Standalone vs. PC-enabled mediaplayer

[yetanotherid]

The only issue is that I can't be 100% sure about the fps my display has....

Am I incorrect in thinking that's kind of ironic, given all your previous anti-PC arguments based on display FPS?

[yetanotherid]

Sound the alarms. Rant imminent.

|
|
|
|
\/

[Ghitulescu]

Am I incorrect in thinking that's kind of ironic, given all your previous anti-PC arguments based on display FPS?


Pioneer does not provide technical insights on their TVs.

On the other hand, the image is much better than that of any LG/Samsung (that are filled up with such gimmicks), and in the end this is what actually counts, right?

The same might apply to eg Sony, which manufactures exclusively LCDs, they claim that they managed to obtain 24p on their LCDs too (regular LCDs accept 24p but upsample it to 60 or more, to be able to display it). It might be written 24p but it might be 60 or 72 or 71.93 or whatever.

Don't cheer, the PC display still has to harmonise itself with the graphic card, especially for x/1001 fps, which is not granted.

[azmoth]

Pioneer are poor with technical info. Philips are the best.

[yetanotherid]

Shall we get back on topic dear friend yetanotherid!

http://forum.doom9.org/showpost.php?p=1452238&postcount=102

[Ghitulescu]

Pioneer are poor with technical info. Philips are the best.

Philips have problems (so Samsung) on the HDMI part. Most owners of Philips (I wouldn't dare to say "all") have problems connecting various players, without the latest updates. Samsung too.

[yetanotherid]

Pioneer does not provide technical insights on their TVs.

On the other hand, the image is much better than that of any LG/Samsung (that are filled up with such gimmicks), and in the end this is what actually counts, right?

Seriously. Warn me about posts like that. Coffee came out of my nose and I nearly fell off my chair.

Don't cheer, the PC display still has to harmonise itself with the graphic card, especially for x/1001 fps, which is not granted.

Ooops... Sorry.... too late. :)

[Nexin]

Why on Earth do discs need java and why do the players need internet connections? I haven't seen anything about this, do BDs still have prohibited user operations (unskippable trailers legal threats, etc) like DVDs? Simply: play me my film and get on with it.
BD discs need internet connections - What if the owner hasn't got one or doesn't want it connect to the internet. Does this mean they have just bought shiny new brick not able to be used as a bd player ?

I'm sure they should play bd discs without an internet connection, or they wouldn't sell many. Or is it as bad as sky saying, you need a telephone connection to use their sky box !

If the players really don't work without a live internet connection, count me out of ever getting a bd home player. A pc bd drive with bd disc possible it never phones home or not ?

[Ghitulescu]

BD discs need internet connections

No, the don't need one (with the current BD specs).
However, if one wants or needs to access BD live content, then an internet connection is mandatory.

[yetanotherid]

No, the don't need one (with the current BD specs).
However, if one wants or needs to access BD live content, then an internet connection is mandatory.

Standalone units with networking, hard drives, USB, internet connections, JAVA.... if you could run third party software it'd be a PC. ;)

[Ghitulescu]

Such devices need to have a general purpose HW inside, as their jobs become more and more diverse. This is why I said in the beginning of the thread that many standalones resemble more and more to a PC.
People are more and more unwilling to have more than one standalone and "demand" all-in-one products. In the end it will be a pure labelling procedure, whether a standalone is:
a SAT receiver with Blu-ray player, youtube access and USB-media player
a Blu-ray player with youtube access, LAN/WLAN (DLNA) and SAT tuner
a LAN-Mediaplayer (Mediatank) with Blu-ray drive and SAT-tuner
an Internet-player with Blu-ray drive, USB-media and SAT-tuner

In the end the "less intelligent user" would pay many times the licences for USB (as the TV and the AVR and any other gear would also incorporate USB), for Dolby (idem), for LAN/WLAN (ibidem), etc. etc. etc. The single device would suffer from the Microsoft-syndrome (for the very same cause: it would because eventually so complicated that it would be a PITA to configure it properly, and it would be full of errors, and these errors would not be fixed after 1 year, as the product would be obsolete by then etc.). And of course it might very well be impossible to watch a Blu-ray when a SAT programme has to be recorded or vice-versa. Last but not least, what would it happen if the AIO-standalone gets defective? From 1 hour to several months nothing can be watched in that house.

;)

[yetanotherid]

People are more and more unwilling to have more than one standalone and "demand" all-in-one products.

Evidence?
I'm not so sure about that. I'd not be keen to spend thousands on an all-in-one blu-ray player, blu-ray/hard drive recorder, SAT tuner, LAN/internet player, pay TV decoder, amplifier, TV, coffee maker.... if as soon as the optical drive stopped working I had to replace the whole thing. Sometimes I think it's better to buy smaller eggs, even if they cost a little more in total, and keep them in separate baskets. ;)
Plus, if I already own a SAT tuner, PVR and coffee machine etc, I'm not going to want to pay for those features again in a blu-ray player. Or I may simply not need a SAT receiver etc.
Buying something I already have or don't need would cost much more than the duplicated cost of any hardware licenses and it'd be really annoying to have to carry an all-in-one standalone so I could listen to MP3s while jogging.

In the end the "less intelligent user" would pay many times the licences for USB (as the TV and the AVR and any other gear would also incorporate USB), for Dolby (idem), for LAN/WLAN (ibidem), etc. etc. etc.

How much would that add up to do you think? $5?

The single device would suffer from the Microsoft-syndrome (for the very same cause: it would because eventually so complicated that it would be a PITA to configure it properly, and it would be full of errors, and these errors would not be fixed after 1 year, as the product would be obsolete by then etc.).

Crystal ball or second sight?
While I'm not saying they'd always be perfect I think "Microsoft Syndrome" is a whole other story. Aside from their OS's being pretty average, Microsoft's OS's have to work on an almost infinite variety of hardware, running an almost infinite combination of third party software and drivers etc. while being bogged down by security software and under attack from nasties.
The manufacturer of an all in one device would have complete control over the hardware, software and testing, and would be foolish not to fix problems via firmware updates pretty quickly. An all-in-one would probably be the computer equivalent of a Mac, not a PC.

Last but not least, what would it happen if the AIO-standalone gets defective? From 1 hour to several months nothing can be watched in that house.

You could probably just hook up the computer.... :)

[Ghitulescu]

Evidence?
Hundreds of fora, spec lists at eg Amazon or manufacturers page.
I'm not so sure about that. I'd not be keen to spend thousands on an all-in-one blu-ray player, blu-ray/hard drive recorder, SAT tuner, LAN/internet player, pay TV decoder, amplifier, TV, coffee maker.... if as soon as the optical drive stopped working I had to replace the whole thing. Sometimes I think it's better to buy smaller eggs, even if they cost a little more in total, and keep them in separate baskets. ;)
That's your problem, nowadays there's no DVD/BD player that cannot play Divx (that's another 3$ to Divx) or MP3 (another 1-2$ to Fraunhofer&co) and so on.
How much would that add up to do you think? $5?That's the cost of DD for 2 chn for a player in the range of 200-300$, extra chanels add extra money :)
You could probably just hook up the computer.... :)

Oops, that's a second device :)

[TinTime]

Still trying to learn....
So when you say native support are you referring to a change in refresh rate or something else?

Sorry - just realised I never replied to this. But yes, that's what I mean - a change in the refresh rate of the display.

I have to say that the whole thing with refresh rates (and the failure of PCs to deal with the problem in a reasonable way) has brought me round somewhat to Ghitulescu's point of view. In this area it's a definite 1-0 to SAPs.

[Nexin]

Total home media package pc included etc, has that been in design now for a few decades. Since now have touch screens, ssd and the likes its coming. Maybe they are waiting for on chip movies such using nand like devices. Or maybe its waiting for optical high speed internet.

It seems many want this now, having now media extenders from pc to the home tv. Many even have an older pc near the tv used for serving and storing media. Could say they already have the basic complete home media system. Are these the pioneers that companies will use as the model to build upon, into something bigger and more intergrated maybe.

Everything progresses - ok its not progress, since there were the horrible all in one units in the 80s. Now it would be with new technology incorporating everything into one complete home entainment package, i'm sure i have heard that times previously. Its all about revenue, how can the main media global corporates keep earning the $ and keeping the end users paying. I would expect these will be built upon linux os, as is cost free. Maybe also able to let user install ssd or (mechanical hdd) for the pc side. Problem been that i do not see how atm it can include all the hardware the desktop user like to have. Maybe the same reason why it is not in the shops as yet. Sometime a new device they hope will solve that, it would have to be user insertable like that of usb, though not usb.

[yetanotherid]

Hundreds of fora, spec lists at eg Amazon or manufacturers page.

That's what I figured. No evidence.

That's your problem, nowadays there's no DVD/BD player that cannot play Divx (that's another 3$ to Divx) or MP3 (another 1-2$ to Fraunhofer&co) and so on.

Where did I mention DivX?
Why do you always offer points to support you argument, then after I reply to them, offer points to support a completely different argument as though that's what was originally the topic of discussion?
I said I'd prefer to buy separate devices because it's easier and cheaper to replace individual components when they break down, even if they cost a bit more to buy in the first place, and you reply telling me every DVD/BD player can play DivX (not true) and that each device will cost an extra few dollars due to repeated license fees. What was your point?
Especially when I was referring to the type of device you predicted is the one "in demand", an all-in-one SAT/BD/PVR/LAN Media Player/Coffee Maker. It's hardly the same as a DivX capable DVD player is it?

That's the cost of DD for 2 chn for a player in the range of 200-300$, extra chanels add extra money

Are you saying DD (dolby digital??) 2ch players are cheaper than multi channel players? I assume you are, but why you're stating the obvious I'm not sure.
Surround sound sucks anyway. I've never understood the idea of having sound come at you from the sides simply to remind you the picture doesn't. It just seems to me like a gimmick to me that's sucked a lot of people in. I much prefer stereo.

Oops, that's a second device.

Yes... apparently. You do realising I was saying I prefer individual components in a standalone, rather than an all-in-one, don't you?

[Ghitulescu]

You mentioned that you don't want to spend money uselessly. So, when your player supports divx, your AVR has USB and can play them, your SAT receiver plays them and so on, you paid 4 times the licences. That was the point. Besides, it's off-topic.

Manufacturers pages and/or leaflets are no evidence only for those that cannot read and/or do not understand the technical words. For everyone else, reading on a manufactures' page that a DVD player (that is supposed to play DVDs) can also play MP3 and divx/xvid movies is already a strong hint that this player stepped towards an AIO product (no additional CD player, MP3 player and/or mediaplayer is required). Taking the case of the Panasonic DMR-EX80S, isn't it a complete solution (CD/DVD/divx/xvid/MP3 etc player, DVD-recorder, SAT receiver, SAT recorder)?

Next time try not to interpret my words differently than their meaning, I said
nowadays there's no DVD/BD player that cannot play Divxin other words, one goes these days (=nowadays) in shops and sees that all players can actually play divx/xvid/mp3.

Concerning the "self evident truth", it was a reply to your 5$ added value, which is valid for that category of device.

And concerning the preference of yours: I was strongly under the impression that you don't have any standalone, as your super PC is the perfect multimedia "tricorder" and you hate to spend money on duplicated things. I'm now really really confused: do you have a supercallifragilistic.... PC, or do you have the PC and standalones that duplicate its work (and your credit card balance :)), or do you have only strictly specialised standalones and no PC (as being redundant and costly)?

[yetanotherid]

You mentioned that you don't want to spend money uselessly. So, when your player supports divx, your AVR has USB and can play them, your SAT receiver plays them and so on, you paid 4 times the licences. That was the point. Besides, it's off-topic.

I'll repeat it again.
I'd prefer to spend a bit more money buying separate standalone units than buying an all-in-one device even if the total cost is a little greater. License costs are trivial when compared with the money wasted on an all-in-one device which duplicates a function of a device I may already own, and when the all-in-one develops a problem replacing the whole unit would be more expensive than replacing one of the separate standalone units. I don't know how to explain it more clearly.

Manufacturers pages and/or leaflets are no evidence only for those that cannot read and/or do not understand the technical words.

They are no evidence of the consumer demand for an all-in-one device as you claim. I can show you manufacturer leaflets for betamax video recorders if you like. Leaflets for WebTV, the Iomega Zip Drive, Intel i740 Graphics, Microsoft Passport, Rambus RDRAM, HD DVD players, Zune MP3 players, Next OS.... the list is endless. I could show you leaflets for Windows 98 but did you or anyone else on the planet demand a browser which was part of the operating system?
Just because there are leaflets for all-in-one scanner/fax/printers doesn't mean the standalone printer will cease to exist.

For everyone else, reading on a manufactures' page that a DVD player (that is supposed to play DVDs) can also play MP3 and divx/xvid movies is already a strong hint that this player stepped towards an AIO product (no additional CD player, MP3 player and/or mediaplayer is required).

It means nothing of the sort. Yes, DivX capable DVD players are fairly common, but it doesn't mean that eventually you won't be able to by a DVD player which isn't also a PVR, SAT tuner and coffee machine. There will probably always be a market for a basic DVD (or BD) player. Many homes have multiple standalone units. Why would people demand an all-in-one unit simply so the kids can play DVDs in their bedroom?

Next time try not to interpret my words differently than their meaning, I said
in other words, one goes these days (=nowadays) in shops and sees that all players can actually play divx/xvid/mp3.

I know what you said, I simply stated it's wrong.
Mind you it's probable all DVD players will eventually be able to play DivX as the demand for non DivX chips drops to a point where nobody manufactures them.

And concerning the preference of yours: I was strongly under the impression that you don't have any standalone, as your super PC is the perfect multimedia "tricorder" and you hate to spend money on duplicated things.

I only own two of the standalone units in the house and they're both in storage under my bed (a DivX capable DVD player and a VCR) as neither of them play HD video, but there's four DivX capable DVD players scattered throughout, one standard DVD player and a couple of game consoles such as Xbox and PS2 which play various media. Myself, I rarely use anything other than my PC.

I'm now really really confused: do you have a supercallifragilistic.... PC, or do you have the PC and standalones that duplicate its work (and your credit card balance :)), or do you have only strictly specialised standalones and no PC (as being redundant and costly)?

I think you're confused by the difference between using devices, having a preference for a type of device, and having an opinion on the demand you claim exists for standalone, all-in-one devices.
If you can separate the issues in your head, I was discussing the topic of demand which you raised in an earlier post.

[Ghitulescu]

License costs are trivial when compared with the money wasted on an all-in-one device which duplicates a function of a device I may already own, and when the all-in-one develops a problem replacing the whole unit would be more expensive than replacing one of the separate standalone units. I don't know how to explain it more clearly.
You don't need to explain this to me, considering that I was the first to mention it (scroll up and see).

Besides, the licensing costs are not so trivial, imagine that the license costs of a 20$ all-player DVD player amount up to 10-15$, the rest being shared among manufacturer, merchant, importer, state (import tax :)), wholeseller and seller. You'd probably be surprised to know how cheap may cost in China the production of a high end laptop one pays 2000$ in the US for.

They are no evidence of the consumer demand for an all-in-one device as you claim. I can show you manufacturer leaflets for betamax video recorders if you like. Leaflets for WebTV, the Iomega Zip Drive, Intel i740 Graphics, Microsoft Passport, Rambus RDRAM, HD DVD players, Zune MP3 players, Next OS.... the list is endless. I could show you leaflets for Windows 98 but did you or anyone else on the planet demand a browser which was part of the operating system?
Just because there are leaflets for all-in-one scanner/fax/printers doesn't mean the standalone printer will cease to exist.
If you refuse to see or to understand the evidence, and even more, to refute any evidence provided to you the very same way you provide to the others ;), then I don't think I'll have anything else to add.
I know what you said, I simply stated it's wrong.
Please indicate me a DVD player that cannot play divx (let's be kind and do not restrict to 2010, include 2009 as well). You'll need probably several hours or days to find one model, if there're one.
I think you're confused by the difference between using devices, having a preference for a type of device, and having an opinion on the demand you claim exists for standalone, all-in-one devices.
If you can separate the issues in your head, I was discussing the topic of demand which you raised in an earlier post.
I'm not confusing things, you say one thing today, another thing tomorrow.
And supposing that I'm confounding things in my mind, for the sake of argumentation, and you really:

have a superb PC that plays everything the human mind invented in terms of multimedia, better or at least at par with the standalones
also have a range of standalones that play certain media
yet no wish to spend money on duplicate functions

then, according to the logic I learned,
either options 1+3 do not match the second
or 1+2 do not match the third.
There is an overlap on 1 vs. 2+3 :)

Or, simply, it indicates your willingness to argue about everything with everyone. And you made it to change the OT into features, past and future of standalones. :)

[yetanotherid]

You don't need to explain this to me, considering that I was the first to mention it (scroll up and see).

I was restating my opinion and why I have it. Now it appears I've got to explain the reason for my explanation as well.

Besides, the licensing costs are not so trivial, imagine that the license costs of a 20$ all-player DVD player amount up to 10-15$, the rest being shared among manufacturer, merchant, importer, state (import tax :)), wholeseller and seller. You'd probably be surprised to know how cheap may cost in China the production of a high end laptop one pays 2000$ in the US for.

Well tell me the real cost of licensing instead of expecting me to imagine something you're making up. I wouldn't be at all surprised at how cheap electronics.... or other non-electrical products for that matter.... are produced in China. They have incredibly cheap labour.

If you refuse to see or to understand the evidence, and even more, to refute any evidence provided to you the very same way you provide to the others ;), then I don't think I'll have anything else to add.

If referring to some manufacturer's brochures as evidence of consumer demand is your definition of evidence, then no, you probably don't have everything else to add.
But lets pretend we live in a make-believe world where it could be considered evidence. You claimed it proves your "demand" theory and I refuted it by offering the exact same type of evidence in the form of products for which fancy leaflets were most definitely created, but which failed due to lack of demand.
As you can see, despite my not believing your argument really provides evidence, I looked at your claim logically and refute it logically. Unfortunately it appears you cannot do the same, instead denying your argument was understood and accusing me of refusing to refute it. It's a shame.

Please indicate me a DVD player that cannot play divx (let's be kind and do not restrict to 2010, include 2009 as well). You'll need probably several hours or days to find one model, if there're one.

LOL! I think it took me 5 minutes. Correct me if I'm wrong, but here's one http://www.pioneerelectronics.com/PUSA/Products/BusinessProducts/ProfessionalVideo/ProfessionalDVDPlayers/DVD-V5000?tab=A
here's another http://www.sonystyle.com/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/ProductDisplay?storeId=10151&catalogId=10551&langId=-1&productId=8198552921665089252#features
and another http://www.sonystyle.com/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/ProductDisplay?catalogId=10551&storeId=10151&langId=-1&productId=8198552921665574623#features
and to quote Monty Python,
'ere comes another one...
http://www.p4c.philips.com/cgi-bin/dcbint/cpindex.pl?ctn=DVP1013%2F37&dct=FAQ&faqview=1&new_tmpl=1&refdisplay=HV_GENERAL_NOTPLAYDVD&refnr=0062081&scy=US&slg=AEN
and just for completeness, here's a non-DivX Blu-Ray player.
http://www.which.co.uk/technology/tv-and-dvd/reviews/blu-ray-dvd-players/pioneer-bdp-120/specifications

I'm not confusing things, you say one thing today, another thing tomorrow.

No I don't, you're confusing things.

And supposing that I'm confounding things in my mind, for the sake of argumentation, and you really:

have a superb PC that plays everything the human mind invented in terms of multimedia, better or at least at par with the standalones
also have a range of standalones that play certain media
yet no wish to spend money on duplicate functions

then, according to the logic I learned,
either options 1+3 do not match the second
or 1+2 do not match the third.
There is an overlap on 1 vs. 2+3

Overlap?? Okay then....
Yes I currently use a PC as my only media player. Previously, I've used DVD players and even VCRs. Other people in the house own and use other devices.
No, I have no wish to spend money on devices which duplicate functions unless of course it serves a purpose. Obviously I'm not going to want to carry my all-in-one device around to listen to MP3s or haul my PC around so I can watch a video while I'm sitting in the doctor's waiting room. Sometimes though, as technology progresses you find duplicating some functions becomes inevitable. Sometimes you learn from your mistakes. Hence a PC being my main media player today.
None of it has any relevance to your comment that all-in-one devices are in high demand or to your claim that soon every standalone will be be an all-in-one device, or the fact I disagree with it.

Or, simply, it indicates your willingness to argue about everything with everyone. And you made it to change the OT into features, past and future of standalones.

I don't know.... if that's your conclusion I think it's more indicative of your failure to understand than it is of my willingness to argue, and your overlap conclusion seems based on the rather odd assumption that because I currently use a PC to play media and prefer to do so, it must be the first and only media playback device I've ever owned.
But read your post #111. That's when you first brought up the subject of standalone devices becoming all-in-one units, and whether you're confused enough now to think it was me who changed topic, it doesn't alter the reality that I've simply being discussing a topic you introduced.

And no, I don't have a willingness to argue about everything with everyone, but when someone makes a comment such as
"People are more and more unwilling to have more than one standalone and "demand" all-in-one products. In the end it will be a pure labelling procedure...."
and I disagree with it, I'll say so. If you don't want me to argue about it, feel free not to argue with me, but if you choose to do so then could you possibly tell me where I can rent some of the non argumentative, never OT, moral high ground you post from. I'd like to try posting from there for a little while.... just to experience self-righteousness for myself.

[Ghitulescu]

LOL! I think it took me 5 minutes. Correct me if I'm wrong, but here's one http://www.pioneerelectronics.com/PUSA/Products/BusinessProducts/ProfessionalVideo/ProfessionalDVDPlayers/DVD-V5000?tab=A
here's another http://www.sonystyle.com/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/ProductDisplay?storeId=10151&catalogId=10551&langId=-1&productId=8198552921665089252#features
and another http://www.sonystyle.com/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/ProductDisplay?catalogId=10551&storeId=10151&langId=-1&productId=8198552921665574623#features
and to quote Monty Python,
'ere comes another one...
http://www.p4c.philips.com/cgi-bin/dcbint/cpindex.pl?ctn=DVP1013%2F37&dct=FAQ&faqview=1&new_tmpl=1&refdisplay=HV_GENERAL_NOTPLAYDVD&refnr=0062081&scy=US&slg=AEN
and just for completeness, here's a non-DivX Blu-Ray player.
http://www.which.co.uk/technology/tv-and-dvd/reviews/blu-ray-dvd-players/pioneer-bdp-120/specifications

Pioneer DVD-V5000 is a pro gear. Professional tools are not designed to play anything but industrial standards. They are also (or at least should be) built to last. Strangely enough, its consumer version (DV-578) has both USB and the ability to play Divx (and SACD!!!!!). DVD-V5000 is a 2005 I think model.

The first Sony, DVP-NS57P is a 2007/2008 model (the copyright of the manual states 2007). So it's not a 2010 or 2009 player.

The second Sony, DVP-SR200P/B, is newer, a 2008 model. Again not a new or fairly old model.

The Philips is a 2007 model (not 2010, not 2009). It is however advertised, quoting Philips:
Released May, 2007
The Philips DVP1013/37 is a low-end DVD player designed to provide a universal entertainment experience to the average consumer. DVP1013/37 will play virtually any type of disc or file format at a "flawless, true to life picture quality". as an universal player, despite not playing divx, yet it strives to play all the formats.

But you're right about the Pioneer, it's most entry level BD-player does not have divx playback capability. I won't mind buying one (I don't care about divx) but it also lacks several other features as well (tested by me last years I think - thread here in doom9).

[yetanotherid]

Next time try not to interpret my words differently than their meaning, I said
"nowadays there's no DVD/BD player that cannot play Divx"
in other words, one goes these days (=nowadays) in shops and sees that all players can actually play divx/xvid/mp3.

Pioneer DVD-V5000 is..... (insert excuse 34.2F here)

The second Sony.... (insert excuse number 65.3Y here)

There was no interpreting of your words as per your specific request, there was no qualification as to the date on the unit's copyright notice, nor in regard to whether it's a so called "pro player"... the subject is simply can I walk into a shop and buy a DVD or BD player which doesn't play DivX. Yes I can.

From the current catalogue from an electronic store close to me:
Sony DVPSR200PB DVD player (http://www.clivepeeters.com.au/products/home-entertainment/DVD-players-recorders/Sony-DVPSR200PB.aspx?cat2=DVD+%26+Blu-ray+(players+%26+recorders)&cat1=home+entertainment)
It doesn't matter if that model is composed of solid rock and was manufactured by cave men. I can walk into the store today and buy it.


The Philips is a 2007 model (not 2010, not 2009). It is however advertised, quoting Philips:
"The Philips DVP1013/37 is a low-end DVD player designed to provide a universal entertainment experience to the average consumer. DVP1013/37 will play virtually any type of disc or file format at a "flawless, true to life picture quality".
as an universal player, despite not playing divx, yet it strives to play all the formats.

There's so many levels on which to find that funny I don't know where to start.
I wish I'd bought that player, one able to play almost any format, as long as it's mpeg2, and one which will produce flawless and true to life picture quality, apparently irrespective of the quality of the video on the disc.
Not to worry, it's not whether the DVD player wins or loses that matters, it how it plays the game. As long as it's striving to better itself....

But you're right about the Pioneer, it's most entry level BD-player does not have divx playback capability.

It does seem somewhat silly, although while not being able to play DivX is a standalone unit type of inconvenience, eventually the Blu-Ray/MKV player will be the old DVD/DivX player equivalent.... although this time around the idea seems to be catching on much quicker. It was only a couple of years ago you could walk into a store and struggle to find a DivX compatible DVD player, or one at a decent price.
Before I was reborn and accepted the PC as my media playing saviour, I remember having to dig out cheap Chinese DVD players from obscure stores, or online at places like eBay etc. If I recall correctly, Samsung was the first of the "name brand" DVD manufacturers to wake up and notice the rosy aroma of PC users. At least they produced the first "name brand" DivX DVD player I met.

[Nexin]

Am still waiting for cheap stores to have new cheap dvd players for sale. I have read Aldi and Lidl (http://www.mpegla.com/Lists/MPEG%20LA%20News%20List/Attachments/228/n-10-03-16.pdf) have had their knuckles wrapped from mpeg. Maybe that's why there hasn't been so many cheaper newer players around. We should have the xvid, divx, wmv, mkv, x264, flac and more (cheap dvd players).

About all-in-one remember the 80's home audio fiasco. Where those so called media centers had no end of problems. Now could say todays technology being chip based would not sufer the same. Oh yes it would because they would still be mechanical. dvd drives, cd drives, tape players and record players etc would also be added. Just the dvd and cd players alone would cause problems. Unless i would expect well insulated for vibrations, not an easy feat with all-in-one units. So i have also forever been in the seperates camp, and most likely always will be. That is until the day it is all chip based, for everthing including movies and audio. Maybe it will come again now there is ssd drives.

The manufactures could be awaiting the ssd drives to have tb's of storage at cheap prices. I think maybe before that happens there will be better than ssd maybe even cheaper, since ssd isn't the best (ssd blocks problems etc). Of course would have to sattisfy end user so don't break gaurantee if they decide to put better sdd drive (or newer type of drive) inside after bought or later. So have greater control over the all-in-one unit.

[SeeMoreDigital]

Am still waiting for cheap stores to have new cheap dvd players for sale. I have read Aldi and Lidl (http://www.mpegla.com/Lists/MPEG%20LA%20News%20List/Attachments/228/n-10-03-16.pdf) have had their knuckles wrapped from mpeg. Maybe that's why there hasn't been so many cheaper newer players around. We should have the xvid, divx, wmv, mkv, x264, flac and more (cheap dvd players).Personally, I don't see a big market for disc based only players anymore. Especially ones supporting all the format/container types you mention.

At the very minimum, todays hardware players need to offer network connectivity and support playback of sources right up-to 1920x1080/88 pixels. And such players don't come cheap... In-fact they cost more if they include a disc drive :scared:

[Nexin]

There's the reason we are still buying the sd based players because the others ones are being kept artificialy high in price, just as with the pc bd drives. As previously said i'm sure it is the video industry that is behind keeping the prices high for as long as possible, even if it means forever. Which doesn't make any sense since they are killing all bd related sales they could be making. Instead we use and buy/upgrade to newer dvd players, drives and new discs. If they want to keep the prices high who are we to complain, sometime there will be better with prices that are much lower to levels of what we have now for dvd. Could call it bad managment of their own making, but maybe they think of it as damage limitation that is better for the video industry. Meanwhile they try to find the elusive protection that lasts for decades. So able to have dvd player, drives and media we have now and able to have 100% of the market sales.

Network connectivity and hdd and likes normaly on recordable devices, yes they should be on players. Using the latest revisions of the fastest connections. The hdd not to be manufactured locked, that and can be easily excanged from pc <> home unit as a readily seen hdd by the os the user has. Unlimited (greatst as of when made) drive storage sizes the user can replace with greater storage drive as and when they need. The hdd formated to ntfs or similar higher formatting than fat on other os, can be done on pc or the unit to same specification. All units upgradable for latest firmwares, regulatory body setup to ensure all home future units are updatable and kept upto date, incase of bad manufactures laziness.

[GodofaGap]

Personally I think it's a combination of price and requirement. For a lot of content I (and I suspect many people with me) think SD is just enough. This is only made worse that Bluray has a large "buy-in" cost (you need a new TV *and* a new player, and for TV broadcast an extra subscription to receive HD content) and then the discs are more expensive as well.

Do I need to see my favorite comedy (series) in HD that much? I don't think so. If you are not into documentaries or the more LOTR and Avatarish kind of movies, the whole HD experience can be considered wasted IMO.

[Ghitulescu]

While it's true that HDTV alone won't make a movie good, the HDTV has something that makes it suitable for movies and documentaries:
the documentaries would highly benefit from the extended resolution
finally there's 24p
finally there's a PAR of 1:1
HDTV shows its potential on larger screens

[yetanotherid]

I watch a lot of HD content (mainly on the PC monitor) and I also transcode a lot of it to SD.

Often when I switch from watching a HD video to a SD one, and especially when the quality is pretty average even for SD, I find myself thinking how terrible it looks compared with HD. I haven't worked it out exactly yet..... but give or take a couple of seconds.... about a minute after hitting play I've forgotten whether it's SD or HD..... and I'm just watching it. Then later I switch back to HD and for a minute or so think to myself how much better it looks.

Personally I think it's a combination of price and requirement. For a lot of content I (and I suspect many people with me) think SD is just enough. This is only made worse that Bluray has a large "buy-in" cost (you need a new TV *and* a new player, and for TV broadcast an extra subscription to receive HD content) and then the discs are more expensive as well.

I've often wondered how sales would have gone if over the years the producers of video content had sold it with an "upgrade" type policy, rather than a "sting you for even more" policy.... like upgrading software. Trade in your VHS tape and get the DVD half price, then trade in the DVD for a discount Blu-Ray.

[Ghitulescu]

A PC monitor is not suitable for HDTV, it's much too small. It's only when the TV screen depassed 32" people start to notice that VHS is actually bad, and with screen sizes over 50" even DVD is not ok. And I mean regular CRT screens, not "digital" screens (like LCD/Plasma) which make things even worse.

[yetanotherid]

A PC monitor is not suitable for HDTV, it's much too small.

Rubbish. I use mine for watching HD content all the time.

It's only when the TV screen depassed 32" people start to notice that VHS is actually bad, and with screen sizes over 50" even DVD is not ok.

Who are these people about whom you're making stuff up?
Firstly, how much definition you can see is related to the screen size and viewing distance, not just the screen size. A PC monitor is by definition HD, although of course some are capable of higher definition than others.
I struggle to watch a converted VHS tape on my PC monitor because it looks so bad, yet on the SD TV in the other room, which has a much bigger screen, it looks fine.... although I'm so used to watching SD video which has been upsized to fill the computer screen that when I do watch something on a SD CRT TV, which isn't terribly often, it takes a bit of time before my brain ignores the fact I can see the individual scan lines and it starts to look like a complete picture again. Maybe that's an interlaced/progressive thing though, and not so much resolution.

The difference between SD and HD content is usually so obvious on my PC monitor you'd have to have a serious eye problem not to notice it. In fact even the difference between a 720xsomething square pixel DVD rip and the original anamorphic DVD is usually not one you can avoid seeing.
My point was not if you can see the difference, but that if you're watching something you're interested in you often tend to forget about how much definition it's got unless it looks really bad.... at least I do.

And I mean regular CRT screens, not "digital" screens (like LCD/Plasma) which make things even worse.

I'm still using a pair of 22" Trinitron monitors with my PC. My other half has a 42" HD LCD TV. It's not got too bad a picture for an LCD although it's not full HD, but it does have a slightly higher resolution than the one at which I run my PC monitors.
Personally... and maybe it's because I'm generally closer to them... I think the difference between SD and HD is more obvious using my PC monitors than it is when sitting on her sofa viewing the much larger LCD.

[Nexin]

Normally is easy to tell apart true source sd and hd on pc, crt, lcd or plasma. HD wins everytime for picture quality definition and clarity on sd or hd screen.

Agree if meant upscaled sd to hd, on larger screens yes easy to see quality difference not same as true hd.

[Ghitulescu]

I used these days to checked the standalones: except for the Pioneer 120 and one Samsung, no other player missed the divx (and there were around 60 models). All the salesmen laugh at me when they heard that I was looking for a non-divx-capable player.

[yetanotherid]

I used these days to checked the standalones: except for the Pioneer 120 and one Samsung, no other player missed the divx (and there were around 60 models). All the salesmen laugh at me when they heard that I was looking for a non-divx-capable player.

Did you enquire about a DVD player which will play those 720p encodes after you convert them to standard definition by cropping the black bars? ;)

It's a character flaw... I know.... but I couldn't help myself...... :devil:

[Ghitulescu]

No, I asked which model does not support Divx. Most of the BD players also featured the DivX HD logo.

[yetanotherid]

Most of the BD players also featured the DivX HD logo.

I can't decide if that's a good thing or a bad thing. It sounds like it'll be a repeat of the DivX capable DVD player scenario where they'll play DivX as long as they can be fussy about which DivX profile they use.

So the players you looked at (I haven't checked any of them out myself) did they have the DivX HD logo or the DivX+ HD logo? I guess if I want my x264 encodes to play on a standalone device I've still got to worry about sticking to a DivX profile, just like the bad old days of AVIs.

I wonder if there's a BluRay player which will just play anything you throw at it?

[Hagbard23]

A PC monitor is not suitable for HDTV, it's much too small. It's only when the TV screen depassed 32" people start to notice that VHS is actually bad, and with screen sizes over 50" even DVD is not ok. And I mean regular CRT screens, not "digital" screens (like LCD/Plasma) which make things even worse.

complete nonsense...

why are you writing such comments? Did you researched a littlebit before posting? I mean you are the threadstarter...and i am not sure if it is just a grammatical error when you say "not <digital> screens, which make things even worse"...i mean: Do you claim LCD's are makin things worse? I just cannot believe you are THAT uninformed... ;)

[Ghitulescu]

i mean: Do you claim LCD's are makin things worse? I just cannot believe you are THAT uninformed... ;)

I haven't seen any analog source correctly displayed on a FullHD LCD, a source like a VHS, LD or DVD player (analogically connected, not those DVD players that have HDMI, and definitively no BD player). The reason being well known to any involved in the LCD technique, LCD is artificially sharp, while pure analog SD sources are not. And the LCD technology lacks the fine transitions a CRT and a plasma have (number of states between ON and OFF), things got improved by local dimming technology. Since I don't know how to explain this in plain English, it's like the BMP/JPEG for CRT vs. GIF for LCD.

Again, please do not confound a HD source on an LCD vs. a SD one on the same LCD. It's about a SD source, analogically connected to an LCD, vs. the same, analogically connected to a CRT (someone told me that there are WS CRTs with HDMI).

[itepsifters]

Can anyone point me how to create standalone consumer application, which can run standalonejava app communicating with ActiveMQ and Jencks? Any pointers, example would be appreciated.
_________________
http://www.ps2netdrivers.net/manual/browning.25.caliber.automatic.pistol/

[jamec9869]

For music apparently the trend goes away from optical media since a few years, I guess that's also true for video but probably not as fast as for music. I guess devices like Popcorn Hour, WD TV Live, xstreamer, Apple TV or the upcoming XMBC based Boxee Box become more popular, TVs and Blu-ray standalone players have started to integrate media center features, internet and apps, MKV becomes more and more popular.

Many people might just continue to use optical media because they are happy with it or don't know the alternatives or they like the advantages like a booklet, menus, extras or better quality but the trend seem to go away from optical media even for video.

[Ghitulescu]

To me, there's only one killer advantage optical media have over any other similar media (memory cards, HDD, internet/DLNA etc.): it's not erasable and even if it's damaged the losses are restricted/controllable/easy replaceable.

This advantage can be creatively used, eg to lend to the kids/family/friends cheap copies without the risk of destroying the originals and without disturbing the other items (imagine you send your HDD with 200 movies to your brother-in-law for him to see only one of them, but hey, he was not careful enough and either dropped it or managed to erase it - one looses 200 movies instead of one), or the movie/album remains "unchanged" over time, or, or, or ....

Besides, there seems to exist one "hidden" advantage of the real optical media: all media players can read "uncompressed formats" only from optical media. AFAIK, only 3 or 4 consumer models out of several zillions can play WAVs from an SD-card, most of them want MP3. To avoid that people like yetanotherid come and say You liar, there are 5 models, I say that 3, 4 or 5 do weight the same, when the total number of portable models approaches 2000. Devices like Popcorn & co. are more relaxed in what they read from a HDD, though, but they are not portable, and use an HDD. Also in this respect I have to say that screening eBay I haven't found any consumer gear that records WAV, all of them record MP3. I know there are devices that directly burn CDRs (but only the expensive "Audio" version) and devices that have USB and use the PC to record; however, none of them do record WAV on removable media.

These are some items on the check-list of every audiophile, in favour of a standalone and optical media.

[GodofaGap]

This advantage can be creatively used, eg to lend to the kids/family/friends cheap copies without the risk of destroying the originals and without disturbing the other items (imagine you send your HDD with 200 movies to your brother-in-law for him to see only one of them, but hey, he was not careful enough and either dropped it or managed to erase it - one looses 200 movies instead of one), or the movie/album remains "unchanged" over time, or, or, or ....
So you mean you are so uncreative you can't think of any way to avoid this?

[Ghitulescu]

It's not me, it's Average Joe.

Just think that most people here claim they backup movies to protect them the originals from kids. And the majority of them do not back-up, but reconvert to smaler-size AVIs or MKVs, with HDD as a destination. Lucky them, they have the originals should the HDD fail ;).

[yetanotherid]

To me, there's only one killer advantage optical media have over any other similar media (memory cards, HDD, internet/DLNA etc.): it's not erasable and even if it's damaged the losses are restricted/controllable/easy replaceable.

Yep, optical media is tedious to use, tedious to create, inconvenient and easily damaged etc, however due to it being non erasable, it still provides a way of keeping backup copies for long term storage and as such hasn't yet become totally obsolete.
And of course if you want to give a copy of your funniest home videos to a relative, you'd stick them on a 50 cent disc rather than give them your entire hard drive.

Besides, there seems to exist one "hidden" advantage of the real optical media: all media players can read "uncompressed formats" only from optical media. AFAIK, only 3 or 4 consumer models out of several zillions can play WAVs from an SD-card, most of them want MP3. To avoid that people like yetanotherid come and say You liar, there are 5 models, I say that 3, 4 or 5 do weight the same, when the total number of portable models approaches 2000.

Personally, I think people like yetanotherid would question the relevance of your point. How many people would have the need to play uncompressed formats via a SD-Card even if what you're saying is true?
It's a bit like saying there's a "hidden advantage" to listening to music on the radio because SD-Cards don't have built-in FM tuners.

I haven't found any consumer gear that records WAV, all of them record MP3. I know there are devices that directly burn CDRs (but only the expensive "Audio" version) and devices that have USB and use the PC to record; however, none of them do record WAV on removable media.

These are some items on the check-list of every audiophile, in favour of a standalone and optical media.

So you're saying audiophiles favour standalone and optical media despite the apparent non-existence of consumer gear which will record wave files onto optical media???
That seems pretty odd, especially when you can record wave files and burn them to optical media with a PC. Wouldn't that tend to give a PC an advantage over standalone devices for the audiophile types?

[Ghitulescu]

Well, I bought today a portable media player which supports FLAC (besides MP3 :)). Apparently the French company Archos launched this year a whole range of tiny portable players which are able to play WAV too, also from SD. Maybe I'm a bit outdated, there are more than 5 models that can play WAV and FLAC and APE (mine does). But one should remember that this happens in 2010, not in 1995, not in 2000 and not in 2005. Maybe some patents expired (as anyone knows that a patent lasts 20 years), who knows?

Anyway, coming back to SA vs. PC and the really good remark yetanotherid made:

A standalone (SA) is much easier to control than a PC. One of the most hilarous copy protection was that, using the Autorun facility of Windows, a software player was launched at the insert of the media and prohibited the access to the "non-compressed" content of the disk but played the MP3 tracks instead. I think the older among us still remeber the 90ies. Since even decent magazines laughed at this, all the newer versions of windows (2k and up) disabled the SHIFT key function. Ha Ha Ha! One doesn't have regularly a Shift on a SA (my Panasonic has, so the Tascam) and even in the age of "ergonomic menus" (please escuse my loud laugh) the regular Joe has no access to the "unlocking features". If one wants ever to change the optical player inside of a BD-player, s/he must be in the possession of a Service Disk and several codes. The PC is not really controllable, so they did a step-by-step approach: first they implemented some restrictions in the SO (windows, but S.Jobs is not far away either), the worse being Vista. One needs to pay extra to downgrade, go imagine. Then it's Trusted Computing which is forcibly implemented AFAIK since 2008. And finally, only a few SW are legally able to play new media (remember, new is a key word here, not HD) and do under extreme conditions (most of them have suffered several revisions since, and they drop a lot of useful features, like the ability to play certain files and/or use images). If someone doesn't see this is either blind or stupid and s/he deserves to get what they prepared for him (the bright digital future).

To trick a SA one generally needs a HW intervention (like Modchipping was for PlayStation). AFAIK no custom FW was ever available for SAs, like a new version of AnyDVD for PC. Unlike the PCs, all SAs were able from second 0 to play their own media (that's logic, right, nobody would ever buy a VHS player that couldn't play VHS, or a DVD player thsat couln't play DVDs etc.)

Howver, if one reads the OT s/he might understand that the OT was about playing, not recording. Recording is an issue I have myself with SAs (this is why I use pro gear) and this might be the kern of another topic.

Some weeks ago someone gave me the collection for few years of the most prestigious German computer magazine (c't). I still read their recensions for the last few years, and I see what effort is invested in ATTENTION PLEASE crippling a good product in order to meet the demands of media distribution concerns. In the end, should the PC be the ideal tool of play/record/process video, 98% of doom9 would have been "zwecklos" (no reson to exist :)).

[yetanotherid]

Well, I bought today a portable media player which supports FLAC (besides MP3 :)). Apparently the French company Archos launched this year a whole range of tiny portable players which are able to play WAV too, also from SD. Maybe I'm a bit outdated, there are more than 5 models that can play WAV and FLAC and APE (mine does).

The MP3 player I bought two or three years ago plays MP3, WMV, Wave, Ogg and Flac. iAudio U5 (http://www.cowonglobal.com/product_wide/product_U5_spec.php)

But one should remember that this happens in 2010, not in 1995, not in 2000 and not in 2005. Maybe some patents expired (as anyone knows that a patent lasts 20 years), who knows?

Well in 1995 we were still playing CDs on our Walkmans.
At least 5 years ago, probably more, it wouldn't be unusual to install a music player on your pocket PC, or on your smartphone, to enable playback of any format you choose. Three years ago I bought a phone which would not only play virtually any audio format, it'd play full SD AVIs without a stutter. Once again, the dedicated standalone devices are playing catch-up to the PC-like devices.

A standalone (SA) is much easier to control than a PC. One of the most hilarous copy protection was that, using the Autorun facility of Windows, a software player was launched at the insert of the media and prohibited the access to the "non-compressed" content of the disk but played the MP3 tracks instead.

Yeah, it's almost as funny as trying to play a BlueRay disc at full HD via non-HDCP compliant hardware. Or buying early HDCP hardware which doesn't work properly with newer hardware.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-bandwidth_Digital_Content_Protection#Problems
"Manufacturers who want to make a device that supports HDCP must obtain a license from Intel subsidiary Digital Content Protection, pay an annual fee, and submit to various conditions. For example, devices cannot be designed to copy content; devices must "frustrate attempts to defeat the content protection requirements";[7] high-definition digital video sources must not transmit protected content to non-HDCP receivers; and DVD-Audio content can only be played at CD-audio quality[7] by non-HDCP digital audio outputs (analog audio outputs have no quality limits)."

Yeah a standalone is much easier to control than a PC..... as long as you don't want any.

.....all the newer versions of windows (2k and up) disabled the SHIFT key function. Ha Ha Ha!......

In relation to autoplay? Really? I'm pretty sure it works with XP but I can't test it. One of the first things I do after installing Windows is spend the 30 seconds it takes to disable Autoplay completely.

The PC is not really controllable, so they did a step-by-step approach: first they implemented some restrictions in the SO (windows, but S.Jobs is not far away either), the worse being Vista.......

So you're saying that attempts to dumb down the PC to make it more like a standalone device somehow shows the already dumb... but easier to control standalone (because it doesn't do much).... is better than a PC? I don't get it. All you're describing there are attempts to inflict the PC with the same restrictions your standalone will have from the day it's manufactured to the day you have to replace it with a newer standalone in order to play the latest content.

Unlike the PCs, all SAs were able from second 0 to play their own media[/COLOR] (that's logic, right, nobody would ever buy a VHS player that couldn't play VHS, or a DVD player thsat couln't play DVDs etc.)

Who would ever buy a PC which couldn't have video or audio playback software installed on it? What's your point there?
And of course that's not completely true anyway. The internet is littered with complaints about BD releases which won't play on particular players and I recall reading complaints recently regarding a firmware update for a Samsung player which for some reason took away it's ability to play MKVs.
DVDs had their own problems in the early days, not to mention the fact that early players often had trouble with DVD-R or DVD+R discs, sometimes only supporting one type or the other. I guess you could argue that writeable discs weren't the players "own media" but that'd just emphasise the lack of versatility with standalone units and how easily they can become obsolete.

Howver, if one reads the OT s/he might understand that the OT was about playing, not recording. Recording is an issue I have myself with SAs (this is why I use pro gear) and this might be the kern of another topic.

Well you bought the OT subject up yourself, but apology accepted. ;)

Some weeks ago someone gave me the collection for few years of the most prestigious German computer magazine (c't). I still read their recensions for the last few years, and I see what effort is invested in ATTENTION PLEASE crippling a good product in order to meet the demands of media distribution concerns. In the end, should the PC be the ideal tool of play/record/process video, 98% of doom9 would have been "zwecklos" (no reson to exist :)).

Well I guess if the PC was the perfect, uncrippled playback device right out of the box then there'd be no reason for doom9, unless of course you remember that by far the majority of the doom9 forums are dedicated to discussing topics related to using a PC for copying/creating/authoring media and the software associated with it.... not for simply playing it.
I guess we can thank the PC for doom9's existence.... because if the forum was dedicated to vainly trying to accomplish those same tasks using a standalone device, there'd probably be very little activity here.
I can imagine the types of posts we'd be left with....

"How can I use my VHS/DVD standalone unit to make DVD copies of my VHS movie collection?"
"The majority of them will have Macro-vision copy protection which means you can't"
"Oh..... thanks".

Or
"How can I backup my BluRay collection using my BluRay player"
"You can't"
"Oh..... thanks" :)

[Ghitulescu]

For the last 1000 answers, you did nothing that to bring arguments that if 0.006% of the people can remove the copy protections then the affected product (PC or SA) is 100% designed to do this. Of course I'm expecting you to contest the 0.006% figure, but you can not reverse the ratio. Some leaked infos from insiders say that the media content publishers can withstand a piracy rate of up to 30% (most unofficial figures are around 10%). But in the end, what one (and you, too) fails to see is that "designed for" implies a success quote of 100% (or near) but not 0.006%. So as long as the piracy quote (unlocked PCs) remain under this limit, everyone is happy. The history showed us and them that the formats that cannot be copied would eventually die. So they have to let a certain % as "piracy".

Concerning the other sub-topic: one cannot separate the playing from the copying/recording on a PC for the simple fact that most signal paths are routed through software, which can easily be intercepted and rerouted to FILE ;). This risk doesn't exist on a SA. So, while copying and recording are hindered on a SA; its primary function remains unaffected (for legally obtained media). On a PC even those are hindered as solutions to selectively prohibit the other uses are cumbersome and most times inefficient.

Your idea seems to be that if you can watch Blu-rays on your PC then the PC is "specially designed for playing". My point was that if 99% of the people can't do this (without using illegal tools and methods) it's not desgined for. Actually, if only 1 user out of the 7 billions of todays population can't do this, the term "designed for" has to fall. Like the French saying: one drop of pee in a barrel of Bordeaux wine ... ;)

[SeeMoreDigital]

Somebody, anybody... Please close this topic?

[yetanotherid]

Somebody, anybody... Please close this topic?

Why don't you just stay away from the thread?
It's a discussion taking place in a discussion forum, in the Announcements and Chat area, under General Discussion.

[yetanotherid]

For the last 1000 answers, you did nothing that to bring arguments that if 0.006% of the people can remove the copy protections then the affected product (PC or SA) is 100% designed to do this.


Well I don't know about the .006% figure. I suspect it's a nice low number you made up as though it being a nice low number would give your statement some credibility.
The PC is designed to run software. If software exists to remove copy protections then you probably could (I'm not sure I would) argue that by extension the PC is designed to remove copy protection.
We've had this discussion before and I thought it was done and dusted. The PC is designed to run software, not specifically to create pictures, to view Word documents or PDFs or video, or to listen to music or to scan for viruses etc etc and that's what it does. Should we make equally silly claims about the thousands of other things the PC wasn't designed to do but which it does all the time?

But in the end, what one (and you, too) fails to see is that "designed for" implies a success quote of 100% (or near) but not 0.006%. So as long as the piracy quote (unlocked PCs) remain under this limit, everyone is happy.

Do you only use your PC for pirating video? No backing up or converting to use on other devices?

What one doesn't understand is the fact that one's "designed for" argument is believed to be relevant (by you). I don't care if my PC was designed to play media or designed to calculate the number of possible contradictions in your argument to 11 decimal places. It doesn't change the fact that while the CPU is running flat out predicting the number of contradictions you'll post in your next reply, the installed media player software is happily playing media and doing so to my complete satisfaction. Why should I stop using it for that purpose?

Your idea seems to be that if you can watch Blu-rays on your PC then the PC is "specially designed for playing". My point was that if 99% of the people can't do this (without using illegal tools and methods) it's not desgined for.

No, the "designed for' thing is your obsession, I don't care either way. "Designed for" isn't relevant to me. "Can" and "can't" are the important considerations.
I've no idea where you're getting this "99% of people can't do it" idea from. How hard is it to install MPC-HC and in what way does it function illegally?

Actually, if only 1 user out of the 7 billions of todays population can't do this, the term "designed for" has to fall. Like the French saying: one drop of pee in a barrel of Bordeaux wine ... ;)

Well.... I guess that just about wraps it up for BluRay then.
Some Blu-ray players still have disc issues (http://www.startribune.com/lifestyle/102167284.html)
Blu-ray disc compatibility: It's still an issue (http://news.cnet.com/8301-17938_105-20000636-1.html)
Disc problems can hit Blu-rays (http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/10241/1083238-468.stm)
Samsung fixes Avatar Blu-ray problems with firmware updates (http://hd.engadget.com/2010/04/30/samsung-fixes-avatar-blu-ray-problems-with-firmware-updates/)
Is updating firmware easier than installing software?
I'd be willing to bet there's 1 in 7 billion BluRay owners who couldn't update their firmware and lots more who had problems with certain discs, so using your own standards either BluRay players aren't "designed for" playing BluRay discs or with any luck you'll now realise it's a fairly illogical argument.

[Ghitulescu]

Tu summarize:

You are now a versed PC user. In 20 years time (or 30 or 40, I don't know your real age, but I'm assuming something like 20) you'll be completely outdated and unwilling to install thousands of patches and hacks on your PC (or whatever this will be called in 20 years). If you're not an American you'll end with an automatic Mercedes and an auto-configurable standalone (the Amis have this already).

Any software that uses the "obsolete" MPEG-2 codec (used in DVD and DVB among others) has to pay one or more licences (i know there are some tricks not to pay NOW but this precedent would have as consequence the changing in the licensing terms for the next codec) so the programmers cannot distribute free DVD players (at least in the USA) that work out-of-the-box. If one is in business of selling such applications, they must even more obey some criteria or they will be soon out of their business (nobody of their size can stand a trial in court).

For my computer, it does create videos and play them only as a control (editing and stuff). Anyone creating audio and video does care about "designed for", their business depends on the correct choose of their tools. I know that most bands of today input some loops in a consumer/prosumer DJ software and hop-la yet another Best remix of the year 2010. This is not creation is use of pre-made pieces, and once the things are still in the digital realm it doesn't matter whether the periferics are up to the required level. The PC does exactly what it was supposed and designed to do, moving bits from one location to another.

Concerning the BD case, its specs are evolving, this is why this happens. Besides, the standards are not flawless created and allow such "modifications". This goes hand-in-hand with another issue: technical ageing of a product (how long one is supposed to use a certain product - longer use times means less revenues for the manufacturer; sadly, very few companies manufacture a product longer than one year and support is rarely offered beyond that year) - however, during that time, the product is supposed to be perfectly capable of playing what it was advertised to (excepting FW flaws - this goes hand-in-hand with previous item, too). HW for PC appear generally after the peak of said technology (on the descending slope, when the manufacturers think about their next move), most of the times overpriced and/or "castrated".

Someone should bear in mind that this is global issue, not a SA issue only. The PC is however more flexible and can catch the things better than a SA. As Vista case showed us, not always newer means better (my belief is that Vista was a testversion to see how deep into the DRM issue one can go).