Film industry?

Before my time, but was there any format wars in terms of the film industry? Cburnett 21:52, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

By "film" I mean both photography and video. 35 mm film reads to me that prior to 1909 there was a lot of competition. That's just width, what about physical construction and aspect ratio? Cburnett 06:53, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a source for lots of info on 35mm: Film-Tech.com. It doesn't accept direct page links, so go there and select the Tips menu on the left, then the FAQ link at the bottom of the next page for a vast and detailed explanation of film formats. --Blainster 20:49, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Endianness a format war?

Endianness: little-endian vs. big-endian vs. middle-endian? Cburnett 21:54, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is meant to deal more with hardware formats. Software formats change endlessly. --Blainster 20:41, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Endianness is entirely hardware derived. The 4 bytes that make up a 32-bit int have to be stored in memory in some particular way for operations (again hard coded in hardware) to make sense. Cburnett 22:28, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So true, Motorola vs. Intel. As a software guy I see only the bits. But the endianness is not really germane to the marketing wars between the two, as it confers no real advantage. Segmented addressing was a bigger annoyance for Intel MCUs. Mot may have touted flat addressing and the lack of need to split addresses or manipulate longints a time or two, but without noticable effect on sales.--Blainster 23:01, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Touche. I suppose it's more of a slap fight than a war or battle. It's quite trivial to htonl/htons and ntohl/ntohs as appropriate, just tedious. Cburnett 01:12, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

War of Currents?

How about the War of Currents? Cburnett 12:56, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That is an excellent example of a marketing competition, but this article is about various competing media formats. While power grids are currently being tested as an Internet delivery network, don't you think it's kind of a stretch to put it here? Now I see that Microchannel doesn't fit either, so out it goes--Blainster 21:37, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Again, touche. :) I swear I read the intro. I guess I had a much looser definition of "format" in my head while ignoring that word "media"...

Anywho: can we change the definition of the article though? Is there an advantage to keeping it strictly about media formats? Or can/should we grow a parent article out of this? I'm not wanting a list of simple competing technologies (say java vs. c++) but where VHS vs. betamax and AC vs. DC are the caliber of competition. Thoughts? Cburnett 22:33, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The current wars are definitely interesting, but I think it may fit better on a different list than Format wars. Try to come up with a name for a new article covering hardware, and we could move the more hardware-based stuff to it. The difficulty is sorting out whether the carrier (hardware) or message (software) is the more salient way to think of the technology. If we can't think of a better name, we can either add a new section to this article, or disambig to Format war (hardware) and Format war (software).

Remember, expanding lists can get way out of hand if editors don't dedicate themselves to tending them. You need to be willing to create an appropriate definition, and defend it as necessary against off-the-wall additions. --Blainster 23:11, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You mean like endianness and war of currents? :) I'll have to give it some thought. Cburnett 23:35, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Laserdisc?

Would Laserdisc be considered to have engaged in a format war with VHS or early DVD? --Badger151 06:24, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

EVD

To quote the article: "High-definition optical disc formats: Blu-ray Disc versus HD-DVD versus Enhanced Versatile Disc"

I don't think that Enhanced Versatile Disc is a contender here... It is between Blu Ray and HD-DVD. I doubt it will cause much debate, so I just removed it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Sanctusorium (talk • contribs) 16:48, November 21, 2006 (UTC)

Mobile phones?

TDMA vs CDMA in the "last" generation of mobile phones, and now we've got GSM vs CDMA (or is it WCDMA?... T-Mobile and Cingular vs Sprint and Verizon in the US anyway)

Does that not count as a format war at all? --Dr3wrocks 07:33, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it is true they are different, but the industry competition has been based more on things like price, coverage, and service, than on transmission format. The incompatibility sometimes serves as a deterrant to changing carriers, but I don't think it has defined the market. --Blainster 22:05, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why have a war?

Maybe someone could explain what the benefit(s) to the parities involved in the war are. Is it all about royalties? How much would a company stand to make if they win the war? Who won the standard DVD war and what royalties are paid and by whom. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.80.50.238 (talk) 15:03, 5 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Category for Non-interoperable systems / Vendor-lock in?

Do you think it would help to have a category identifying Category:Non-interoperable systems? The issue is being voted on, please contribute your vote / opinion: here. Pgr94 23:36, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Are these all really format wars?

I question if all these entries are really format wars or not.

Blu-Ray vs. HD-DVD, sure. SACD vs. DVD-Audio, yes. DCC vs. MiniDisc, yes. But SD Card vs Compact Flash vs xD? I don't think so. Same goes for MP3 vs AAC vs. WMV. I just don't think think they meet the criteria for a format war. --24.249.108.133 23:58, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What exactly is that criteria? Oicumayberight 01:18, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would argue that for a WAR to exist there needs to be content that only appears on one format or the other. Various encoding while competitive are not engaged in active battle with each other. You could have players that can not read both formats, but that is like saying Radio vs CDs is a format war which it is not. The article should likely focus on examples where companies actively tried to prevent another format from getting off teh ground by blocking content. Other wise consumers just picked what ever had the biggest buzz and no real battle ever took place —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.1.166.225 (talk) 23:06, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that there is not a 'format war' every time there are incompatible hardware formats. Maybe a practical criterion is that there has to be a threat that hardware made now will become useless (or much less useful) depending the outcome of the fight. The use of a format to provide pre-recorded content would meet this criterion. So would incompatibilities between hardware used for communication, such as in modems and networking gear. If people had only used their VCRs to record off the TV, then Beta and VHS could have co-existed quite happily, just as the many memory-card formats do today, no? Cheakamus 19:24, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I edited the first paragraph based on the small but unanimous consensus here. Oicumayberight 18:29, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Satellite Radio vs HD Radio

Should this be added?

... after a fashion. Satellite and HD Radio use different bandwidths and distribution mechanisms; so I don't see them as directly competing.

The format war was between "Eureka 147" and "HD Radio". Responses to the US FCC's Request For Comment included many suggestions favoring Eureka 147. Though I might have missed some of the unbiased technicalities, my sense of the outcome was that the FCC sided with the US firms, TI and Lucent, who wanted to have the whole US transmitter/receiver chip market to themselves ... without competition from EU firms who had started earlier and proceded more aggressively.

Now, it seems WiFi and WiMax threaten to obviate both formats. Though less imminent, public WiFi and WiMax may threaten cellular services too, both data and voice (VOIP).

For better or worse, MIT's OLPC project posits a grand "mesh" of tranceiver/relay stations that might obviate the need for commercial carriers -- for a very wide range of telecom traffic. Verizon's perspective on that must surely be much like Microsoft's perspective on Linux. Lonestarnot 22:01, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Earlier Format Wars?

Do non-electronic format wars merit their own page?

1. AC vs DC, Tesla vs Edison?
      (... a link to the "War of Currents" article?)

2. "broad guage vs 'standard' guage" trains
      (... a link to the "gauge war" section in the "Great Western Railway" article?)

3. Dvorak vs QWERTY keyboards?
      (... a link to the "Dvorak Simplified Keyboard" article?)

Lonestarnot 22:23, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps under a different name. The ones you mention are some classic examples of market competition. --Blainster 20:10, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Syndication formats

What about RSS 1.0 vs. RSS 2.0 vs. Atom? That seems like a typical format war to me. Pat Berry 14:52, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There's at least 4 non-compatible RSS formats, each developed by different companies.[1] RSS is a total can of worms. Most feed readers and blogging software supports both versions, so this would fall under the same category as DVD±R: nearly all modern DVD players support both formats. Nonetheless, this is a worthy contender for this article and should be added. --Ice Ardor —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.87.38.146 (talk) 04:06, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Microsoft does NOT back the HD DVD

As stated in the XBOX 360 Elite article, Microsoft's official position is not to choose between the two, since choosing the ultimate loser could prove costly, even though they do sell the external hd dvd drive --72.130.182.24 04:17, 22 June 2007 (UTC) Hunter[reply]

Betamax superior to VHS???

I don't understand where people get this idea. I've looked at the specs, and the two formats are virtually identical: - 3 megahertz bandwidth yielding 250 lines horizontal - chroma resolution of 50 lines - Betamax holds 5 hours maximum; VHS holds 10+ hours (maximum).

Looking at these stats, I don't know how anyone can still think Betamax is superior. The video stats are identical, and VHS has the time advantage. Do people just repeat phrases like "Betamax is better" without ever verifying the claim? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Theaveng (talk • contribs) 14:15, August 8, 2007 (UTC)

The claim comes from when both formats were new. Beta had 250 lines, VHS had 240; and Beta had better signal separation. But, Beta had lower recording time. With later revisions, the two became (as you mention,) essentially identical. But these early differences stuck with people. 71.193.207.217 00:59, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Chrome and Metal cassettes

Twice you [theaveng] have avowed on the Format war page that Chrome and Metal cassettes can achieve near- and equal-CD quality. Perhaps under controlled conditions, yes... but in common usage, cassette tape and tape player problems brought the fidelity down significantly below CD level. Playback head misalignment reduced high frequeny response, head wear reduced high frequency response, build-up of oxides and magnetic charge on the playback head reduced overall signal to noise ratio. Frequent playback led to tape wear with associated high frequency reduction while pausing the tape in one place for a time led to permanent damage at that spot yielding audible single pitch warble events. Pinch rollers and tape guides sometimes skewed the tape slightly, allowing backwards-sounding material from the other side to bleed through in playback. High level impulses tended to print through over time. Cassettes sometimes developed an acoustic whining noise from tape edges scraping on the shell. Tapes were 'eaten' by players. Of course, cassettes don't have instant access to individual tracks like CDs. Perhaps a more realistic portrayal of cassette quality as seen by the end user is appropriate. Also: Lp quality vs. cassette quality is similarly debatable with points going to both formats. Just my two cents... Binksternet (talk) 18:26, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

While all that's true, the Type II Chrome cassettes (sold pre-recorded in stores) still had better fidelity than record players. Records have "hiss" noise caused by the static when you removed them from their cardbaord sleeves. Plus "pops" from scratches and "erasure" of high frequencies due to the needle carving its way through the soft plastic surface, rapidly dropping from 18,000 to 14,000 to 12,000 hertz in just 3 or 4 plays. Cassettes provide the superior sound, and I'd rather listen to a cassette than a noisey, staticy, poppy, poor-sounding record any day. - Theaveng (talk) 18:36, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

< puts on Peter Sellers hat and says You can't fight in here...this is the war room> Could we get a reference? Should the article say something like "Under typical conditions of usage, cassette tapes retained better sound quality than disks after several playings." ? We don't really need opinions on the encyclopedia, we're supposed to have facts. No audiophile psychoacoustic "golden ear" stuff, but there must be a solid reference that compares bandwidth and S/N ratio (say) after a few playings on the two media. This is getting off-topic for this article; these detailed comparisions are better in the articles on compact cassette and LP album --Wtshymanski (talk) 01:00, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sure I can start searching for references. That sounds reasonable..... but I do want to register my annoyance. How can *anyone* think the "pop" or "crackle" or "sssss" of a record sound superior to a cassette? I am frankly surprised that someone objected to my statement that cassettes provide superior sound to vinyl. I have purchased brand-new, never-used records and even in that pristine state I can hear the "ssss" sound as the needle scrapes over the plastic surface. Records are old 1930's technology and sound..... well.... like old 1930's technology. - Theaveng (talk) 12:28, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Because records don't pop, crackle, or "ssss" if cared for properly, and are played on decent equipment; "ssss" is the sound a cassette makes, as the unwanted noise floor of a vinyl album is most prominent at lower frequencies, not upper midrange. Likewise, cassettes are unacceptably hissy without noise reduction (something that can be applied to records as well, such as dbx discs), and sound horrible if the tape head is even a fraction misaligned, or if the tape transport is dirty enough to cause mistracking. Neither format was perfect, and both are capable of excellent results if good materials and equipment is used. However, both the theoretic S/N ration and the frequency response of vinyl records is greater than that of cassettes (in fact, the frequency response of vinyl is theoretically higher than that of CD's). This is the reason why audiophile use of expensive turntables persists, but cassette use does not. Records also do not lose their high-frequency response as rapidly as you state, unless you are using a rusty nail to play them. In fact, the liner notes to the old Mobile Fidelity half-speed mastered albums sometimes stated that they would sound better after a few plays.

FWIW, in the late 1970s and 1980s, a common audiophile strategy was to buy the record (for its better sound quality, plus album art and the like) and to copy this onto a high-quality cassette, rather than to just buy the cassette, as prerecorded tapes generally sounded poor. However, to state unequivocally that cassettes sound better than records due to "pops, crackles, and ssss" is to compare apples to oranges; these are the sounds a damaged record makes. A worn-out cassette is not fun to listen to, either. Adding an unequivocal statement to the article about the superior sound quality of one format over the other can only considered a personal opinion, and therefore WP:OR. OTOH, the relative convenience of cassettes is not in doubt, nor is the fact that they offered similar or comparable fidelity for most users. I am surprised that you take exception to phrasing to this effect. ProhibitOnions ^(T) 14:09, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Collection of references that cassettes provide superior sound (ongoing)

From wikipedia itself (yes I know I can't use wiki as a ref)(it's just a place to start): "The best home decks could achieve 20 Hz-20 kHz frequency response with wow and flutter below 0.05%, and 70 dB of signal-to-noise ratio using Dolby C, up to 80 dB of signal-to-noise ratio using Dolby S, and 90 dB with dbx. Many casual listeners could not tell the difference between cassette and compact disc."

From my own Panasonic (a budget, consumer-level deck) the manual reads: "Type II : 20-19,000 hertz response ; 60 dB S/N Dolby B" - This is what I was quoting in my original revision.

From a Nakamichi DR-1 (another budget deck) the manual reads: "Frequency Response 20-21,000 hertz; S/N Ratio better than 66 dB" (Dolby B) - http://www.analogstereo.com/nakamichi_user_manuals.htm

Tascam deck: "Cr02 tape: 25 - 18,000 Hz" "S/N Ratio: 69 dB (Dolby B NR on, over 5KHz)" - http://www.zzounds.com/item--TAS102MKII

Conclusion: No record can match those stats. Especially on the Signal-to-Noise ratio. Records are notoriously noisy.

A Nakamichi DR-1 is not a "budget deck"! During their heyday, Nakamichi were the finest cassette decks available, and the most expensive, offering three heads and dual capstans and features like automatic head alignment.

Yep. Replace [DR-1] with [DR-3] which cost only $150 when I bought mine; new. The DR-3 was designed to be a low-end model for the general public, and it had a reduced response of only 20-19,000 hertz, but still better than your any record. - Theaveng (talk) 14:11, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Again, you are making a false analogy here. Cassettes can offer high S/N ratios only using noise reduction, something that can be applied to records, too, but generally was not (unless you consider the RIAA equalization curve) because they already provided an adequate S/N ration of between 60 and 70 dB (dbx-encoded vinyl discs were theoretically capable of 120 dB or more). Judging from your comments above, I am not convinced that you have much personal experience with LP records. They required careful storage and cleaning with an anti-static brush and fluid (such as Allsop D4) before every use. Better-quality records (such as classical recordings) were already stored in anti-static bags, but these were a common purchase for other records. Finally, the stylus had to be in good condition, as a worn diamond would damage the records and produce static and poor sound quality; a good cartridge and a well-isolated turntable on a flat playing surface were also essential. However, the sound results produced were, and are, very good indeed, provided the record was mastered properly (which was not always the case). Bearing all this in mind, you can see how cassettes won out, at least for a couple of years, due to their greater portability and convenience. ProhibitOnions ^(T) 14:23, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As for noise-reduction, since we're discussing store-bought tapes, and they all come professionally-recorded with Dolby B NR (every tape I own has that), it's entirely fair to say they were more quiet than the store-bought record (no noise reduction). ----- I'm sorry, but I've bought plenty of records in my time, and even brand-new they sound noisy to my ears; I prefer to buy the Dolby B professional cassettes when they're available.

"They required careful storage and cleaning with an anti-static brush and fluid (such as Allsop D4) before every use." (1) No wonder cassettes became more popular during the late 70s and throughout the 80s; people have better things to do than wash their records (BTW don't use cleaning fluid on old 78s; you'll destroy them). (2) Even brand-new (no scratches or damage) and directly from the store, I thought LPs sounded noisy. At least store-bought cassettes used Dolby B to suppress the hiss to inaudible. - Theaveng (talk) 14:09, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

War vs Coincidence

There's still too many cases of incompatible formats that could be seen as mere coincidence instead of "war" in this article. War implies some sort of combative action took place which is not mentioned in most of the cases. Someone inventing a technology or format that is not compatible with a preexisting technology used for the same purpose, isn't necessarily combative, especially if the inventor wasn't aware of the competition. We need some real examples of combative action here like industrial espionage, reverse engineering, price wars, lawsuits, political lobbying, etc. Oicumayberight (talk) 00:35, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article's title is "format war" not "court battles" or "congressional lobbying". It's about one proprietary format (example Betamax) taking on another proprietary format (VHS), and each one trying to become the defacto standard that near-everybody uses. ----- BTW not all wars have combative action. The "war on poverty" certainly does not have combat... it's just a convenient phrase. Theaveng (talk) 14:26, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm just trying to reel it in a bit before the article gets too big. Wars over proprietary standards are less noteworthy than wars over open standards. Differences between recording media are less noteworthy than differences between recording formats. This article should be more than just a list of every set of incompatible standards. Oicumayberight (talk) 02:30, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Wars over proprietary standards are less noteworthy than wars over open standards." - Less noteworthy? I disagree. Reference again my example of Betamax vs. VHS, both of which were proprietary standards and extremely note-worthy (in fact, probably the most famous example in the last hundred years). - Theaveng 19:42, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're only talking about one case. I was speaking in general. The videotape format war sums up Betamax vs. VHS. My suggestions are to keep the less popular cases to a minimum. There must be reasons other than simple incompatibility that makes a format war noteworthy. Besides the obvious "popularity", what's your criteria? Oicumayberight 06:20, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well it does seem silly to list 6 or 7 differing Flash card formats. I'm not even sure if it matters. After all, who cares if your Sony camera's flashcard doesn't work in a Panasonic camera? I can't think of any drawback to that situation. ----- As for some of the other things I added like Cassettes vs. Vinyl, or Cassettes vs. CD, it was based upon their popularity (and note these were ALL proprietary standards; once again disproving your comment that proprietary standards are not noteworthy). - 16:07, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

I didn't say that "proprietary standards are not noteworthy". I said Wars over proprietary standards are less noteworthy than wars over open standards. Oicumayberight (talk) 21:31, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It depends what the stakes are. The war between the proprietary HD DVD and Blu-ray is certainly entertaining, and the outcome will determine the next twenty years of video sales. ---- Theaveng (talk) 13:09, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I see your point. Maybe something needs to be said about the stakes in the article under the HD DVD vs Blu-ray section. We just need some criteria for keeping the trivial examples to a minimum. An explanation of the impact (or potential impact) of every format war should justify it's mention in the article. Oicumayberight (talk) 21:48, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

USB vs 1394 (Firewire)

USB and IEEE 1394 are two competing formats that don't compete head-to-head, but fill their own niches. Nonetheless, they occupy the same purpose: data transfer. Anyone else think this should be added in there? --Ice Ardor —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.87.38.146 (talk) 03:46, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it's very costly to content providers or hardware providers. Mosts computers can take both formats. Oicumayberight (talk) 21:52, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree, USB and Fire Wire were two competing technologies, while USB was slower Firewire didn't enjoy the same widespread device compatibility. Apple no longer supports FireWire and has abandoned the technology signaling USB's victory. This is worth a mention in the article. 64.47.164.2 (talk) 16:51, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Apple no longer supports firewire? I think not. They have had firewire on every computer they sold since who knows when, excluding the macbook air, but really there was hardly room for a single USB port on that thing. --Ray andrew (talk) 21:02, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Apple does not, in fact, support firewire. No Apple product since the Macbook Pros have supported it. Not even the new generation iPods, which before ONLY came with firewire support out of the box have changed to USB. see [[2]] 64.47.164.2 (talk) 19:01, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

NTSC, PAL, and SECAM were not at war with one another

It's ridiculous in concept. It's like saying 50 hertz and 60 hertz electrical systems are "at war" with one another. They each have their own government-defined areas of existence. They are never battling each other neck-to-neck, because they don't share the same space.

War only happens when the combatants both try to occupy the same AREA at the same time. At no point did NTSC ever try to occupy Britannia, or vice-versa PAL occupy Canada, or SECAM try to occupy the USA. They were never in the same area, thus they were never in battle. ---- Theaveng (talk) 18:43, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wireless Protocols (WiFi, Bluetooth, UWB, WiMax, WiBro, ...)

There's a bunch of wireless protocols on the industry, each with different ranges, data transfer rates, and purposes. They are:

Wi-Fi (IEEE 802.11)
WiMax (Worldwide Interoperability for Microwave Access and IEEE 802.16)
WiBro (Wireless Broadband)
Bluetooth Wireless Technology
Ultra-Wideband (UWB)
Certified Wireless USB
Infrared (IrDA)
Radio Frequency Indentification (RFID)
Near Field Communication (NFC)
Near Field Magnetic Communication
HiperLan
HIPERMAN
802.20
Zigbee (IEEE 802.15.4)

for more info on these competing technologies, see http://www.bluetooth.com/Bluetooth/Technology/Works/Compare/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.87.38.146 (talk) 03:53, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]