Tech Insider					     Technology and Trends


			      USENET Archives

From: r...@mdbinfonet.com (Richard Stockton)
Subject: DIVX: Are We Over-Reacting?
Date: 1997/09/29
Message-ID: <342f7f99.12519325@news.nkn.net>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 276425045
Organization: MDB Information Network
Reply-To: r...@mdbinfonet.com
Newsgroups: alt.video.dvd


I think that what I have seen so far from the DIVX camp is a desire
for the studios to bypass the Blockbusters of this world and be able
to "rent" their movies directly. One article I read showed that
Universal was still excited about fully supporting the standard DVD
format for sell-through titles.

DIVX is only a factor in brand-new, first-run releases and I imagine
only during the period where these titles would be sold at $119.00 to
video stores.

When they reach their "sell-through" stage (usually 3-6 months later)
they will utilize the standard format.

These studios aren't completely stupid. They make a lot of money off
of sell-through video. I still think GREED is their motivating factor
but I doubt DIVX will harm or even dent the standard DVD format.

Besides, anything that gets the studios behind the DVD format will
eventually benefit all of us. If Paramount and FOX stand firm on
DIVX-only releases they will lose money left and right and then will
look at companies like Warner and SONY who by this time next year will
be rolling in DVD money and they will switch over aggressively. The
question is only one of waiting...something that we would be doing
either way with Paramount and FOX.

The crying shame about DIVX is that all first and most second
generation players will not support the format. Also, I imagine that
Disney will certainly use DIVX to protect their "precious" Animated
Classics titles. 

That won't last though, think of the impact on Disney's video
distribution when the only way to watch Sleeping Beauty is to go
through the DIVX scenario of ordering a password over the telephone or
on the web. Most people can't change the time on their VCR, trust
me...Disney, Universal and FOX will cave because the market will force
them too.


Richard Stockton
r...@mdbinfonet.com

From: "Gregory Murphy" <gregory...@qm.yale.edu>
Subject: Re: DIVX: Are We Over-Reacting?
Date: 1997/09/29
Message-ID: <01bcccf6$98ae1d60$289a8482@dosullivan>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 276529918
References: <342f7f99.12519325@news.nkn.net>
Organization: Yale University Health Services (YHP)
Newsgroups: alt.video.dvd


We are not over reacting because 200,000 have bought standard DVD players. 
If DIVX should succeed then 200,000 people are SOL.  Money wasted.  In
addition,  I want to go to the store, buy a movie, and go home and watch
it.  That's it.  No phones, on central computer.  Movies purchases are a
contract between the movie studio and me.

Richard Stockton <r...@mdbinfonet.com> wrote in article
<342f7f99...@news.nkn.net>...
> I think that what I have seen so far from the DIVX camp is a desire
> for the studios to bypass the Blockbusters of this world and be able
> to "rent" their movies directly. One article I read showed that
> Universal was still excited about fully supporting the standard DVD
> format for sell-through titles.
> 
> DIVX is only a factor in brand-new, first-run releases and I imagine
> only during the period where these titles would be sold at $119.00 to
> video stores.
> 
> When they reach their "sell-through" stage (usually 3-6 months later)
> they will utilize the standard format.
> 
> These studios aren't completely stupid. They make a lot of money off
> of sell-through video. I still think GREED is their motivating factor
> but I doubt DIVX will harm or even dent the standard DVD format.
> 
> Besides, anything that gets the studios behind the DVD format will
> eventually benefit all of us. If Paramount and FOX stand firm on
> DIVX-only releases they will lose money left and right and then will
> look at companies like Warner and SONY who by this time next year will
> be rolling in DVD money and they will switch over aggressively. The
> question is only one of waiting...something that we would be doing
> either way with Paramount and FOX.
> 
> The crying shame about DIVX is that all first and most second
> generation players will not support the format. Also, I imagine that
> Disney will certainly use DIVX to protect their "precious" Animated
> Classics titles. 
> 
> That won't last though, think of the impact on Disney's video
> distribution when the only way to watch Sleeping Beauty is to go
> through the DIVX scenario of ordering a password over the telephone or
> on the web. Most people can't change the time on their VCR, trust
> me...Disney, Universal and FOX will cave because the market will force
> them too.
> 
> 
> Richard Stockton
> r...@mdbinfonet.com
> 

From: Andrew Veliath <vel...@frontiernet.net>
Subject: [Re: DIVX: Are We Over-Reacting?] Not for portable DVD or DIVX-Only movies...
Date: 1997/09/29
Message-ID: <m37mbz7m4l.fsf_-_@thinkpad.velsoft.com>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 276544341
Sender: vel...@thinkpad.velsoft.com
References: <342f7f99.12519325@news.nkn.net> <01bcccf6$98ae1d60$289a8482@dosullivan>
X-Complaints-To: ab...@frontiernet.net
Organization: Self
Newsgroups: alt.video.dvd


One reason I don't want DIVX (and I do NOT want it, for many
completely objective reasons -- I am aware of its benefits but it
doesn't benefit me) is because of portability.  I eventually want to
buy a laptop which can play DVDs, or probably closer in the future
something like the new Toshiba portable DVD player so that I can
travel with it and say watch a movie in my car or on my laptop
anywhere.

DIVX would add a lot of complexity to this which is unnecessary and
might actually make things difficult or impossible, even for the
"gold" versions, which is why I'm going to avoid it.

I cannot be convinced that DIVX is a simpler system -- it's clearly
not due to the added hardware and usage complexity which increases
consumer costs (i.e. money-wise and hassle-wise).

Standard DVD, and I emphasize "standard," is plain and simple -- which
is what I'm after (the KISS principle bodes well...).

>>>>> Gregory Murphy writes:

    Gregory> We are not over reacting because 200,000 have bought
    Gregory> standard DVD players.  If DIVX should succeed then
    Gregory> 200,000 people are SOL.  Money wasted.  In addition, I
    Gregory> want to go to the store, buy a movie, and go home and
    Gregory> watch it.  That's it.  No phones, on central computer.
    Gregory> Movies purchases are a contract between the movie studio
    Gregory> and me.

    Gregory> Richard Stockton <r...@mdbinfonet.com> wrote in article
    Gregory> <342f7f99...@news.nkn.net>...
    >> I think that what I have seen so far from the DIVX camp is a
    >> desire for the studios to bypass the Blockbusters of this world
    >> and be able to "rent" their movies directly. One article I read
    >> showed that Universal was still excited about fully supporting
    >> the standard DVD format for sell-through titles.
    >> 
    >> DIVX is only a factor in brand-new, first-run releases and I
    >> imagine only during the period where these titles would be sold
    >> at $119.00 to video stores.
    >> 
    >> When they reach their "sell-through" stage (usually 3-6 months
    >> later) they will utilize the standard format.

--
Regards,
Andrew Veliath
vel...@frontiernet.net, vel...@rpi.edu

			        About USENET

USENET (Users’ Network) was a bulletin board shared among many computer
systems around the world. USENET was a logical network, sitting on top
of several physical networks, among them UUCP, BLICN, BERKNET, X.25, and
the ARPANET. Sites on USENET included many universities, private companies
and research organizations. See USENET Archives.

		       SCO Files Lawsuit Against IBM

March 7, 2003 - The SCO Group filed legal action against IBM in the State 
Court of Utah for trade secrets misappropriation, tortious interference, 
unfair competition and breach of contract. The complaint alleges that IBM 
made concentrated efforts to improperly destroy the economic value of 
UNIX, particularly UNIX on Intel, to benefit IBM's Linux services 
business. See SCO vs IBM.

The materials and information included in this website may only be used
for purposes such as criticism, review, private study, scholarship, or
research.

Electronic mail:			       WorldWideWeb:
   tech-insider@outlook.com			  http://tech-insider.org/