Talk:HD DVD/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

3x HD DVD drives?

Pretty trivial, but I'm pretty sure 3x drives are available. Source: I have one : LG GGW H20L —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mufffin man (talk • contribs) 13:39, 3 March 2008 (UTC)


750,000 HD DVD players sold.

I added that to the recent developments and sales section. However Im not too knowledgeable on wikipedia editing so i dont know how to cite a source...I have the link though if someone would kindly do it for me.

Link here —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.135.82.166 (talk) 22:38, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Done. However, someone may want to check up on this figure when the official sales figures come out. (I'm thinking about Transformers on HD DVD supposedly selling 190k in a week) Thingg (talk) 05:43, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

HD-DVD Creation

Does anyone have information on the HD-DVD Burners? I noticed that Toshiba released the SD-H903A, but it is not commercially available to end-users. What is the reason for this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Warnockm (talk • contribs) 17:41, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:HD-DVD.svg

Image:HD-DVD.svg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 17:45, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

I added a rationale, hope its sufficient. --Ray andrew (talk) 18:55, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

HD-DVD speechless?

are they still even going to attend CES? this in to journalists about scheduled press meetings at CES. this is from http://www.dailytech.com/article.aspx?newsid=10234

"Based on the timing of the Warner Home Video announcement today, the HD DVD Promotional Group has decided to cancel all 1:1 press meetings at CES, in addition to the press conference that was scheduled for Sunday evening. We apologize for any inconvenience this may cause…

We are currently discussing the potential impact of this announcement with the other HD DVD partner companies and evaluating next steps. We believe the consumer continues to benefit from HD DVD's commitment to quality and affordability -- a bar that is critical for the mainstream success of any format.

We’ll continue to keep you updated on new developments around HD DVD."

not sounding too good -Tracer9999 (talk) 07:11, 5 January 2008 (UTC)


Actually why not carefully re-read the actual statement released? They dont mention it being cancelled but "postponed". And what do you expect? Just 3 days from the CES show and a major backer leaves. They will probably discuss all weekend long on how to go further from this or admit defeat or something. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.81.176.95 (talk) 12:22, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

this was the statement as dailytech posted as THEY recieved it from a toshiba PR rep. there is nothing for me to go back to look at as I dont have access to dailytechs email. The word they used with dailytech was cancelled.. CES is going to be interesting to say the least.. I can't wait to talk to HD DVD on the show floor and see how they spin it. wether its the death blow for the format who knows but it certainly puts a huge damper on things.. NY times says blu ray will now have 70% marketshare... thats huge. -Tracer9999 (talk) 13:24, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

I think it's time to link this page to failed formats listing... It feels so good to be right, and your guys win! --Blue-ray fanboy —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.86.18.42 (talk) 01:06, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Paramount to back blu-ray again?

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/dc409afa-bd75-11dc-b7e6-0000779fd2ac,dwp_uuid=e8477cc4-c820-11db-b0dc-000b5df10621.html?nclick_check=1

--w_tanoto (talk) 03:30, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Do you really need to post this speculation to every page? --Ray andrew (talk) 05:42, 8 January 2008 (UTC)


I though the porn industry was supposed to make HD DVD win?

Same way they (supposedly) made VHS win. So what happened? Is the Adult Industry not as powerful as some people claim? ---- Theaveng (talk) 13:10, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

see here. Thingg (talk) 19:43, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Dated pie-chart

The pie chart is out-dated, by now Warner Bros went Blu-ray exclusive. Even though it says it below the chart, the original creator should change it. --62.163.8.238 (talk) 15:45, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

A ton of discussion is going on about this topic at Talk:Comparison of high definition optical disc formats. Feel free to add your thoughts. Thingg (talk) 19:44, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

The graph

Can people stop re-adding the graph showing WB as Blu-ray exclusive to this article?

Justifying it by saying that the graph was approved in the talk: area of an unrelated article is absolutely unacceptable. Not only is that talk area not on the watchlists of everyone who watches this page, but the bottom line is that the graph is, as of now, wrong. Verifiably wrong.

This is not a democracy, and a plurality of votes in a vote whose existence was invisible to many of us does not equal a consensus. The graph is wrong, WB is not going Blu-ray exclusive until later this year meaning there are plenty of HD DVD releases from WB still to come; the graph absolutely shouldn't be embedded in this article. --Squiggleslash (talk) 15:24, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Warner Bros: "We are phasing out HD DVD."
HD DVD Fanboy: "Warner Bros supports HD DVD!"
The graph ain't wrong, Chuck. WB is, as of right now (NOW), Blu-ray exclusive. They have withdrawn all support from HD DVD. It's not something they're thinking of maybe doing sometime in the future. It is something they have actually done, and it made the papers around the world. The remaining titles they will release on HD DVD are strictly a combination of momentum and contractual obligation and do not constitute support. I support the chart because I support clarity. Pisomojado (talk) 10:23, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
Blu-ray exclusive means producing Blu-ray discs exclusively. WB produces both and will continue to do so until June. It is not Blu-ray exclusive, it has plans to become Blu-ray exclusive. Clarity means making that clear, if you seriously believe that you should present Warner's position as having already gone Blu-ray exclusive at a time when they continue to produce both HD DVD and Blu-ray discs, then you are not in favour of presenting clarity. And your initial comments have no place here, they are insulting, and mischaracterize what I've written. Please keep this civil. Squiggleslash (talk) 14:12, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
When the plumber turns off your water supply, there's always a little water left in the pipe to trickle out. Too say your water hasn't been turned off is to defy reality. It's nonsense and can be treated like nonsense.Pisomojado (talk) 03:37, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
The plumber is not turning anything off until June. To say they've already done it because they've announced they plan to is ridiculous. WB is supporting HD DVDs until June. They may be doing it due to any number of reasons, but they're doing it. It is incorrect to describe them as Blu-ray exclusive when they're not exclusively producing Blu-ray discs. Squiggleslash (talk) 14:21, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
Warner has ordered and will release the HD DVD titles it has already contractually committed to releasing, but will not add any new HD DVD titles to the order list. See? The supply to the pipeline is cut off. There is no mysterious reasoning needed to reconcile this. The simple answer, that Warner is now Blu-ray exclusive (as has been reported around the world), suffices. Any other interpretation requires a willful disregard for facts.Pisomojado (talk) 03:24, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

I do agree, that if the poll and consensus is to be binding on all HD format related articles.. at least notification of the vote should have been placed on BOTH format talk pages to give users from both pages the chance to participate.. not just people who work the comparison article.. I agree that at this point in time the graph is inaccurate. and wikipedia is being used as a crystal ball. warner will be blu ray exclusive in JUNE.. today it is releasing BOTH formats... that fits nowhere in the definition of "exclusive". The option for a striped graph made the most sense and was the most reasonable. however, I do not want to have an edit war..over and over and over.. the poll should be re-opened. with notification made to ALL article talk pages so ALL editors effected are aware of it.. keep current votes but allow new ones for the next 72 hours. until then do not revert the graph.. as at THIS point we have consensus until more people disagree or an agreement is worked out. thats my suggestion. notice was kinda sorta given on HD DVD (at least mentioned there was discussion going on).. over 30 hours into the 48 hour poll and not at all on blu ray -Tracer9999 (talk) 15:33, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't want an edit war either, but I think the most obvious solution to this is to remove the graph from the HD DVD article until a consensus is reached (and not just a plurality of votes, Wikipedia is not a Democracy) about what form the graph should take. There's no reason why there should be the insistence of adding something to the HD DVD page that appears to be objectively incorrect (or at least misleading) and objected to on those grounds by a significant number of editors. Keeping it on this page is not preventing warring, it's going beyond what's reasonable to pacify a vocal crowd.

I genuinely feel that adding this graph to the page constitutes vandalism, even if unintentional, because it is the deliberate adding of misleading content to the page. The correct thing to do here is to remove it until it can be fixed. --Squiggleslash (talk) 15:47, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

What ever the result of consensus for the comparison article, that does not mean there is consensus to insert in this or the blu-ray article. Note that prior to these recent changes the chart was never in this or the blu-ray article, funny how editors now want to insert it, sounds like they are pushing an agenda with the goal of misleading people into thinking Warner is not supporting HD DVD effective immediately, which we all know is not the case. --Ray andrew (talk) 19:13, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

On the other hand, trying to paint WB red falsely misleads people to think WB doesn't release blu-ray discs... thus revealing your agenda Ray. ---- Theaveng (talk) 22:16, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
You well know that is not what I am trying to do. PS: Have you had time to read my reply in the comparison talk page? --Ray andrew (talk) 22:18, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
Well spock, what you're trying to do is muddying the waters. Warner has announced they will exclusively support Blu-ray and their current HD DVD release schedule is just them filling their prior obligations. Saying that they currently support HD DVD is misleading as they're dropping it, have set a date, and said the decision is final. If anything their releasing HD DVD right now should be the footnote to their exclusivity rather than their abandonment of HD DVD be the footnote to their support.65.13.151.42 (talk) 19:08, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
I have warned you on your talk page about the personal attack. Warner Bros. has announced they plan in the future to exclusively support Blu-ray Disc. The future exclusivity is not a present occurrence. Right now, Warner Bros. supports and releases its high definition content on both HD DVD and Blu-ray Disc. A picture that documents the future does not belong in an encyclopedia. We can know today. We cannot know tomorrow, until it happens. Proctor spock (talk) 23:36, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
Assume good faith, it's possible he thought he was responding to you and not Ray. —Locke Cole • t • c 23:39, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
That is not really a reasonable conclusion, as the two sentence comment by Ray andrew is signed and 65.13.151.42 duplicates the sentence structure from Ray andrew's signed comment. Do you have something to say about the topic of this page? Proctor spock (talk) 00:23, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, kind of easy to get you two mixed up considering. Don't be touchy about it. Looking at your history it's clear you came to wiki just for a single reason and clearly you're no stranger to the wiki-policies so try and relax and not be so touchy and hostile. Also, no personal attack was made. Brush up on Rhetoric. There is no predicting. Crystal Ball does not any type of place in this argument. Warner has dropped HD DVD. They just will honor their prior commitments. As such my prior statement is IMO the most accurate. Support should not be shown and the afterthought or footnote should show they have a few obligated releases left.65.13.151.42 (talk) 02:39, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for the apology. Proctor spock (talk) 02:47, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

How do folks here feel about using Theaveng's update to the chart? --Cheesemeister3k (talk) 20:45, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, if we have a graph, then it's clearly reasonable. I'm uncertain of the need for one, but I'm not going to object to it if most people feel it would help the article. --Squiggleslash (talk) 20:59, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Well to repeat an earlier comment: I don't think a COMPARISON chart belongs in a disc-specific article. A comparison chart belongs in the comparison article. (Common sense IMHO.) ---- Theaveng (talk) 13:00, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Why not? Is it not beneficial to the article to illustrate the state of studio support? --Cheesemeister3k (talk) 22:37, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
Yes and people can go to the *comparison* article to see that state. ----- Put another way, why have a comparison article if you're just going to duplicate the information into the HD DVD article? ---- Theaveng (talk) 19:16, 14 January 2008 (UTC)


If nobody has a good reason why the graph wouldn't be beneficial to the article, I believe we have a consensus on the matter. --Cheesemeister3k (talk) 20:52, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
I think the chart is only beneficial in the context of comparison, which is not the purpose of this article. In fact we have a whole article dedicated just to that. No need to duplicate that here. --Ray andrew (talk) 21:32, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
The context it's used in is studio support, in which the graph is highly valuable. Otherwise one must dig through a bunch of text to figure out where the industry stands. --Cheesemeister3k (talk) 02:02, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
I agree with Ray andrew and Theaveng that the comparison chart should be left at the comparison article. In its present form, it still violates WP:NPOV and/or WP:NOCRYSTAL, but that is being discussed, somewhat contentiously, over there. Proctor spock (talk) 06:28, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

The chart does not belong in Comparison of high definition optical disc formats because the chart does not compare the formats. The chart is a clear illustration of the state of "Studio Alliances", which is the section that it's in. If the section belongs there (which no one is arguing), then it logically follows that the chart also belongs there. How hard is that? Pisomojado (talk) 10:04, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Nah, I re-read the studio alliances section and I still do not think the chart belongs there. If charts and pictures are going to be added to the article, they should be about HD DVD. No reason to increase the clutter since the reader can head over to the comparison article to see comparisons. Proctor spock (talk) 15:42, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
Fine, as long as we delete the entire studio alliances section and move it over to the comparison article. I wrote half the thing; I know what's in it.Pisomojado (talk) 01:59, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
As long as there are two hi-def media formats competing in the market, I believe it's important to the article to clearly see where they both stand. It serves to eliminate consumer confusion. --Cheesemeister3k (talk) 02:09, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
Here is an updated version of the chart that should not serve to contribute to consumer confusion, although I still think the comparison chart belongs over at the comparison article. Proctor spock (talk) 02:39, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
This chart, like so many of them, is fine with me. The reason it belongs in the section of the article talking about Studio Alliances is that the chart illustrates studio alliances. If you don't believe that the article should talk about studio alliances, that the studio alliances section should be in the article which is titled, "Comparison of high definition optical disc formats", then fine. I disagree, but I'll concede that. But you have to move the whole section and link it. Consistency is all I ask.Pisomojado (talk) 06:22, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Article misleading

I just came here after reading this article (there seems to be a lot more on the same subject), and I think that this article is deeply misleading: the title of the New York Times is HD DVDs Fall Like Dominoes, and the wikipedia article give the impression that HD-DVD is much more stronger than Blu-ray. This is POV for me. Hervegirod (talk) 22:18, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

"Nothing has been announced..." from your own article. We can not insert random guesses/rumors into wikipedia. We need a formal announcement from whoever decided to switch sides. We need to wait for Paramount to announce "We're going Bluray". ---- Theaveng (talk) 22:26, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
Agree with Theaveng. Paramount actually denied reports it was switching to Blu-ray, making the NYT blog entry even less credible. The first party source denies it. A third party piece of speculation says otherwise. I have no doubt what Wikipedia should be reporting.
There's no question it looks bad for the medium- and long-term future of HD DVD as a supported format, but I doubt anyone can seriously read the section on studio support without drawing that conclusion. Posting speculation isn't going to help make it clearer, it's simply going to make Wikipedia less credible. And it's worth pointing out that most of what I'm reading in the blogosphere is exaggerated anyway: HD DVD may end up becoming unsupported as a format, but it's a slow process. You'd think from what's been written that you will not be able to get any mainstream movies for HD DVD after June this year. If the Warner decision is, genuinely, a "critical" blow to HD DVD as a format, it'll be years before HD DVD users start to seriously suffer. Squiggleslash (talk) 13:41, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
hmm, Wal-Mart will stop selling HD-DVD and will phase them out in the next few months, so it may be sooner that we thought. Hervegirod (talk) 10:31, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but WB is NOT neutral

Warner Bros. currently releases on both formats but is attempting to discourage HD DVD purchase by adding an additional three week delay after initial release date. (See reference.) [1]

WB is essentially saying to customers, "We are releasing DVD and Blu-ray first, because those are the formats you should support. We are only releasing HD DVD because we have to, not because we want to. Hence we have added a three week delay to discourage ye from buying HD DVD." (I took poetic license there, but that's essentially accurate.)

WB can not be said to be "neutral" when they are so actively working to discourage (delaying) customers from buying HD DVD. ---- Theaveng (talk) 19:22, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I think the "supports both formats, is going Blu-ray exclusive in June" language works. I agree "neutral" is the wrong term, it has certain connotations that "supports" doesn't. Neutral suggests it doesn't have an opinion, whereas "supports both" just implies that both formats get physical support, whether equal or not. Squiggleslash (talk) 19:47, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Updated graph

Updated with the version currently used in the Comparison of high definition optical disc formats article. There doesn't seem to be any good argument against its use if there's a section on Studio Alliances. --Cheesemeister3k (talk) 19:53, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I think such a graph belongs over at the Comparison of high definition optical disc formats article, since it is primarily a comparison. Proctor spock (talk) 02:16, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

The reason this graph belongs in the section of the article talking about Studio Alliances is that the chart clearly illustrates the current state of studio alliances. If you don't believe that the article should talk about studio alliances, that the studio alliances section should be in the article which is titled, "Comparison of high definition optical disc formats", then fine. I disagree, but I'll concede that. But you have to move the whole section and link it. Consistency and clarity is all I ask.Pisomojado (talk) 06:22, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Would anybody else care to give their input so we can break this endless cycle? I'm sure everyone's sick of hearing the same things over and over and over and over again. --Cheesemeister3k (talk) 03:45, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

This was already discussed above and consensus does not exist to add a comparison chart to the HD DVD article. The comparison chart belongs over at the comparison article. Proctor spock (talk) 16:59, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't see your consensus. If you're going to delete the chart, then please also delete the Studio Alliances section. Such a complicated description deserves to be illustrated. --Cheesemeister3k (talk) 20:40, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
You know, I'd be in favour of a reduced Studio Alliances section ("Studio Support"), given this isn't a comparison article and as written the whole thing is utterly unreadable. Something along the lines of a bulleted list of studios supporting HD DVD (with an appropriate asterisk and comment next to WB), and a short paragraph reporting that many studios have decided to actively not support HD DVD, preferring Blu-ray, and reporting the major ones. The way I see it, it would work something along the lines of:
Studio Support
To date, approximately 30% of recently released movies are available in HD DVD format. The following studios and publishers offer HD DVD content:
  • Universal Studios (including subsidiaries Focus Features and Rogue Pictures)
  • Paramount Pictures
  • Nickelodeon Movies
  • MTV Films
  • DreamWorks Pictures and DreamWorks Animation
  • The Weinstein Company (including Dimension Films).
  • The BBC
  • First Look Studios
  • Image Entertainment (including the Discovery Channel)
  • Magnolia Pictures
  • Brentwood Home Video
  • Ryko
  • Koch/Goldhil Entertainment
  • Medusa Home Entertainment
  • Studio Canal
  • Universum Films
  • Kinowelt Home Entertainment
  • DVD International
  • Opus Arte
  • MK2
  • Momentum Pictures
  • Twister Home Video


Additionally Warner Brothers currently releases its content on HD DVD, though has announced it will cease supporting HD DVD in June 2008.
Many major studios have chosen not to support HD DVD, having decided to exclusively back the rival Blu-ray format. These studios include Fox, Disney, and many others.
This is a much simpler and easier to read than the current "ACME studios announced it plans to support HD DVD for three weeks in March, but pr0n Studios Inc has released 72% of its content in the Chinese EVD format but plans to switch to HD DVD in 2009" format that the section is in currently. And it does do away with the need to have a graph in that section as it's no longer a richard-waving area.
Comments? Squiggleslash (talk) 21:16, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
Sounds good to me. --Ray andrew (talk) 22:08, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
Blu-ray Disc would require the same kind of revision as well. Footnotes saying, "Many major studios..." ought to include reciprocal links to see the entire lists of studios supporting. Sources for each studio should also be retained. --Cheesemeister3k (talk) 00:04, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
The very nature of the Studio Alliances (Support, whathaveyou) demands comparison or it is meaningless. Rather than pare down the section, remove it entirely and link to the comparison page. As you wrote it, it is unacceptable. It's like saying, "A zebra is a %50 white animal," without ever mentioning the word "black". Pisomojado (talk) 02:49, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
Try as I might, I'm not really able to associate your Zebra analogy with this article. For it to work, this would have to be an article about the colour white, and even then it doesn't really work. The purpose of my change is to remove the "comparison" nature of the section. It's not meant to be a comparison to begin with. The problem right now is that the section really violates NPOV - it places weight on a comparison with another format, rather than standing by itself. The fact it mentions Blu-ray means we have a somewhat unnecessary argument going on in the Talk: pages about a graph which is exclusively focussed on comparing Blu-ray and HD DVD studio support.
To be NPOV, this part of the article needs to focus on what support HD DVD has. Issues such as what proportion of the studios support it are obviously relevant. Issues as to whether they support either of the competing formats (incumbent DVD, as well as Blu-ray) aren't really, except insofar as it should be mentioned that the rivaly exists. --Squiggleslash (talk) 18:13, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
Goodbye, Squiggleslash. Now that the format war is over, I guess we'll never see you again.Pisomojado (talk) 18:26, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

WB Compensation

It's confirmed they were compensated, lots of sites using the $500M figure. I know WB made comments but they have not outrighted denied it. How can we get this vital info into the article? Swisspass (talk) 09:58, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

If you have an unimpeachable source rather than speculation, then by all means add the information and a reference to the source. However, a few points:

1. It most certainly isn't "vital info". I'm inclined to believe WB did primarily want to end the stalemate. The money may have made a difference, but ultimately more to make it directly justifiably financially (if the HD DVD camp were putting up money, as they're rumored to have done so, then it wouldn't have been in WB's immediate best interests to choose Blu-ray even if they felt it would be in their long term best interests.)

2. It doesn't matter much. What matters is that WB are planning to drop HD DVD. Whether that's because they want to end the stalemate, were bribed, or just took a lot of LSD that morning, isn't anything like as important as the fact they did it. --Squiggleslash (talk) 10:26, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

--I agree to a certain extent, but the Viacom defection in August resulted in a smear campaign to denigrate the startegy change and divert attention away from the stated reasons, to focus on the bribe/payoff aspect. Has the $150M which is reported in Wiki, been confirmed by a reliable source? All we have is a NYT article citing two anonymous sources. I'll check for further info, I have not yet researched the money claims so we will see. Swisspass (talk) 09:05, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

If the $150M didn't have non-speculative sources it should have been removed, but this article does appear to me to have legitimate sources. In my view, anonymous sources can count as non-speculative if they're not anonymous to the author of the piece, and in this case the NYT clearly does know the identities and positions of the sources ("two Viacom executives with knowledge of the deal but who asked not to be identified.")
Again, as information goes it wasn't "vital info" either. Again, in my view, Paramount made its decisions primarily for other reasons (notably the technical superiority of HD DVD), and the financial incentives were there to head off similar financial incentives from the opposing side. And again, if you can find evidence of the same level pointing at your half-billion figure, then by all means include it in an appropriate section, but it's not critical that it be included because it's not really that relevant - the point, ultimately, is that WB will switch exclusively to Blu-ray in June. What their reasons are aren't important, especially as they've focussed on a "state of the market" criteria that makes sense in isolation. They're not lying. Squiggleslash (talk) 14:18, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
Reporting reports about reports does not count as confirmation. Almost all of these trace back to a single report all of which reports rumors. I this back and forth there has been several people stating outright "inside" info that has been shown to be completely false. It's highly probably, and in my opinion, most likely, that these accusations all stem from a handful of people trying desperately to muckrake. Putting it in the wiki would be attempting to officialize rumors; something Wiki expressly prohibits.209.183.34.47 (talk) 18:46, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

High Definition Disc format war

Isn't it soon time to start this page, analogous to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Videotape_format_war, where we can add analysts' reports on why HD DVD lost?

As separate from the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_high_definition_optical_disc_formats page, that is.

85.227.226.235 (talk) 01:15, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Once it is all over, we can instead change the title of this article to the one you suggested, and add the reason why HD DVD lost. By the looks of recent announcements, i guess it won't be long.--w_tanoto (talk) 10:58, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

HD DVD / Blu-ray disc comparison

I've stripped down this section to the bare essentials (though commented out, rather than deleted, the various paragraphs.) The section is too short for any specific issue to be mentioned without it carrying excessive weight, so it's hard to make it truly NPOV. One contributor added a useful section on storage capacity, so I incorporated this into the first paragraph together with modifying the language about DVDs - the paragraph said both formats were "superior", but that's not necessarily true - DVD is cheaper right now, and unlike Blu-ray, anyone can produce a DVD without needing to license an access control scheme. DVD is also a fixed spec, unlike Blu-ray, and to some extent unlike HD DVD (we're still waiting for three layer discs.)

I hope these edits aren't too controversial, the key point is that the section doesn't need to be big because there's a main article associated with the content anyway. --Squiggleslash (talk) 16:11, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

This is a great edit, Squiggleslash. If you did something as evenhanded and economical as this with the "Corporate and Industry Support" section, I could see getting behind it.Pisomojado (talk) 03:06, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

There is this comparison in the HD DVD#Interactive content section that (a) I do not understand (speaking as someone who is not familiar with HD formats) and (b) may need to be moved to the comparision section:

DVD video discs utilize pre-rendered MPEG segments, selectable subtitle pictures, and simple programmatic navigation which is considerably more limited.

Does it intend to mean "more limited than Blu-ray navigation" or something else? -Wikianon (talk) 15:46, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it means more limited than HD DVD or BD. I agree it is poorly worded. A simpler description might be "DVD-Video relies on pre-rendered video segments ('motion menus') overlaid with primitive buttons ('sub-picture highlights') to present the user interface, and a low-level language similar to assembly language for programmatic access."Peter Torr (MSFT) (talk) 07:23, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

physically different?

The HD DVD#Origins and competition from Blu-ray Disc section states Blu-ray Disc was physically different from DVD, but leaves me the reader thinking: what exactly were those differences, and are they still different? Did and do both have a diameter of 12 cm and the same thickness? Was the original difference solely in the protective caddy (and did HD DVD have a caddy, the article is unclear) and the data layer location? Was the central hole different? Could a 4.3 GB DVD be physically placed in either a HD DVD reader or a Blu-ray reader? Sorry for all the questions but I am genuinely curious. -Wikianon (talk) 16:12, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

The answer to your question is in the article: "The proposed Blu-ray Disc with its protective caddy was both expensive and physically different from DVD." You can't fit a protective caddy inside a DVD player. ---- Theaveng (talk) 17:28, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, thanks for the reply, that sentence was the one I read, but Blu-ray Disc states "The first discs were housed in cartridges for protection. Advances in polymer technology eventually made the cartridges unnecessary." Do the discs have other physical differences? Also, the BBC external link from 2002 supporting the difference claim shows a woman holding up two discs each inside different cases. This does not help the reader understand - is one a DVD and the other Blu-ray or are they both Blu-rays? Look at the HD DVD article from the viewpoint of one (me) who has seen neither Blue-ray nor HD DVD discs.

How about this rewrite, assuming the only difference is indeed the caddy?

In addition, the proposed Blu-ray Disc was a more expensive storage solution than DVDs, and its then necessary protective caddy made it physically incompatible with DVD-style players. -Wikianon (talk) 20:33, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Rewrit. ------ Theaveng (talk) 22:31, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
The main difference is that a DVD is composed of two 0.6mm discs stuck together, and HD DVD has the same physical structure (making it both cheaper to manufacture, and enabling the "combo" format discs with HD on one side and SD on the other). Blu-ray discs are composed of a 0.1mm data layer with a 0.11mm backing layer, and as such are harder and more expensive to manufacture (and cannot have a DVD on the flip side).Peter Torr (MSFT) (talk) 17:55, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Blu Ray logo?

Why is the blu ray logo represented when the article is about HD DVD. Kinda confusing? 84.238.43.183 (talk) 22:46, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Because there is (was?) a format war and the other side wanted to make their mark on their rivals territory. Gomez2002 (talk) 13:23, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

TGDaily citation for "Three week" extension by WHV

They are not valid sources. You've been told this more than once. ---- Theaveng (talk) 13:31, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

agreed. the stated titles are due May or before (such as twister on 27 May, 3 weeks after BD and DVD), and that is before the end of May. 1 June is the deadline. They might mistook it that warner would drop HD DVD on 1 May 2007. I for one was thinking the same when I read an article on hddvd.com. I thought the support ended May.--w_tanoto (talk) 19:15, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
No WB very clearly stated June 1 as the end date. The article is just flat wrong. The author of the blog is a flaming _____ and should correct his article rather than leave it there. ---- Theaveng (talk) 11:07, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
You know I have a talk page for this? I think you have been around long enough to know that. If you continue making personal remarks in article talk pages about me I will take it as the harassment it is. --Ray andrew (talk) 13:52, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure TGDaily counts as a blog, but whatever. The original editor linked to a blog that linked to TGD, I changed the reference.

I did some Googling, and the article appears to be sort-of correct and sort-of not. The gist is that WHV will release some HD DVDs after the deadline, but these are only of movies already released on Blu-ray before the deadline that were delayed because of WHV's mandatory three-week release gap between HD DVD and Blu-ray (because the latter supports region encoding.) Unfortunately, the references for that aren't exactly great either.

As it is, I support keeping the sentence out of the article as it is clearly misleading. --Squiggleslash (talk) 14:09, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Other Interests - Section

"In the music industry, HD DVD is currently exclusively supported by EMI"

No longer exclusively it seems as http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EMI_Music_Japan announced a release for Blu-ray

http://www.blu-ray.com/news/?id=908

Denzelio (talk) 18:21, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Also, Universal Music Studio is Blu-ray exclusive (at least in US) from what I've heard and according to some presses. Correct me if I am wrong. The reference is AVS forum. Forum can't be used as reference. Note that Universal Music is different from Universal Studios--w_tanoto (talk) 22:48, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

From credible source: Toshiba to drop HD DVD

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/hr/content_display/news/e3ib77125d96b22e86027d0bfb0c25aa58d http://www.homemediamagazine.com/news/html/breaking_article.cfm?sec_id=2&&article_ID=12100

normally I don't believe rumours, but these rumours are different.--w_tanoto (talk) 01:28, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

It's Official - Toshiba is out.

NHK Japan reported today Toshiba is officialy out from HD-DVD. The press release will be online in monday 18 at Toshiba.com

I know they are out, but where is the source of 18 February? --w_tanoto (talk) 14:43, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
Reuters hmm.. monday first working day after today? so lets wait official press release —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.79.5.75 (talk) 16:18, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
If NHK (which is a reliable source) is saying this, I think we're safe saying it's so. —Locke Cole • t • c 20:04, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
It has been confirmed by an unnamed source from toshiba itself. I have added it to the article. http://www.reuters.com/article/technologyNews/idUSL1643184420080216?pageNumber=1&virtualBrandChannel=10005

--w_tanoto (talk) 20:07, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Good source. BTW, here's a single page link: (Same article, but single page view, probably better for using as a reference). —Locke Cole • t • c 20:12, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
CNN disagrees. From http://www.cnn.com/2008/BUSINESS/02/18/toshiba.hddvd.ap/index.html : "Toshiba said Monday no decision has been made but acknowledged it had started a review of its HD DVD strategy." Lexi (talk) 20:39, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

"Was" or "is"

I noticed from today's edit regarding these tenses. Should we change it to "was" or leave it as it is "is"?--w_tanoto (talk) 19:51, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

It "is" (and always will be) a high definition optical disc format (so the first paragraph should remain unchanged). However, it "was" in a format war with Blu-ray (and no longer appears to be), so that one can change IMO. —Locke Cole • t • c 20:01, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
anymore comment? --w_tanoto (talk) 20:14, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
Agreed, it is a format and always will be. The only thing that needs to be changed is "is in a format war" to "was in a format war", but it really needs an official press release from Toshiba before changing that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by SynergyBlades (talk • contribs) 20:47, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
I'll wait till the official announcement.--w_tanoto (talk) 21:00, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
I don't agree that we need a press release. —Locke Cole • t • c 22:16, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
Then aren't you planting rumour into an encyclopedia? Without a press release it really does look as such. I don't doubt its coming, but until then it doesn't exactly bolster Wikipedia's reputation for truth and verifiability. SynergyBlades (talk) 22:18, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
I do agree with synergyblade on this one (was or is), but for the rest, a reuters/bloomberg/NHK reports are sufficient, as it is confirmed by somebody from toshiba that this is the case. Not to post this is like denying a big news (even toshiba hasn't make an announcement, but it has been confirmed). No big names like NHK, Reuters, etc would post it if it wasn't true - they will post it with "rumour" in front of the article--w_tanoto (talk) 22:23, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
No I'm not planting rumors. I'm going by what our sources tell us, and many sources are saying Toshiba is done with HD DVD. A press release is, at this point, a formality, not a necessity. —Locke Cole • t • c 23:14, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

The wax cylinder is listed as "was." How is this any different?

Well, I don't think you can compare the HD DVD to the wax cylinder already. I suppose that one can say "was" if a format is obsolete since many, many years even if the media still exists, but right now you can still buy new HD DVDs in stores. Therefore it's certainly too early to use "was". Maybe in 10, 20 years "was" will be more fitting. Video 2000 is using "was" and I think this fits. Gestumblindi (talk) 03:14, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
I think the best comparison is Betamax, which is listed as "is". —Fumo7887 (talk • contribs) 18:17, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
Considering that many stores are still selling HDDVD devices and movies, I believe we can still say that HDDVD "is" a format. Betamax was a format twenty years ago, the million of sold HDDVD devices are not going to disappear because the press conference happened yesterday. Ratfox (talk) 22:48, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
HD DVD is a format, whether it's still in existence or discontinued. The use of the words 'discontinued', 'defunct' or 'obsolete' and the like would distinguish this article from other media articles, like Laserdisc and Stereo 8, for instance, which are defunct or obsolete but are not described as such in their opening paragraphs. There is a link at the bottom of the article concerning discontinued formats. The article should simply read 'is a high definition format...' rather than any description of whether it's defunct or not. That's explained further in the text.Jason270773 (talk) 09:18, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

How absurd is the introductory sentence???????????

'HD DVD or High-Definition DVD was a high-density optical disc format designed for the storage of data and high-definition video.' Um, no. It IS a high-density optical disc format. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.31.164.67 (talk) 23:38, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

'People commonly mistake the HD in HD-DVD to mean high definition. While the format does offer high definition picture and sound. The HD does really stand for "High Density"' —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.55.159.228 (talk) 04:20, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Toshiba shuts down HD-DVD???

The fact that any Blu-ray zealot can post such misinformation on Wikipedia is the exact reason Wikipedia continues to undergo scrutiny on it's accuracy. As of February 16th, Toshiba has made no announcement that it is closing down any facilities or shutting down operations associated with the HD DVD format. Three major studios still release exclusively to HD DVD and have not announced any plans to the contrary. Posting rumors from news reporting agencies eager to break news by any means necessary does not qualify as a credible source. It is reprehensible to me that the editors of Wikipedia would allow such information to misrepresented by such titles as "Toshiba shuts down HD DVD" and "Toshiba has officially ceased production of HD DVD players" without any confirmation or press release from Toshiba Corporation themselves. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Positrack (talk • contribs) 20:36, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

See two sections above: there are plenty of sources indicating Toshiba has pulled out of HD DVD entirely, the only thing missing is an official press release (but there are statements from Toshiba execs/employees already saying it's a done deal, so really the only thing left is the press release, which would be non-news at this point). —Locke Cole • t • c 20:41, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
agree with locke cole--w_tanoto (talk) 20:43, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
Alright, but now wikipedia is reporting the news or what is expected to happen instead of the facts of what has happened which isn't really representative of encyclopedia based information, even one done in real-time. I just really don't see the point of posting information here before it is official. It seems to me the insertion could wait until the 18th if that is the day Toshiba expects to make it so. Or at a minimum, change the wording to "Toshiba plans to shut down HD-DVD" and "Toshiba is expected to cease production of all HD DVD players". That's just my two cents. I'll leave it alone now. Good day. Positrack (talk) 20:53, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
I think is better wait the official press release. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.79.5.75 (talk) 21:55, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia reports what is widely understood. When major news outlets are reporting that HD DVD is dead, then it is "widely understood". A press release isn't necessary or else many things would never be included in Wikipedia (do we need a press release when a war is declared, or when a terrorist bombs something?). I do agree that a press release would be the best source for this kind of information, but it is not the only source we can use. —Locke Cole • t • c 22:11, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Reuters are reporting it http://www.xbox360fanboy.com/2008/02/16/stick-a-fork-in-hd-dvd-its-done/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by MattParker 119 (talk • contribs) 22:07, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

The articles only talk about a unamned source, I could tell you I work for Toshiba and that we shut down HD DVD production world wide and our Blu Ray player is going to be released on Tuesday, how do you know these are real sources? Wait for a offical press release please --Elven6 (talk) 23:28, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Okay.... here I go. Back in August when paramount becomes HD DVD exclusive, an unnamed source confirmed about $150M payoff. This is just the same, and why would a big names such as NHK, Reuters, et al publish the article if the source can't be trusted?? (I have seen Reuters article the day before NHK step-in, and it was clearly written as "RUMOUR") - there is no word rumour in the new article published today, and they are reporting it. They just simply want to be unnamed, just like Paramount's source wished to be anonymous. Afterwards, Paramount neither confirmed nor denied it. The same goes here. --w_tanoto (talk) 23:37, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

OK, now Wikipedia has stooped to an all new low. You are actually using "Engadget.com" as a credible source? Engadget has been widely scrutinized for stealing it's information from AVSforum.com (Audio Visual Science Forum) and other electronics forums without verifying the validity or the technical background. Their record of retractions in the form of "updates" to their stories is horrific. Gee, why don't you just site xbox360fanboy.com's "Stick a fork in it" article. Sorry, but you guys are really missing the boat on this one. If we do not receive the "expected" announcement from Toshiba on Monday of if for some reason the corporation changes it's strategy I am going to be the first one here laughing in your faces. Again, I don't understand the urgency of the topic editors to post rumor under the guise of anonymity. True encyclopedias report news and facts after they happen. Not in hopes they will happen. Positrack (talk) 00:47, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

A commmon problem with some wikipedians is their failure to truly understand the basis of verifiability, not truth. This means wikipedia will report on "untrue rumours", if they are verifiable from credible sources. A simple google news search shows over 500 media articles, including practically all major news agencies around the world, reporting on this very "rumour". That is verificability, regardless of truth.--Huaiwei (talk) 01:16, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
Which means that what can be verified is that there is a rumour which is, right now, heavily circulated (and may end up being true). What would make this encyclopedic is a press release from Toshiba, which is why I suggested waiting until that happens.SynergyBlades (talk) 01:25, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
Positrack, your first sentence in this section is such a silly fanboy comment itself. "Blu-ray zealots"! HD DVD fanboy much? -- 86.17.211.191 (talk) 03:05, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

I find it funny how everyone rushes to post this rumor, but the "rumored" $500 million that was paid to Warner Bros. (and the $120 million paid to Fox) to stay Blu are not mentioned in the BD or Comparison articles (published by news sources citing anonymous sources). No double standards here! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.227.189.4 (talk) 05:09, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

If you have a reliable source that can show those things ever happened, then be my guest. But cite your source, or risk having statements to that effect removed from articles. —Locke Cole • t • c 05:17, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
because obviously, no source. While with Paramount, it is crystal clear that somebody over from paramount anonymously tells them. No big names such as New York Times will report a lie. The same goes to the current issue. With Warner, nobody reports it.--w_tanoto (talk) 10:13, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
A lie is it? You have that direct from Toshiba do you? And no newspaper says "according to sources" do they? Not in touch with reality much? Oh, and I'd rather trust Reuters or NHK than NYT. Try researching that papers' history when it comes to factual reporting. Jayson Blair? Clearly you know nothing of which you speak.... -- 86.17.211.191 (talk) 18:55, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
read again.... you obviously getting the wrong person. I am clearly supporting the inclusion of NHK and reuters. I am simply saying: With Paramount, you got the report that said they have been paid off. With warner? Can you find any other than a blog (engadget)?. NYT is just an example of news you can trust. Conclusion: I support articles from reliable sources such as NYT, NHK, BBC and Reuters (there, I gave you the full examples), but NOT blog--w_tanoto (talk) 19:04, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
So, let me get this straight... you are perfectly fine with using Engadget as a verifiable source based on an anonymous insider, but you refuse to use the same source (Engadget) claiming insider information about Warner Bros receiving a payoff? The article said: "Oh, and while there's nothing official mentioning any sort of payoff, we're hearing that quite a sum was dished out to make this happen". [1] Personally, I don't think either article should see the light of day in an encyclopedia entry stated as fact. 76.121.162.174 (talk) 11:29, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
The original sources are Reuters and NHK you muppet. They don't come any more reliable and verifiable than that. As for the "Warner pay off", that has only ever been rumour, with less evidence to support it than for the massive payout Microsoft handed out last year to keep one of its supporters red.......yeah, I went there. By the way: VERIFIABILITY, NOT TRUTH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Learn the Wiki rules and regs before throwing your weight around. -- 86.17.211.191 (talk) 18:51, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
At the time I posted, Engadget was being used as the linked source. As for me learning wikipedia rules, I think you (86.17.211.191) are the one that needs to learn them. Be polite, Assume good faith, No personal attacks, and Be welcoming are all rules posted at the top of this page and you have broken every one of them. Your agenda is clear with your anti-microsoft comments that has nothing to do with the discussion here. My only agenda is to secure the integrity of information posted to the front page as encyclopedic fact based history. Instead, it looks more like a thread on a message board. I am not doubting the information being posted will eventually happen, but it shouldn't be included as an entry until the time it makes it's mark on history. 76.121.162.174 (talk) 23:39, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
Engadget is not the source though, Reuters is, and if you can't use Reuters as a source, who can you use? —Locke Cole • t • c 18:54, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

how does your crow taste? 12.39.2.83 (talk) 18:47, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Does the END OF HD-DVD productuion saying GOODBYE to HD-DVD.Rio de oro (talk) 22:42, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Blu-ray vs HD DVD

The article Blu-ray Disc claims format war is over. I copied the same link into HD DVD, but User:Omaliceo is removing it. I understand that Japanese citations are not best for English Wikipedia, but can someone, see to it that both the articles say the same thing? Any one who reads HD DVD on wikipedia will also read blu ray article. If these two closely related articles are contradictory, it undermines the quality of Wikipedia. What shall we do? Mugunth(ping me!!!,contribs) 07:06, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

The posting from User:Mugunth Kumar about my removal of his post is because the news is not official yet. Just like Al Gore winning Florida or Dewey beating Truman. For something that is to be posted on an encyclopedia type reference we should await final news. Sure it will probably be true. But I only removed it once. Where the same news has been removed by several different users. We should await final official news from Toshiba before posting something as official. Besides what does one or two days matter? Omaliceo (talk) 07:17, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

It's not one or two days that troubles me... My concern is that both the articles, Blu-ray Disc and HD DVD should state the same. Instead, now blu ray article claims hd dvd is dead and hd dvd claims that it's still not official from Toshiba... We have to come to a consensus on what it should be. Mugunth(ping me!!!,contribs) 09:32, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

I would say that you should remove that information from Blu-ray because rumours and speculation (however likely) unless coming from a really reliable source do not belong here UKWikiGuy (talk) 18:10, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

As per [2], Blu-ray as a winner of format war has been removed... So I've removed the contradict tag. Mugunth(ping me!!!,contribs) 16:20, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Announcement as early as tuesday

Please do not add this to the article, as this is not credible to be added. For those of you expecting to add the official press release:

An announcement can be expected as early as Tuesday this week, according to ars technika. http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20080217-official-hd-dvd-obituary-a-matter-of-days-not-weeks.html

Quote: But the damaging announcements from Best Buy, Netflix and Wal-Mart have forced an acceleration of the company's plans. An announcement could come as early as Tuesday, and will be most certainly made by the end of the week, our source indicated.--w_tanoto (talk) 22:15, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/7250068.stm --Elven6 (talk) 17:45, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Please do not add this either. This is for you all expecting to add the official press announcement: http://www.thedigitalbits.com/#mytwocents http://www.nikkei.co.jp/news/main/20080219AT1D180DU18022008.html Toshiba to have a press conference at 5PM Japan Standard Time. Not sure what is the subject--w_tanoto (talk) 00:01, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Well W_Tanoto, it looks like this has turned into your own personal page about HD DVD. You said the announcement was to be today but alas, no announcement. Now you say it is tomorrow. You also use the "Inquirer" as a source and think Bill Hunt's slanted views on The Digital Bits is also a "verifiable" source. You reference NHK, but not the BBC. Now I see why Wikipedia will never be allowed to be used as reference since user based contributions can come from anyone saying anything. Also of note, if you plan to be the sole contributor to this article, maybe someone can help you to restructure your run-on sentences. Acclaim72 (talk) 02:09, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

First thing first, it was NOT me who used the inquirer. check the history of modification. Definitely not me. Check before you lay a false claim on me. Point me where did I add The Digital Bits information on the article? NONE. This is a talk page, not article. Modifying the sentence would be welcomed, as it is translated fro Japanese. NHK, as somebody pointed above, is legit.--w_tanoto (talk) 02:27, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
also, make sure you are not confused with the time zone. I only said the announcement will be on Tuesday, and today is Tuesday in UK and Japan.--w_tanoto (talk) 02:35, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
What does Microsoft's opinion on how the Xbox 360 will sell have to do with HD DVD? This is just crazy news entries reposted into the article. Please take a look at the Blu-ray article and how clean it is. Then compare how fragmented the HD DVD one has become over the last few days due to this nonsense. At 12:01 a.m. PST please feel free to include the results of the press conference. Until then, quit vandalizing this article with news updates and blog information. 76.121.162.174 (talk) 02:39, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
I see what you mean. I deleted entries about Xbox360 add-ons, as it does not belongs there. I don't know where to put it, so I'll just wait till a bit later.--w_tanoto (talk) 02:45, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

http://www.highdefdigest.com/news/show/Toshiba/Toshiba_Officially_Drops_HD_DVD/1477

ITS OVER, someone with an account please edit —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.67.137.117 (talk) 08:44, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

There's a press release from Toshiba out there. Hard to get more official than that. (http://www.engadget.com/2008/02/19/official-hd-dvd-dead-and-buried-format-war-is-over/) 217.76.87.120 (talk) 09:49, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

The HD DVD entry is looking good again. Well worded, to the point, and factual. Let's work together and keep it that way. Positrack (talk) 17:43, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Obsolete

I added the word "obsolete" to the opening sentence (diff). I think it's obsolescence should be defined up front. At this stage, with manufacture of players being discontinued, I don't think anyone could deny the format is finished, thus obsolete. Lester 13:07, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Nope, no one said it's obsolete.... LG is still support it officially. -Shadowriver (talk) 13:16, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
The world's media calls the format obsolete. ref#1, ref#2, ref#3. We are kidding ourselves to pretend the format is not obsolete.Lester 13:25, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
What do the standards bodies say? Also, the first link you provided had the manufacturer claiming the format is not obsolete. Please, don't suffer recentism with the topic. --StuffOfInterest (talk) 13:39, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
It's not "resentism". If you read the article, the Toshiba executive admits the "demise" of the format. He said the players were not obsolete, stating that people could still use previously bought players to play cd and DVD disks. When the executives of the format's creator admit the format's demise, then it's dead. When the format is dead, it is obsolete. Remember, we're talking about the format, not the use of players to upscale DVD. Time to admit the obvious. Lester 13:53, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
Toshiba announce that the HE demised the format, not the format globaly, this is two diffrent things, media say its obsolete but they not official word, HD DVD only just simply lose the matter on the market by Toshiba quit. Nothing is clear what will happen to HD DVD for now, theres still China :p it may end up like Dreamcast, it may still alive in underground. Format still exist until it's specification documentation is not officially say it's obsolete. -Shadowriver (talk) 15:49, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
Actually the media is the word we use in this case. We use secondary sources (reputable news websites), not primary sources (press releases). Please see WP:V as well as WP:NOR. —Locke Cole • t • c 18:11, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I have changed "is a a high-density optical disc format" to "was a a high-density optical disc format" As it is no longer in production, and will eventually dis-appear.Picer (talk) 20:54, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I think it should maybe still be "is". It still is a disc format, it's just: was in production Zanter (talk) 21:51, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
I agree with Zanter. It should stay as is because they still exist. --Xander756 (talk) 21:53, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
D-VHS and 8 track tapes are still referred to in the present tense on their pages. HD DVD is basically not going to be produced any more, but it is no more dead than those two formats. "Was" should be changed back to "is" on this article. --WTStoffs (talk) 23:21, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
I will re-add the word "obsolete" to the opening sentence, as per the many references provided. The worldwide news and technology media are unanimously describing HD DVD as "obsolete" and a "dead" format. It's not up to us to suggest the format still has hope, as that would be original research. Lester 12:14, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

I think the use of the word "obsolete" here is entirely political and inappropriate, other articles on related technology that is very much "obsolete" eg: Betamax do not carry this word. The format is still in production and in use. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.171.82.195 (talk) 11:23, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

It would be fair to describe the Betamax home video format as obsolete, despite the Beta cassette format being a huge success in broadcast to this day. Of course Betamax is obsolete. It became obsolete the day Sony stopped developing the format. Obsolete doesn't mean bad. Betamax was a great format in its day, but is now obsolete. HD DVD also had some advantages over Blu Ray, but like Betamax it is now obsolete, as it has been supplanted by something else.Lester 11:44, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Commercial failure?

Why are people keep adding the Commercial Failure category to the article? Is there even a definite figure on HD DVD's commercial impact before labelling it a "failure"? Other faltered media products, such as the MiniDisc, UMD, VCD, Laserdisc etc all lack this category. It's far too early to judge the next-gen media market.--PCPP (talk) 10:23, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

The format failed, ergo it is a commercial failure. UMD, on the other hand, is still be produced and supported. Laserdisc didn't fail, it was simply displaced by DVD (as was VHS). MiniDisc didn't fail, it was (and I believe still is) popular in Japan for example. HD DVD never reached a point where it was successful (had a majority of marketshare for an extended period) and was just recently discontinued by Toshiba. Many of our sources indicate the format failed. At least that's my interpretation of how the category should be applied. —Locke Cole • t • c 10:38, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
I agree with Locke Cole. To add, VCD did not fail. It still DOES exist in countries such as Indonesia (where I came from) or any other Asian countries as an alternative to DVD (DVD is thrice more expensive than VCD).--w_tanoto (talk) 11:55, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
Agreed. --Ciao 90 (talk) 13:59, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

The only reason UMD is still being used is the PSP, for games, the only studio that supports it for movies is Sony, and even their going to slow things down. How would you classify HD DVD as a faliure? The players sold well, the discs sold alright, but not horribly like UMD movies did. --Elven6 (talk) 19:27, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

As fascinating as it is to discuss this, I'm going to wait until you provide a reason why we should ignore our reliable sources which are calling HD DVD "dead" (amongst other creative terms) before I support removing Category:Commercial failures from this article. —Locke Cole • t • c 19:42, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

So because a company pull support for a product it makes it a failure? What about the Playstation, VHS tape, etc --Elven6 (talk) 20:49, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Stop it with the straw man arguments. Who said a company pulling support was the only criteria for determining a product was a failure? —Locke Cole • t • c 00:21, 24 February 2008 (UTC)


Keep in mind Wikipedia:Categorization#Guidelines number 7:

Categories appear without annotations, so be careful of NPOV when creating or filling categories. Categories that are not self-evident, or are shown through reliable sources to be controversial, should not be included on the article; a list might be a better option.

Also, notice that the Commercial failure category was nominated for deletion because, as the nominator put it, "Inherently POV; there can never be a neutral, verifiable definition of a flop." (no consensus emerged from the deletion debate, so the category was kept).

Sure, some reliable sources might say that HD DVD is "dead". It's certainly been (or will be shortly) discontinued. But was it a commercial failure? What is a commercial failure? The category says "This category contains flops, that is, commercial failures." Was HD DVD a flop? What counts as a "flop"?

Just the very fact that we're having this discussion indicates that adding HD DVD to the commercial failure category is not self-evident. Thus I support removing that category from the article. — Ksero (talk | contribs) 10:49, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

You're saying we shouldn't place it in that category because the category was nominated for deletion and adding it brought rise to debate? Debate that was largely based on false assumptions (see the very first message in this section). Show me some reliable sources that indicate HD DVD was not a commercial failure (because the vast majority of our sources indicate the exact opposite) and I'll reconsider my position. —Locke Cole • t • c 20:24, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
No, I'm saying that I think the criteria for inclusion in that category are fuzzy. As evidenced by the category deletion debate as well as this debate, I am not alone in thinking that way. Wikipedia:Categorization#Guidelines number 7 says that we should be cautious that we don't apply categories where we shouldn't. I think the burden of evidence is upon you. What sources do you think justify including HD DVD in the commercial failures category? — Ksero (talk | contribs) 22:13, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
Have you read the article? Our sources say the format wasn't selling as well as its competitor, our sources say the software sales were only about 1/3 of the total sales in that category. Many of these sources indicate the format has failed. —Locke Cole • t • c 22:53, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
HD DVD has still sold truckloads of player hardware and movies. Toshiba and the others on the HD DVD team might've gained something out of the whole deal. Yes, it sold less than Blu-ray. Yes, it is discontinued. But you take those little facts, add them together and say "HD DVD was a commercial failure". That's original research. That is, unless you have any sources that justify including HD DVD in the commercial failures category. — Ksero (talk | contribs) 23:08, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
We're going in circles, and you're not convincing me this article is miscategorized. As I indicated already, our sources already discussed the failing sales (failing in a commercial environment), and our sources discuss the quickly eroding commercial support of the format. It can't get any clearer than that. —Locke Cole • t • c 23:12, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
And you're not convincing me that it's properly categorized, and I believe the burden of evidence is on your side. Laserdisc and VHS sales in the U.S. probably fell as the sales of the competing DVD format increased. And the commercial support of those formats probably waned as DVD's fortune waxed. Yet you think that "Laserdisc didn't fail, it was simply displaced by DVD (as was VHS)", and therefore you don't think that Laserdisc and VHS are commercial failures. That seems quite arbitrary to me.
Here are two headlines that bear witness to what HD DVD achieved: HD DVD Back On Top In Europe, HD DVD sales spike in wake of price cuts ("one Toshiba player has made it to the top of the Amazon DVD player sales chart and that HD DVD players now constitute 60 percent of all standalone high-definition players sold").
If you don't have any sources for including that category, then it's not verifiable and/or original research and should be removed. — Ksero (talk | contribs) 23:37, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
There is no consensus for its removal. —Locke Cole • t • c 00:12, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
Don't get it turned around, it takes consensus for inclusion not the other way around. --Ray andrew (talk) 01:53, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Bring back th title list

Since the format war is over, can we bring back the list of HD-DVD titles? Kamuixtv (talk) 12:16, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

No let's not, list tend to make articles messy and to list all 100+ titles would be completely unreasonable.-Deathawk (talk) 02:09, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

The verb tense of the whole article

Since HD DVD has been discontinued, shouldn't we change the verb tense of the article to the past tense to reflect this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Walksonwalls (talk • contribs) 21:25, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Wait, that might make it sound non-NPOV (I think), well, it's still an idea.

P.S. Thanks SineBot! Walksonwalls (talk) 21:29, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Regardless of the current state of the format war, HD DVD is still a standard so the tense should stay present. You don't see 8-track tapes in production anymore, but the article still lists in present tense. Also, even if this wasn't the case, since the products are still out there the tense should still be present. Otherwise you are predicting the future instead of recording the present. --StuffOfInterest (talk) 21:33, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
After thinking about it, you're right, the verb tense should still be in the present form. Walksonwalls (talk) 23:48, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
Sure it should be present tense. However, the article should clearly reflect this is a discontinued format, in that development and marketing of the format ends here. There'll be a firesale of existing HD DVD players, though dual-format players (HD DVD + Blu Ray) will probably be around for a while to cater for those who have a collection of HD DVD disks, to allow them to slowly migrate to Blu Ray.Lester 21:12, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
A lot of what you just said, Lester, sounds like original research. JayKeaton (talk) 07:56, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
Huh? There are endless articles about the fire sale of HD DVD players, both retail and on eBay. The LG hi-def disk player supports both HD DVD and Blu Ray, and they will still sell it. However, the HD DVD format is obsolete, as the many references say. The positive article doesn't reflect the outside media. I'm staggered by the number of people here who still think there's some kind of future for the HD DVD format.Lester 09:33, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
Only end-of-marketing and end-of-production, neither end-of-service nor out of existence. Andries (talk) 10:24, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

What is going to happen to HD DVD-R, HD DVD-RW and HD DVD-RAM discs and drives?

What is going to happen to HD DVD-R, HD DVD-RW and HD DVD-RAM discs and drives? Can I still buy them in the year 2009?

They do not make movies to HD DVDs anymore. Will they still use HD DVDs as data discs? This is a serious question.

I would like to store my data to HD DVD-R(W)s or HD DVD-RAMs.

Please, if you do know about the future of (re)writable HD DVD, add info to the main article. Urvabara (talk) 13:16, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Toshiba has said that it will stockpile some blank HD DVD-R media to help out customers who bought HD-DVD data drives. A stockpile of disks is a short term solution. Long-term, the format is dead, and I would advise transferring your data to other formats, as the stockpile of disks will inevitably run out. Also, the main article isn't always reliable, as I don't believe it lets the reader know the bleak future that HD-DVD (and its data equivalent formats) has.Lester 22:49, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
I do not have a HD DVD drive (yet), but because I am an optical media geek, I would like to buy one. Is "HD DVD comeback" ever possible to happen? HD DVD would be a neat data disc format. Urvabara (talk) 17:50, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
you'll find it difficult to find drive capable of writing HD DVD-R. I have HD DVD drive (originally installed internally in my laptop, but I took it out in favour of Blu-ray writer - which I got off ebay as a preparation of the new laptop - as soon as I get my hand on the laptop), and it can't write HD DVD. The majority of HD DVD drive, I think is ROM-only, while Blu-ray, there are more writer models. HD DVD-R drive are just recently available widely on laptops. I never heard of desktop version.--w_tanoto (talk) 15:07, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Can we merge HD DVD-R into this article? Andries (talk) 01:21, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

I propose to merge it between HD DVD-R, HD DVD-RW, and HD DVD-RAM as HD DVD Recordable (same as Blu-ray) instead of merging it with this article.--w_tanoto (talk) 23:07, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
I support this merge to HD DVD Recordable, but eventually all may better be merged to HD DVD. Unlike blu ray we cannot expect new developments in this area. Andries (talk) 22:15, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
  1. ^ http://www.highdefdigest.com/news/show/Release_Date_Changes/Warner/Warner_Outlines_HD_DVD_Separation_Plan_Delays_Invasion,_Jesse_James_HD_DVDs/1364
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:HD_DVD/Archive_3&oldid=1136781836"