filmguy123
Veteran
Barry,
First, we are on somewhat of a tangent. If you want to discuss what warrants calling something a format war or not, that's fine, but it was never the point: my point was comparing Blu-Ray adoption to DVD adoption is apples & oranges, both because of the vast differences regarding the format war and thus the true start date of the format (1) and the market conditions (2). In your breakdown of things, there was a skewed representation of that, one which I believe didn't take into account the actual history and market condition of DVD compared to BluRay.
More on that in a second, but first... regarding DIVX... spin it anyway you want, but here are the facts (and yes, I *was* around, and yes, I *did* do my research)...
DIVX was a 9 month fling (September 25 '98 - June 16, '99 [it was announced fall 97 and did test markets in summer 98, but did not launch until sep '98]) that launched 1.5 years after the first DVD players shipped... and after DVD had already been taking a STRONG hold in the market (very, very different from BluRay/HD-DVD already)... DiVX did NOT launch simultaneously.
It was NOT an alternate format, it was a VARIATION, or SPIN-OFF, or sub-format of DVD. Even the Hollywood Reporter article you reference clearly states this.
It is important to distinguish this is nothing like the total technological difference that HD-DVD and Blu-Ray was/is (different disc manufacturing processes, different tech companies backing it, different lasers, different hardware companies supporting it).
The issue here is not a competing format, it is the additional layers of DRM and having to phone home to playback a DVD disc. Some people may want to refer to this as a different format, and in nerd terms (which we all are if we're actually reading and caring about this discussion), I believe they are wrong. Technically, this should be dubbed a "DRM war." But that doesn't matter, because it's not the point. Moving on now.
To sum it up, DIVX was DVD with extra DRM. That's it. DIVX freely admits this, in their marketing they called DVDs without their added DRM "Basic-DVD" and called their "DIVX-enhanced DVD." The community responded vehemently against the employment of DVD - consumers NEVER bought on. They called normal DVDs "Open-DVD." Jim Brennan said he witnessed fist fights of consumers over DVD and DiVX.
You know, I'm sure this was true... it was the community reaction AGAINST DIVX! The vast majority of consumers were fighting passionately against DiVX and anyone who supported it. If it was a format war, it was Consumers VS Studios, not hardware company VS hardware company or studio VS studio. While DiVX-enabled DVDs held 10% market share by June '99 when they canned the format (for many reasons), that also means open-DVD still had 90% (I am careful to say "open-DVD" because DiVX was still DVD, just a DRM "closed" version).
The HD-DVD/Blu-Ray format was lasted nearly TWO YEARS (twice as long as DIVX lasted), and was a "true" format war in that you had two totally different technologies, launched simultaneously, with different manufactures producing discs, and MOST IMPORTANTLY - it was a consumer format war, with some consumers backing HD-DVD and buying in, and others buying into Blu-Ray. The market share was back and forth, neck to neck.
This is very, very different from DIVX, which failed miserably and even appeared on PC World's list of "25 Worst Tech Products of All Time." It NEVER caught on or had a fighting chance; 9 short months after launch it was discontinued. Whether you want to call it a format war or a DRM war, it was a pitiful one and was short lived.
Next, onto the studios.
And this is important and key to your point, which while technically true, is a misconstruing of the reality of what happen.
Paramount backed out of it's DIVX-exclusive announcement before the format even launched! It backed out BEFORE the first DIVX player even shipped to a *TEST* audience!
That left two studios - Fox and Dreamworks, as the only two studios supporting DIVX and *not* DVD (the other studios all backed DVD, and not at all surprisingly, also backed the DIVX-enhanced version of DVD (after all, what studio doesn't like more DRM?). This is because they recognized supporting DIVX-only was a terrible business move as consumers hated it and would not support it... but they supported both in hope that some consumers would opt for DIVX, because in the studios eyes, like every other single media business out there, more DRM = better.
Anyway, moving on a few months. Both FOX and Dreamworks ditched DIVX before it even officially launched! FOX ditched it in the summer, and Dreamworks bailed the day before DiVX launched nationally in September '98.
NO STUDIOS EXCLUSIVELY SUPPORTED DIVX WHEN IT LAUNCHED.
So let's get the facts straight: DiVX had *no* exclusive support from any studio by the time it launches nationally to the public.
That only two studios went exclusively for DVD were Warner and Sony is pretty much meaningless, since all the other studios also supported DVD, just also supported DIVX (for a whopping 9 months)... as if DiVX were some totally different disc type backed by a different manufacturer etc. A more accurate statement would be to say "ONLY two studios shocked the world and said 'to hell with added DRM on DVD discs!'".
In your argument, you misstated a gross number of facts:
- You said within 6 months of launch, DiVX held 10% of DVD market share. Actually, it was within 9 months.
- You said DIVX came out within 6 months of DVD being launched. Actually, it nationally launched about 1.5 years AFTER DVD, when DVD already had a large market share (this is nothing like the Blu-Ray/HD-DVD launch)
- You played DiVX off to be a different format, when everyone, including DiVX, unaniomously agrees it was a spin-of variant of DVD, basically a DRM-infused pay per view model.
- You said "two formats fighting for the consumers heart and wallet" - but you fail to mention the vast majority of consumers HATED DIVX.
- You said they fought it out for over a year, they fought it for around 9 months.
- You said "DVD did not have studio support," when in reality ALL studios supported DVD before DiVX even launched to the public, and many of those studios supported DVD long before DIVX even launched, and failed to point out that NO studio exclusively supported DIVX at the time of launch.
ALL THAT to say, my point isn't that your claim DIVX was a competing format of sorts is "bogus", my point is to say that comparing DIVX/DVD format "war" to Blu Ray/HD-DVD is bogus. It's apples and oranges and on a totally different scale. I honestly don't see how this is somehow insulting or unnecessary, as telling me to "have fun with my memories of DIVX" is a much more cutting and personal remark than any I made. I remember the situation quite well, in fact, and let's make sure we're discussing the same thing here. I don't care if you want to define DIVX/DVD as a format war - I personally wouldn't, but whatever...
I *DO* care about the DIVX/DVD scenerio as being somehow equivalent to the BluRay/HD-DVD situation - because it is not, AT ALL - not by a long shot.
My point(s) stand and are left unshaken: Your comparison of DVD adoption rates VS BluRay adoption rates doesn't take into account the delayed start of BluRay (due to the BluRay/HD-DVD format war) or the current economy. Blu-Ray can be considered to have TRULY "started" as a viable format in 2008, and by that measure, they have 8% market share 1.5 years into the "true" launch of the format. To compare the adoption of BluRay today to the adoption of DVD 4 years into DVD (in a good economy, at that) *is* a bogus comparison.
Don't worry Barry, I don't think your bogus. I think you're awesome. I just think it is an unfair comparison and that those figures don't adequately take into account the different contexts.
First, we are on somewhat of a tangent. If you want to discuss what warrants calling something a format war or not, that's fine, but it was never the point: my point was comparing Blu-Ray adoption to DVD adoption is apples & oranges, both because of the vast differences regarding the format war and thus the true start date of the format (1) and the market conditions (2). In your breakdown of things, there was a skewed representation of that, one which I believe didn't take into account the actual history and market condition of DVD compared to BluRay.
More on that in a second, but first... regarding DIVX... spin it anyway you want, but here are the facts (and yes, I *was* around, and yes, I *did* do my research)...
DIVX was a 9 month fling (September 25 '98 - June 16, '99 [it was announced fall 97 and did test markets in summer 98, but did not launch until sep '98]) that launched 1.5 years after the first DVD players shipped... and after DVD had already been taking a STRONG hold in the market (very, very different from BluRay/HD-DVD already)... DiVX did NOT launch simultaneously.
It was NOT an alternate format, it was a VARIATION, or SPIN-OFF, or sub-format of DVD. Even the Hollywood Reporter article you reference clearly states this.
It is important to distinguish this is nothing like the total technological difference that HD-DVD and Blu-Ray was/is (different disc manufacturing processes, different tech companies backing it, different lasers, different hardware companies supporting it).
The issue here is not a competing format, it is the additional layers of DRM and having to phone home to playback a DVD disc. Some people may want to refer to this as a different format, and in nerd terms (which we all are if we're actually reading and caring about this discussion), I believe they are wrong. Technically, this should be dubbed a "DRM war." But that doesn't matter, because it's not the point. Moving on now.
To sum it up, DIVX was DVD with extra DRM. That's it. DIVX freely admits this, in their marketing they called DVDs without their added DRM "Basic-DVD" and called their "DIVX-enhanced DVD." The community responded vehemently against the employment of DVD - consumers NEVER bought on. They called normal DVDs "Open-DVD." Jim Brennan said he witnessed fist fights of consumers over DVD and DiVX.
You know, I'm sure this was true... it was the community reaction AGAINST DIVX! The vast majority of consumers were fighting passionately against DiVX and anyone who supported it. If it was a format war, it was Consumers VS Studios, not hardware company VS hardware company or studio VS studio. While DiVX-enabled DVDs held 10% market share by June '99 when they canned the format (for many reasons), that also means open-DVD still had 90% (I am careful to say "open-DVD" because DiVX was still DVD, just a DRM "closed" version).
The HD-DVD/Blu-Ray format was lasted nearly TWO YEARS (twice as long as DIVX lasted), and was a "true" format war in that you had two totally different technologies, launched simultaneously, with different manufactures producing discs, and MOST IMPORTANTLY - it was a consumer format war, with some consumers backing HD-DVD and buying in, and others buying into Blu-Ray. The market share was back and forth, neck to neck.
This is very, very different from DIVX, which failed miserably and even appeared on PC World's list of "25 Worst Tech Products of All Time." It NEVER caught on or had a fighting chance; 9 short months after launch it was discontinued. Whether you want to call it a format war or a DRM war, it was a pitiful one and was short lived.
Next, onto the studios.
And this is important and key to your point, which while technically true, is a misconstruing of the reality of what happen.
Paramount backed out of it's DIVX-exclusive announcement before the format even launched! It backed out BEFORE the first DIVX player even shipped to a *TEST* audience!
That left two studios - Fox and Dreamworks, as the only two studios supporting DIVX and *not* DVD (the other studios all backed DVD, and not at all surprisingly, also backed the DIVX-enhanced version of DVD (after all, what studio doesn't like more DRM?). This is because they recognized supporting DIVX-only was a terrible business move as consumers hated it and would not support it... but they supported both in hope that some consumers would opt for DIVX, because in the studios eyes, like every other single media business out there, more DRM = better.
Anyway, moving on a few months. Both FOX and Dreamworks ditched DIVX before it even officially launched! FOX ditched it in the summer, and Dreamworks bailed the day before DiVX launched nationally in September '98.
NO STUDIOS EXCLUSIVELY SUPPORTED DIVX WHEN IT LAUNCHED.
So let's get the facts straight: DiVX had *no* exclusive support from any studio by the time it launches nationally to the public.
That only two studios went exclusively for DVD were Warner and Sony is pretty much meaningless, since all the other studios also supported DVD, just also supported DIVX (for a whopping 9 months)... as if DiVX were some totally different disc type backed by a different manufacturer etc. A more accurate statement would be to say "ONLY two studios shocked the world and said 'to hell with added DRM on DVD discs!'".
In your argument, you misstated a gross number of facts:
- You said within 6 months of launch, DiVX held 10% of DVD market share. Actually, it was within 9 months.
- You said DIVX came out within 6 months of DVD being launched. Actually, it nationally launched about 1.5 years AFTER DVD, when DVD already had a large market share (this is nothing like the Blu-Ray/HD-DVD launch)
- You played DiVX off to be a different format, when everyone, including DiVX, unaniomously agrees it was a spin-of variant of DVD, basically a DRM-infused pay per view model.
- You said "two formats fighting for the consumers heart and wallet" - but you fail to mention the vast majority of consumers HATED DIVX.
- You said they fought it out for over a year, they fought it for around 9 months.
- You said "DVD did not have studio support," when in reality ALL studios supported DVD before DiVX even launched to the public, and many of those studios supported DVD long before DIVX even launched, and failed to point out that NO studio exclusively supported DIVX at the time of launch.
ALL THAT to say, my point isn't that your claim DIVX was a competing format of sorts is "bogus", my point is to say that comparing DIVX/DVD format "war" to Blu Ray/HD-DVD is bogus. It's apples and oranges and on a totally different scale. I honestly don't see how this is somehow insulting or unnecessary, as telling me to "have fun with my memories of DIVX" is a much more cutting and personal remark than any I made. I remember the situation quite well, in fact, and let's make sure we're discussing the same thing here. I don't care if you want to define DIVX/DVD as a format war - I personally wouldn't, but whatever...
I *DO* care about the DIVX/DVD scenerio as being somehow equivalent to the BluRay/HD-DVD situation - because it is not, AT ALL - not by a long shot.
My point(s) stand and are left unshaken: Your comparison of DVD adoption rates VS BluRay adoption rates doesn't take into account the delayed start of BluRay (due to the BluRay/HD-DVD format war) or the current economy. Blu-Ray can be considered to have TRULY "started" as a viable format in 2008, and by that measure, they have 8% market share 1.5 years into the "true" launch of the format. To compare the adoption of BluRay today to the adoption of DVD 4 years into DVD (in a good economy, at that) *is* a bogus comparison.
Don't worry Barry, I don't think your bogus. I think you're awesome. I just think it is an unfair comparison and that those figures don't adequately take into account the different contexts.
Last edited:
