<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article09_06_22_1339213</id>
	<title>Blu-ray Adoption Soft, More Still Own HD DVD</title>
	<author>CmdrTaco</author>
	<datestamp>1245678480000</datestamp>
	<htmltext><a href="http://hothardware.com/" rel="nofollow">MojoKid</a> writes <i>"A new study by Harris Interactive notes that currently,
<a href="http://hothardware.com/News/Bluray-Adoption-Still-Sluggish-HDTV-Sales-Up/">one in ten Americans (10\%) own an HD DVD player</a>, while just 7\% own a Blu-ray player. Crazy, right?
<a href="http://hothardware.com/News/Bluray-Adoption-Still-Sluggish-HDTV-Sales-Up/">More Americans own HD DVD right now</a> than the 'winning' format, Blu-ray. If you think about it, that statistic isn't that shocking.  When HD DVD was around, it was far and away the 'budget' format for high-def. The players were cheaper, the films were cheaper. In other words, it was a format more ready to thrive in a down economy. Blu-ray was always viewed as a niche format for those absorbed in A/V, not the common man's format.  The survey also found that on average, consumers purchased approximately six standard format DVDs in the last six months, compared with one in HD DVD format."</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>MojoKid writes " A new study by Harris Interactive notes that currently , one in ten Americans ( 10 \ % ) own an HD DVD player , while just 7 \ % own a Blu-ray player .
Crazy , right ?
More Americans own HD DVD right now than the 'winning ' format , Blu-ray .
If you think about it , that statistic is n't that shocking .
When HD DVD was around , it was far and away the 'budget ' format for high-def .
The players were cheaper , the films were cheaper .
In other words , it was a format more ready to thrive in a down economy .
Blu-ray was always viewed as a niche format for those absorbed in A/V , not the common man 's format .
The survey also found that on average , consumers purchased approximately six standard format DVDs in the last six months , compared with one in HD DVD format .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>MojoKid writes "A new study by Harris Interactive notes that currently,
one in ten Americans (10\%) own an HD DVD player, while just 7\% own a Blu-ray player.
Crazy, right?
More Americans own HD DVD right now than the 'winning' format, Blu-ray.
If you think about it, that statistic isn't that shocking.
When HD DVD was around, it was far and away the 'budget' format for high-def.
The players were cheaper, the films were cheaper.
In other words, it was a format more ready to thrive in a down economy.
Blu-ray was always viewed as a niche format for those absorbed in A/V, not the common man's format.
The survey also found that on average, consumers purchased approximately six standard format DVDs in the last six months, compared with one in HD DVD format.
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1339213.28421619</id>
	<title>Re:Clarification?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245683820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Everyone who buys a Blu Ray player does so because they want to play Blu Ray discs.<br>Not everyone who buys a PS3 does so because they want to play Blu Ray discs (In fact, one would assume that a minority do).</p><p>Thus it would be disingenuous to claim that all PS3 purchases equate to a Blu Ray player purchase when measuring the "popularity" of the format.</p><p>On the other hand, a 360 HDDVD drive purchase *does* equate to an HD-DVD player purchase as that is its sole purpose.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Everyone who buys a Blu Ray player does so because they want to play Blu Ray discs.Not everyone who buys a PS3 does so because they want to play Blu Ray discs ( In fact , one would assume that a minority do ) .Thus it would be disingenuous to claim that all PS3 purchases equate to a Blu Ray player purchase when measuring the " popularity " of the format.On the other hand , a 360 HDDVD drive purchase * does * equate to an HD-DVD player purchase as that is its sole purpose .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Everyone who buys a Blu Ray player does so because they want to play Blu Ray discs.Not everyone who buys a PS3 does so because they want to play Blu Ray discs (In fact, one would assume that a minority do).Thus it would be disingenuous to claim that all PS3 purchases equate to a Blu Ray player purchase when measuring the "popularity" of the format.On the other hand, a 360 HDDVD drive purchase *does* equate to an HD-DVD player purchase as that is its sole purpose.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1339213.28421217</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1339213.28423915</id>
	<title>Re:I wonder</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245691500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This is my strategy...</p><p>forget blueray and get a good upconverter and call that better than what I had before for cheap, and then find out what happens next.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is my strategy...forget blueray and get a good upconverter and call that better than what I had before for cheap , and then find out what happens next .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is my strategy...forget blueray and get a good upconverter and call that better than what I had before for cheap, and then find out what happens next.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1339213.28421195</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1339213.28421671</id>
	<title>Physical media is dying</title>
	<author>ZP-Blight</author>
	<datestamp>1245683880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I have a lot of experience in this field, and here are the reason why physical media is doomed, probably even sooner than many expect.</p><p>Here's why:<br>1. BluRay licensing makes it very difficult (expensive) to enable mass-adoption.<br>2. Bandwidth is getting cheaper while high-speed internet is becoming more accessible.<br>3. DRM is slowly dying.</p><p>This will lead to Downloadable HD content which you could stream/burn/transcode to any format you want within the next 2-5 years (on a mass-market scale as we're already seeing this in some fringe markets).</p><p>And if the establishment wont move in this direction, piracy will only grow as people want things to be easy and will take the path of least resistance (if DRM is more complicated/unreliable than Piracy, we'll see more content pirates).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I have a lot of experience in this field , and here are the reason why physical media is doomed , probably even sooner than many expect.Here 's why : 1 .
BluRay licensing makes it very difficult ( expensive ) to enable mass-adoption.2 .
Bandwidth is getting cheaper while high-speed internet is becoming more accessible.3 .
DRM is slowly dying.This will lead to Downloadable HD content which you could stream/burn/transcode to any format you want within the next 2-5 years ( on a mass-market scale as we 're already seeing this in some fringe markets ) .And if the establishment wont move in this direction , piracy will only grow as people want things to be easy and will take the path of least resistance ( if DRM is more complicated/unreliable than Piracy , we 'll see more content pirates ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I have a lot of experience in this field, and here are the reason why physical media is doomed, probably even sooner than many expect.Here's why:1.
BluRay licensing makes it very difficult (expensive) to enable mass-adoption.2.
Bandwidth is getting cheaper while high-speed internet is becoming more accessible.3.
DRM is slowly dying.This will lead to Downloadable HD content which you could stream/burn/transcode to any format you want within the next 2-5 years (on a mass-market scale as we're already seeing this in some fringe markets).And if the establishment wont move in this direction, piracy will only grow as people want things to be easy and will take the path of least resistance (if DRM is more complicated/unreliable than Piracy, we'll see more content pirates).</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1339213.28421217</id>
	<title>Clarification?</title>
	<author>toleraen</author>
	<datestamp>1245682440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>Maybe my coffee is off this morning, but I'm seeing PS3 owners + Blu-ray Players = 16\%, where 360 addon + HDDVD players = 14\%. Since they even say: <p><div class="quote"><p>When Blu-ray player or PS3 owners are asked...</p></div><p> I take it they're counting the two separately, which would show Blu-ray ahead. Am I missing something?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Maybe my coffee is off this morning , but I 'm seeing PS3 owners + Blu-ray Players = 16 \ % , where 360 addon + HDDVD players = 14 \ % .
Since they even say : When Blu-ray player or PS3 owners are asked... I take it they 're counting the two separately , which would show Blu-ray ahead .
Am I missing something ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Maybe my coffee is off this morning, but I'm seeing PS3 owners + Blu-ray Players = 16\%, where 360 addon + HDDVD players = 14\%.
Since they even say: When Blu-ray player or PS3 owners are asked... I take it they're counting the two separately, which would show Blu-ray ahead.
Am I missing something?
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1339213.28421195</id>
	<title>I wonder</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245682380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>how many people with a regular up-scaling DVD player think they have an HD-DVD player?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>how many people with a regular up-scaling DVD player think they have an HD-DVD player ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>how many people with a regular up-scaling DVD player think they have an HD-DVD player?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1339213.28437827</id>
	<title>Re:I call Bullshit!. More people one PS3 than HD D</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245766680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If only there were some sort of "article" you could read that would confirm or deny your suspicion!</p><p>(You're wrong; more people own HD-DVD than a PS3, though they are counting PS3 owners separately from stand-alone Blu-ray owners. I'm not surprised that you thought differently though; there's a tendency among Sony fanboys to greatly overestimate the popularity of Playstation crap.)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If only there were some sort of " article " you could read that would confirm or deny your suspicion !
( You 're wrong ; more people own HD-DVD than a PS3 , though they are counting PS3 owners separately from stand-alone Blu-ray owners .
I 'm not surprised that you thought differently though ; there 's a tendency among Sony fanboys to greatly overestimate the popularity of Playstation crap .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If only there were some sort of "article" you could read that would confirm or deny your suspicion!
(You're wrong; more people own HD-DVD than a PS3, though they are counting PS3 owners separately from stand-alone Blu-ray owners.
I'm not surprised that you thought differently though; there's a tendency among Sony fanboys to greatly overestimate the popularity of Playstation crap.
)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1339213.28423059</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1339213.28433293</id>
	<title>Re:Don't buy into that lie</title>
	<author>mitchell\_pgh</author>
	<datestamp>1245682860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I am a PS3 user. I would never have purchased a stand alone Blu-ray player or HD-DVD player, and still wouldn't. Neither of them offere/d enough to throw down hundreds of dollars ($200-$400+) for movies only. The fact that one format was a little cheaper or one loaded faster just wasn't enough to push me one way or another. In fact, the more the HD-DVD fans foamed at the mouth about how great their format was, the more I wanted to see Blu-ray win.</p><p>What changed EVERYTHING for me was the fact that the PS3 could eliminate TWO pieces of current hardware AND replaced one future piece of hardware. It was also capable of playing games (I have yet to use it for a game) and was "future proof" for the most part.</p><p>The PS3 replaced my non-upscaling DVD player, it replaced the PC I used to stream divx movies. It also replaced a future high definition movie player (Blu-ray or HD-DVD). My setup has never been more complete.</p><p>You could argue that the Xbox 360 with the additional HD-DVD player could do the same thing, but it just seemed like an afterthought from Microsoft (why didn't they just offer a HD-DVD version?)... and they really didn't have vested interest in the success of HD-DVD. When HD-DVD "fell" the choice was over.</p><p>In my opinion, the "Play" in PlayStation 3 is actually holding the system back. When I talk about how I use my PS3 as a media center, the first thing out of their mouth is "but I don't play games." Neither do I, but for $400, you get a DVD player, a high definition movie player, mini-computer/divx streaming system... along with all the other stuff.</p><p>I am a very happy PS3 owner.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I am a PS3 user .
I would never have purchased a stand alone Blu-ray player or HD-DVD player , and still would n't .
Neither of them offere/d enough to throw down hundreds of dollars ( $ 200- $ 400 + ) for movies only .
The fact that one format was a little cheaper or one loaded faster just was n't enough to push me one way or another .
In fact , the more the HD-DVD fans foamed at the mouth about how great their format was , the more I wanted to see Blu-ray win.What changed EVERYTHING for me was the fact that the PS3 could eliminate TWO pieces of current hardware AND replaced one future piece of hardware .
It was also capable of playing games ( I have yet to use it for a game ) and was " future proof " for the most part.The PS3 replaced my non-upscaling DVD player , it replaced the PC I used to stream divx movies .
It also replaced a future high definition movie player ( Blu-ray or HD-DVD ) .
My setup has never been more complete.You could argue that the Xbox 360 with the additional HD-DVD player could do the same thing , but it just seemed like an afterthought from Microsoft ( why did n't they just offer a HD-DVD version ? ) .. .
and they really did n't have vested interest in the success of HD-DVD .
When HD-DVD " fell " the choice was over.In my opinion , the " Play " in PlayStation 3 is actually holding the system back .
When I talk about how I use my PS3 as a media center , the first thing out of their mouth is " but I do n't play games .
" Neither do I , but for $ 400 , you get a DVD player , a high definition movie player , mini-computer/divx streaming system... along with all the other stuff.I am a very happy PS3 owner .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I am a PS3 user.
I would never have purchased a stand alone Blu-ray player or HD-DVD player, and still wouldn't.
Neither of them offere/d enough to throw down hundreds of dollars ($200-$400+) for movies only.
The fact that one format was a little cheaper or one loaded faster just wasn't enough to push me one way or another.
In fact, the more the HD-DVD fans foamed at the mouth about how great their format was, the more I wanted to see Blu-ray win.What changed EVERYTHING for me was the fact that the PS3 could eliminate TWO pieces of current hardware AND replaced one future piece of hardware.
It was also capable of playing games (I have yet to use it for a game) and was "future proof" for the most part.The PS3 replaced my non-upscaling DVD player, it replaced the PC I used to stream divx movies.
It also replaced a future high definition movie player (Blu-ray or HD-DVD).
My setup has never been more complete.You could argue that the Xbox 360 with the additional HD-DVD player could do the same thing, but it just seemed like an afterthought from Microsoft (why didn't they just offer a HD-DVD version?)...
and they really didn't have vested interest in the success of HD-DVD.
When HD-DVD "fell" the choice was over.In my opinion, the "Play" in PlayStation 3 is actually holding the system back.
When I talk about how I use my PS3 as a media center, the first thing out of their mouth is "but I don't play games.
" Neither do I, but for $400, you get a DVD player, a high definition movie player, mini-computer/divx streaming system... along with all the other stuff.I am a very happy PS3 owner.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1339213.28421839</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1339213.28424555</id>
	<title>Re:really?</title>
	<author>quintus\_horatius</author>
	<datestamp>1245693600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The statistics are probably not faulty, your interpretation is.  I think the intended figure is 10 percent of <em>households</em>, not people.  You're not looking at 30+ million units, but instead less than 10 million.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The statistics are probably not faulty , your interpretation is .
I think the intended figure is 10 percent of households , not people .
You 're not looking at 30 + million units , but instead less than 10 million .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The statistics are probably not faulty, your interpretation is.
I think the intended figure is 10 percent of households, not people.
You're not looking at 30+ million units, but instead less than 10 million.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1339213.28421643</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1339213.28426035</id>
	<title>Re:I work in he rental industry</title>
	<author>averner</author>
	<datestamp>1245698880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The ones who should be doing this are the retail stores trying to sell the players....</htmltext>
<tokenext>The ones who should be doing this are the retail stores trying to sell the players... .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The ones who should be doing this are the retail stores trying to sell the players....</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1339213.28421765</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1339213.28428939</id>
	<title>the problem is</title>
	<author>greywire</author>
	<datestamp>1245665160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>that nobody cares.</p><p>Before CD's and DVD's, what we had sucked.  Beta sucked, VHS sucked, Cassettes sucked, 8 tracks sucked, vinyl sucked and for a short time laser disks and DAT sucked a little less but still sucked.</p><p>Tapes sucked.  Giant plastic disks sucked.</p><p>Then CD came along and was SO much less sucky than tapes and vinyl that it quickly killed those formats.  Except for the few die hards who just couldnt let go of their vinyl because they (to this day) think it sounds better.  Tapes and vinyl more or less wimpered away, defeated.  Then VideoCD came along in a few formats, and sucked.</p><p>Finaly, the DVD hit the mark.  It sucked less at a ratio even higher than that of CD to tapes/vinyl and just slaughtered poor VHS.</p><p>So the problem with Blu-Ray and HD-DVD is that they just don't suck much less than DVD.  Most people like DVD's, in fact, and have few complaints.  Ask anyone and they will say "DVD doesn't suck.  My VHS and Cassette tapes sucked, but CD and DVD doesnt suck".  Yes, they look better.  But not enough better that everybody wants to throw away their investment in a non sucky technology like DVD for something that only sucks a little bit less.</p><p>This is especially hard for high definition video disks to compete with because there's also downloading DVD's and streaming video over the internet.  Which let me tell you, sucks!  The quality sucks compared to DVD even.  But people love this.  Why?  Because even though they suck, they don't suck for real.  That is, they are not real, like a DVD, which sits on your shelf permanently, as if to say "I suck and you are stuck with me".  People don't like being stuck with and saddled down by something, so if they can get rid of that physical limitation, that trumps almost any other kind of suckyness.  Witness online email, and other web applications.  Go figure.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>that nobody cares.Before CD 's and DVD 's , what we had sucked .
Beta sucked , VHS sucked , Cassettes sucked , 8 tracks sucked , vinyl sucked and for a short time laser disks and DAT sucked a little less but still sucked.Tapes sucked .
Giant plastic disks sucked.Then CD came along and was SO much less sucky than tapes and vinyl that it quickly killed those formats .
Except for the few die hards who just couldnt let go of their vinyl because they ( to this day ) think it sounds better .
Tapes and vinyl more or less wimpered away , defeated .
Then VideoCD came along in a few formats , and sucked.Finaly , the DVD hit the mark .
It sucked less at a ratio even higher than that of CD to tapes/vinyl and just slaughtered poor VHS.So the problem with Blu-Ray and HD-DVD is that they just do n't suck much less than DVD .
Most people like DVD 's , in fact , and have few complaints .
Ask anyone and they will say " DVD does n't suck .
My VHS and Cassette tapes sucked , but CD and DVD doesnt suck " .
Yes , they look better .
But not enough better that everybody wants to throw away their investment in a non sucky technology like DVD for something that only sucks a little bit less.This is especially hard for high definition video disks to compete with because there 's also downloading DVD 's and streaming video over the internet .
Which let me tell you , sucks !
The quality sucks compared to DVD even .
But people love this .
Why ? Because even though they suck , they do n't suck for real .
That is , they are not real , like a DVD , which sits on your shelf permanently , as if to say " I suck and you are stuck with me " .
People do n't like being stuck with and saddled down by something , so if they can get rid of that physical limitation , that trumps almost any other kind of suckyness .
Witness online email , and other web applications .
Go figure .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>that nobody cares.Before CD's and DVD's, what we had sucked.
Beta sucked, VHS sucked, Cassettes sucked, 8 tracks sucked, vinyl sucked and for a short time laser disks and DAT sucked a little less but still sucked.Tapes sucked.
Giant plastic disks sucked.Then CD came along and was SO much less sucky than tapes and vinyl that it quickly killed those formats.
Except for the few die hards who just couldnt let go of their vinyl because they (to this day) think it sounds better.
Tapes and vinyl more or less wimpered away, defeated.
Then VideoCD came along in a few formats, and sucked.Finaly, the DVD hit the mark.
It sucked less at a ratio even higher than that of CD to tapes/vinyl and just slaughtered poor VHS.So the problem with Blu-Ray and HD-DVD is that they just don't suck much less than DVD.
Most people like DVD's, in fact, and have few complaints.
Ask anyone and they will say "DVD doesn't suck.
My VHS and Cassette tapes sucked, but CD and DVD doesnt suck".
Yes, they look better.
But not enough better that everybody wants to throw away their investment in a non sucky technology like DVD for something that only sucks a little bit less.This is especially hard for high definition video disks to compete with because there's also downloading DVD's and streaming video over the internet.
Which let me tell you, sucks!
The quality sucks compared to DVD even.
But people love this.
Why?  Because even though they suck, they don't suck for real.
That is, they are not real, like a DVD, which sits on your shelf permanently, as if to say "I suck and you are stuck with me".
People don't like being stuck with and saddled down by something, so if they can get rid of that physical limitation, that trumps almost any other kind of suckyness.
Witness online email, and other web applications.
Go figure.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1339213.28428491</id>
	<title>Re:early adopters VSs the luddites</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245663840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What's this Blew Ray you speak of?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What 's this Blew Ray you speak of ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What's this Blew Ray you speak of?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1339213.28421669</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1339213.28423551</id>
	<title>Re:Clarification?</title>
	<author>toleraen</author>
	<datestamp>1245690120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Not everyone who buys a PS3 does so because they want to play Blu Ray discs (In fact, one would assume that a minority do).</p></div><p>While I don't disagree with your statements, I'm curious why you would assume only a minority of PS3 owners are Blu-ray watchers. The PS3 was touted by review sites as the best Blu-ray player on the market for the money for quite a long time. This year old <a href="http://www.engadgethd.com/2008/07/04/87-of-playstation-3-owners-watching-blu-ray-movies-survey-says/" title="engadgethd.com">EngadgetHD</a> [engadgethd.com] article says that 87\% of PS3 owners watch blu-ray. I can't read the source of that info at work, 87\% seems a tad high to me, but saying it's a minority sounds a little off.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Not everyone who buys a PS3 does so because they want to play Blu Ray discs ( In fact , one would assume that a minority do ) .While I do n't disagree with your statements , I 'm curious why you would assume only a minority of PS3 owners are Blu-ray watchers .
The PS3 was touted by review sites as the best Blu-ray player on the market for the money for quite a long time .
This year old EngadgetHD [ engadgethd.com ] article says that 87 \ % of PS3 owners watch blu-ray .
I ca n't read the source of that info at work , 87 \ % seems a tad high to me , but saying it 's a minority sounds a little off .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Not everyone who buys a PS3 does so because they want to play Blu Ray discs (In fact, one would assume that a minority do).While I don't disagree with your statements, I'm curious why you would assume only a minority of PS3 owners are Blu-ray watchers.
The PS3 was touted by review sites as the best Blu-ray player on the market for the money for quite a long time.
This year old EngadgetHD [engadgethd.com] article says that 87\% of PS3 owners watch blu-ray.
I can't read the source of that info at work, 87\% seems a tad high to me, but saying it's a minority sounds a little off.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1339213.28421619</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1339213.28440145</id>
	<title>HDCP</title>
	<author>kobold2</author>
	<datestamp>1245776880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>why would I spend money on a hostile tech in the first place? I would rather go back to VHS. really.</htmltext>
<tokenext>why would I spend money on a hostile tech in the first place ?
I would rather go back to VHS .
really .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>why would I spend money on a hostile tech in the first place?
I would rather go back to VHS.
really.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1339213.28421307</id>
	<title>How much do they use it?</title>
	<author>Korbeau</author>
	<datestamp>1245682740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I know a lot of people who bought HD players and half a dozen movies at bargain price when everyone knew that the format was dying.  They already had a home cinema setup and were thrilled to find content that challenged it for a few couple hundred of bucks.  But right now it probably lays down in a box, or remain as a living room decoration.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I know a lot of people who bought HD players and half a dozen movies at bargain price when everyone knew that the format was dying .
They already had a home cinema setup and were thrilled to find content that challenged it for a few couple hundred of bucks .
But right now it probably lays down in a box , or remain as a living room decoration .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I know a lot of people who bought HD players and half a dozen movies at bargain price when everyone knew that the format was dying.
They already had a home cinema setup and were thrilled to find content that challenged it for a few couple hundred of bucks.
But right now it probably lays down in a box, or remain as a living room decoration.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1339213.28422177</id>
	<title>uh huh</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245685620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>bullshit</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>bullshit</tokentext>
<sentencetext>bullshit</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1339213.28424161</id>
	<title>screw you sony!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245692280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Hey man.. I can burn HD DVD video to a standard double layer DVD and play it back in HD DVD on my Toshiba HD player.  I only own the transformers movie in HD DVD and the planet earth series in HD DVD.. buy hey.. I am  not gonna buy a blue ray.  I learned to live with renting standard wide screen dvds and I've bought an HD camcorder... the family videos are gonna look amazing.  So screw you Sony.  The Toshiba HD dvd player upscales well.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Hey man.. I can burn HD DVD video to a standard double layer DVD and play it back in HD DVD on my Toshiba HD player .
I only own the transformers movie in HD DVD and the planet earth series in HD DVD.. buy hey.. I am not gon na buy a blue ray .
I learned to live with renting standard wide screen dvds and I 've bought an HD camcorder... the family videos are gon na look amazing .
So screw you Sony .
The Toshiba HD dvd player upscales well .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hey man.. I can burn HD DVD video to a standard double layer DVD and play it back in HD DVD on my Toshiba HD player.
I only own the transformers movie in HD DVD and the planet earth series in HD DVD.. buy hey.. I am  not gonna buy a blue ray.
I learned to live with renting standard wide screen dvds and I've bought an HD camcorder... the family videos are gonna look amazing.
So screw you Sony.
The Toshiba HD dvd player upscales well.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1339213.28423483</id>
	<title>Re:Clarification?</title>
	<author>Ranzear</author>
	<datestamp>1245689940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Except that the PS3 was marketed from the outset as a Blu-Ray format player, is a perfectly un-neutered player with full HDMI and Optical outputs to support the full quality of the format, and is still nigh the cheapest player on the market for equal featues (optical out with selectable codec, full 1080p HDMI out, full BD menu control).</htmltext>
<tokenext>Except that the PS3 was marketed from the outset as a Blu-Ray format player , is a perfectly un-neutered player with full HDMI and Optical outputs to support the full quality of the format , and is still nigh the cheapest player on the market for equal featues ( optical out with selectable codec , full 1080p HDMI out , full BD menu control ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Except that the PS3 was marketed from the outset as a Blu-Ray format player, is a perfectly un-neutered player with full HDMI and Optical outputs to support the full quality of the format, and is still nigh the cheapest player on the market for equal featues (optical out with selectable codec, full 1080p HDMI out, full BD menu control).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1339213.28421619</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1339213.28422097</id>
	<title>Blu-Ray Ahead</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245685320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>HD + Xbox HD = 14\%</p><p>Blu Ray+ PS3 = 16\%</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>HD + Xbox HD = 14 \ % Blu Ray + PS3 = 16 \ %</tokentext>
<sentencetext>HD + Xbox HD = 14\%Blu Ray+ PS3 = 16\%</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1339213.28421187</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1339213.28440235</id>
	<title>I have standalone blu-ray player and it is awesome</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245777240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I know a lot of people don't see the point in bluray - but I have a 50" panel with a standalone panasonic bluray player that will also upscale DVDs. I have to say, BLURAY IS AWESOME. What is not awesome is the price of the movies over DVD so thats why I use Netflix. The difference between an upscaled DVD and a 1080p bluray is very noticeable at 50".<br>
&nbsp;</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I know a lot of people do n't see the point in bluray - but I have a 50 " panel with a standalone panasonic bluray player that will also upscale DVDs .
I have to say , BLURAY IS AWESOME .
What is not awesome is the price of the movies over DVD so thats why I use Netflix .
The difference between an upscaled DVD and a 1080p bluray is very noticeable at 50 " .
 </tokentext>
<sentencetext>I know a lot of people don't see the point in bluray - but I have a 50" panel with a standalone panasonic bluray player that will also upscale DVDs.
I have to say, BLURAY IS AWESOME.
What is not awesome is the price of the movies over DVD so thats why I use Netflix.
The difference between an upscaled DVD and a 1080p bluray is very noticeable at 50".
 </sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1339213.28424885</id>
	<title>Re:really?</title>
	<author>terjeber</author>
	<datestamp>1245694740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>more people own hd-dvd players than own ps3s? really?</p></div><p>Yup. You see, the little bastards learned from the HD porn and started to fuck, and then they had little HD-DVD player children. That is the <b>only</b> rational explanation for the fact those numbers. You see, Toshiba never made enough HD-DVD players to cover 11\% of US homes. 1\% - yes. 2\% - maybe. 11\% - only if they had babies.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>more people own hd-dvd players than own ps3s ?
really ? Yup. You see , the little bastards learned from the HD porn and started to fuck , and then they had little HD-DVD player children .
That is the only rational explanation for the fact those numbers .
You see , Toshiba never made enough HD-DVD players to cover 11 \ % of US homes .
1 \ % - yes .
2 \ % - maybe .
11 \ % - only if they had babies .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>more people own hd-dvd players than own ps3s?
really?Yup. You see, the little bastards learned from the HD porn and started to fuck, and then they had little HD-DVD player children.
That is the only rational explanation for the fact those numbers.
You see, Toshiba never made enough HD-DVD players to cover 11\% of US homes.
1\% - yes.
2\% - maybe.
11\% - only if they had babies.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1339213.28421167</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1339213.28422129</id>
	<title>Re:early adopters VSs the luddites</title>
	<author>hattig</author>
	<datestamp>1245685440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I strongly suspect that most people are mistaking their "upscaling DVD player" as a HD DVD player in this survey.</p><p>HD DVD is well and truly dead, and has been since early last year, as another respondent says.</p><p>Sadly the BluRay discs are twice the price they should be.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I strongly suspect that most people are mistaking their " upscaling DVD player " as a HD DVD player in this survey.HD DVD is well and truly dead , and has been since early last year , as another respondent says.Sadly the BluRay discs are twice the price they should be .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I strongly suspect that most people are mistaking their "upscaling DVD player" as a HD DVD player in this survey.HD DVD is well and truly dead, and has been since early last year, as another respondent says.Sadly the BluRay discs are twice the price they should be.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1339213.28421309</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1339213.28422531</id>
	<title>Re:Clarification?</title>
	<author>nametaken</author>
	<datestamp>1245686760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Huh, do we believe that 1 in 3 homes has an HDDVD or BRD player in it?  I don't buy it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Huh , do we believe that 1 in 3 homes has an HDDVD or BRD player in it ?
I do n't buy it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Huh, do we believe that 1 in 3 homes has an HDDVD or BRD player in it?
I don't buy it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1339213.28421217</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1339213.28426517</id>
	<title>Re:I work in he rental industry</title>
	<author>Just Some Guy</author>
	<datestamp>1245700620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>What you guys can do to help increase your rentals of Blu ray?</p></div><p>Why would he care?  How many extra DVD rentals would you have to convert to  Blu-Ray rentals each month to cover the setup costs, power, maintenance, and floor space?</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Also - don't be afraid to put up old movies. Top Gun looks great in blu ray.</p></div><p>I don't doubt that's true, but do you really want to associate the new format with "available for lots of old movies!"?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>What you guys can do to help increase your rentals of Blu ray ? Why would he care ?
How many extra DVD rentals would you have to convert to Blu-Ray rentals each month to cover the setup costs , power , maintenance , and floor space ? Also - do n't be afraid to put up old movies .
Top Gun looks great in blu ray.I do n't doubt that 's true , but do you really want to associate the new format with " available for lots of old movies !
" ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What you guys can do to help increase your rentals of Blu ray?Why would he care?
How many extra DVD rentals would you have to convert to  Blu-Ray rentals each month to cover the setup costs, power, maintenance, and floor space?Also - don't be afraid to put up old movies.
Top Gun looks great in blu ray.I don't doubt that's true, but do you really want to associate the new format with "available for lots of old movies!
"?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1339213.28421765</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1339213.28421167</id>
	<title>really?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245682320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>more people own hd-dvd players than own ps3s?  really?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>more people own hd-dvd players than own ps3s ?
really ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>more people own hd-dvd players than own ps3s?
really?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1339213.28422035</id>
	<title>HD format popularity</title>
	<author>Wowsers</author>
	<datestamp>1245685200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>People I know went out and bought "HD ready" televisions, whilst having no HD content to put on them. They liked the bigger and flatter screens, not necessarily giving a damn about image quality (you don't miss what you've never had). Later on the HD format discs came out, and were / are seen as too restrictive, and most importantly, too expensive.... they cannot compete with DVD.</p><p>However, I have got a HD camcorder without a HD television to play it on (I don't count my HD pc monitor as a HD-tv). Looking at the price of HD camcorders compared to similar standard def. / DV camcorders, people would buy HD cameras. If down-sampled the image looks like broadcast SD, better than even DV video can manage.</p><p>So in some areas of technology HD is popular, some not. The camcorder makers want to continue their revenue so video cameras are selling and being innovated with features*. The film companies however want to lock people into a flawed HD technology system, the consumers are telling the film companies to get stuffed, they will stick with DVD.</p><p>The film companies STILL don't get it with how to generate sales, so they continue their own created death of a 1000 cuts. Maybe we should make a movie out of it. "How the film industry killed itself and blamed downloaders and bribed [insert country government] to change laws to protect their failing cartel".</p><p>* Killing off the MiniDV tape / high bitrate video for highly compressed HDV video to fit a low amount of video on a hard drive.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>People I know went out and bought " HD ready " televisions , whilst having no HD content to put on them .
They liked the bigger and flatter screens , not necessarily giving a damn about image quality ( you do n't miss what you 've never had ) .
Later on the HD format discs came out , and were / are seen as too restrictive , and most importantly , too expensive.... they can not compete with DVD.However , I have got a HD camcorder without a HD television to play it on ( I do n't count my HD pc monitor as a HD-tv ) .
Looking at the price of HD camcorders compared to similar standard def .
/ DV camcorders , people would buy HD cameras .
If down-sampled the image looks like broadcast SD , better than even DV video can manage.So in some areas of technology HD is popular , some not .
The camcorder makers want to continue their revenue so video cameras are selling and being innovated with features * .
The film companies however want to lock people into a flawed HD technology system , the consumers are telling the film companies to get stuffed , they will stick with DVD.The film companies STILL do n't get it with how to generate sales , so they continue their own created death of a 1000 cuts .
Maybe we should make a movie out of it .
" How the film industry killed itself and blamed downloaders and bribed [ insert country government ] to change laws to protect their failing cartel " .
* Killing off the MiniDV tape / high bitrate video for highly compressed HDV video to fit a low amount of video on a hard drive .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>People I know went out and bought "HD ready" televisions, whilst having no HD content to put on them.
They liked the bigger and flatter screens, not necessarily giving a damn about image quality (you don't miss what you've never had).
Later on the HD format discs came out, and were / are seen as too restrictive, and most importantly, too expensive.... they cannot compete with DVD.However, I have got a HD camcorder without a HD television to play it on (I don't count my HD pc monitor as a HD-tv).
Looking at the price of HD camcorders compared to similar standard def.
/ DV camcorders, people would buy HD cameras.
If down-sampled the image looks like broadcast SD, better than even DV video can manage.So in some areas of technology HD is popular, some not.
The camcorder makers want to continue their revenue so video cameras are selling and being innovated with features*.
The film companies however want to lock people into a flawed HD technology system, the consumers are telling the film companies to get stuffed, they will stick with DVD.The film companies STILL don't get it with how to generate sales, so they continue their own created death of a 1000 cuts.
Maybe we should make a movie out of it.
"How the film industry killed itself and blamed downloaders and bribed [insert country government] to change laws to protect their failing cartel".
* Killing off the MiniDV tape / high bitrate video for highly compressed HDV video to fit a low amount of video on a hard drive.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1339213.28421843</id>
	<title>Discs still too expensive</title>
	<author>sirwired</author>
	<datestamp>1245684540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Right now, you can get a cheap Blu-Ray player for not much more than what I paid for my first DVD player.  However, I have not even felt a twinge in that general direction; I've been too spoiled by $4 to $6 movies, and until I can routinely get Blu-Ray discs for under $10, forget it.  There are really very few movies I would re-buy in Blu-Ray, further reducing my desire to buy one of those things.</p><p>I do have a 1080p TV, and a usable 7.1 receiver waiting for the day when it does make sense though...</p><p>SirWired</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Right now , you can get a cheap Blu-Ray player for not much more than what I paid for my first DVD player .
However , I have not even felt a twinge in that general direction ; I 've been too spoiled by $ 4 to $ 6 movies , and until I can routinely get Blu-Ray discs for under $ 10 , forget it .
There are really very few movies I would re-buy in Blu-Ray , further reducing my desire to buy one of those things.I do have a 1080p TV , and a usable 7.1 receiver waiting for the day when it does make sense though...SirWired</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Right now, you can get a cheap Blu-Ray player for not much more than what I paid for my first DVD player.
However, I have not even felt a twinge in that general direction; I've been too spoiled by $4 to $6 movies, and until I can routinely get Blu-Ray discs for under $10, forget it.
There are really very few movies I would re-buy in Blu-Ray, further reducing my desire to buy one of those things.I do have a 1080p TV, and a usable 7.1 receiver waiting for the day when it does make sense though...SirWired</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1339213.28422363</id>
	<title>Re:Flawed interpretation of the study</title>
	<author>nolesrule</author>
	<datestamp>1245686220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Despite the doom and gloom, the adoption rate is on par with that of DVD when it was at the same point in its release cycle. It might even be a percentage point higher.</p><p>Not including PS3 numbers is misleading. I know more people who use a PS3 as a primary Blu-ray player and own movies on Blu-ray Disc than who own a standalone Blu-ray player.</p><p>And the firesale of HD-DVD hardware and software at mega-clearance prices probably had some impact. Doesn't really mean much in the real world as the percentage isn't going to increase since players aren't being manufactured and discs aren't being produced.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Despite the doom and gloom , the adoption rate is on par with that of DVD when it was at the same point in its release cycle .
It might even be a percentage point higher.Not including PS3 numbers is misleading .
I know more people who use a PS3 as a primary Blu-ray player and own movies on Blu-ray Disc than who own a standalone Blu-ray player.And the firesale of HD-DVD hardware and software at mega-clearance prices probably had some impact .
Does n't really mean much in the real world as the percentage is n't going to increase since players are n't being manufactured and discs are n't being produced .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Despite the doom and gloom, the adoption rate is on par with that of DVD when it was at the same point in its release cycle.
It might even be a percentage point higher.Not including PS3 numbers is misleading.
I know more people who use a PS3 as a primary Blu-ray player and own movies on Blu-ray Disc than who own a standalone Blu-ray player.And the firesale of HD-DVD hardware and software at mega-clearance prices probably had some impact.
Doesn't really mean much in the real world as the percentage isn't going to increase since players aren't being manufactured and discs aren't being produced.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1339213.28421187</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1339213.28437933</id>
	<title>Re:Don't buy into that lie</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245767340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What makes you think that the studios which put in all the ads would've put in less ads on HD-DVD?</p><p>Seriously, you can skip those ads if you wanted to on most disks. Just press the "menu" button when it starts!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What makes you think that the studios which put in all the ads would 've put in less ads on HD-DVD ? Seriously , you can skip those ads if you wanted to on most disks .
Just press the " menu " button when it starts !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What makes you think that the studios which put in all the ads would've put in less ads on HD-DVD?Seriously, you can skip those ads if you wanted to on most disks.
Just press the "menu" button when it starts!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1339213.28421839</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1339213.28421269</id>
	<title>Really? Not here</title>
	<author>mazevedo</author>
	<datestamp>1245682620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Really? Not here in Portugal. Sure you see a lot of computers (mainly HP) with HD-DVD drives (I have one myself), but although HD format has had a slow adoption, Blu-ray is definitely here - you can see them in any store and video rentals. Only trouble tough are the HIGH prices and crappy movies.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Really ?
Not here in Portugal .
Sure you see a lot of computers ( mainly HP ) with HD-DVD drives ( I have one myself ) , but although HD format has had a slow adoption , Blu-ray is definitely here - you can see them in any store and video rentals .
Only trouble tough are the HIGH prices and crappy movies .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Really?
Not here in Portugal.
Sure you see a lot of computers (mainly HP) with HD-DVD drives (I have one myself), but although HD format has had a slow adoption, Blu-ray is definitely here - you can see them in any store and video rentals.
Only trouble tough are the HIGH prices and crappy movies.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1339213.28421643</id>
	<title>Re:really?</title>
	<author>badasscat</author>
	<datestamp>1245683880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>No.  The statistics are clearly faulty.</p><p>First, 1 in 10 Americans does not own <i>either</i> of these formats.  Come on, really?  30 million Americans own HD-DVD players?  If Toshiba and their partners had sales like that, the format war would have been over long before it was - in HD-DVD's favor.</p><p>Second, this clearly isn't taking into account the 22 million PS3's out there, of which about 12 million are in the United States.  This is still the player of choice for most people - at least until that $99 player announced over the weekend comes along.  But this is one case where a game console is actually clearly better than most standalone players and most people know it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>No .
The statistics are clearly faulty.First , 1 in 10 Americans does not own either of these formats .
Come on , really ?
30 million Americans own HD-DVD players ?
If Toshiba and their partners had sales like that , the format war would have been over long before it was - in HD-DVD 's favor.Second , this clearly is n't taking into account the 22 million PS3 's out there , of which about 12 million are in the United States .
This is still the player of choice for most people - at least until that $ 99 player announced over the weekend comes along .
But this is one case where a game console is actually clearly better than most standalone players and most people know it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No.
The statistics are clearly faulty.First, 1 in 10 Americans does not own either of these formats.
Come on, really?
30 million Americans own HD-DVD players?
If Toshiba and their partners had sales like that, the format war would have been over long before it was - in HD-DVD's favor.Second, this clearly isn't taking into account the 22 million PS3's out there, of which about 12 million are in the United States.
This is still the player of choice for most people - at least until that $99 player announced over the weekend comes along.
But this is one case where a game console is actually clearly better than most standalone players and most people know it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1339213.28421167</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1339213.28421429</id>
	<title>Open Letter to Movie Studios</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245683160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Even before there was a recession I wasn't buying any movies priced over about $8. I don't care if they're DVD or Blu-Ray. These days I wonder why I'm paying even that much.</p><p>Since there are no Blu-Ray movies at that price-point, I'm not obviously not buying those, thus I have no need for a Blu-Ray player. Some day I might buy a PS3, but don't hold your breath.</p><p>Bundling things like James Bond and Clint Eastwood movies after I've bought most of the movies individually just means I'm not going to buy the bundles -- ever. Why would I? I don't need two copies of High Plains Drifter or Dr. No.</p><p>And anyway, physical media is like, so 2006. I watch more on Hulu, video.aol.com, and Netflix than I do from a disc.</p><p>Oh, and BTW Netflix, I'd watch more Netflix on-line if you'd support PPC Macs. We haven't all rushed out to replace our otherwise perfectly good PPC Macs. Until then Hulu wins. In fact I might even close my Netflix account.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Even before there was a recession I was n't buying any movies priced over about $ 8 .
I do n't care if they 're DVD or Blu-Ray .
These days I wonder why I 'm paying even that much.Since there are no Blu-Ray movies at that price-point , I 'm not obviously not buying those , thus I have no need for a Blu-Ray player .
Some day I might buy a PS3 , but do n't hold your breath.Bundling things like James Bond and Clint Eastwood movies after I 've bought most of the movies individually just means I 'm not going to buy the bundles -- ever .
Why would I ?
I do n't need two copies of High Plains Drifter or Dr. No.And anyway , physical media is like , so 2006 .
I watch more on Hulu , video.aol.com , and Netflix than I do from a disc.Oh , and BTW Netflix , I 'd watch more Netflix on-line if you 'd support PPC Macs .
We have n't all rushed out to replace our otherwise perfectly good PPC Macs .
Until then Hulu wins .
In fact I might even close my Netflix account .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Even before there was a recession I wasn't buying any movies priced over about $8.
I don't care if they're DVD or Blu-Ray.
These days I wonder why I'm paying even that much.Since there are no Blu-Ray movies at that price-point, I'm not obviously not buying those, thus I have no need for a Blu-Ray player.
Some day I might buy a PS3, but don't hold your breath.Bundling things like James Bond and Clint Eastwood movies after I've bought most of the movies individually just means I'm not going to buy the bundles -- ever.
Why would I?
I don't need two copies of High Plains Drifter or Dr. No.And anyway, physical media is like, so 2006.
I watch more on Hulu, video.aol.com, and Netflix than I do from a disc.Oh, and BTW Netflix, I'd watch more Netflix on-line if you'd support PPC Macs.
We haven't all rushed out to replace our otherwise perfectly good PPC Macs.
Until then Hulu wins.
In fact I might even close my Netflix account.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1339213.28421663</id>
	<title>Re:Flawed interpretation of the study</title>
	<author>furby076</author>
	<datestamp>1245683880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Before I even got to this post about the research not combining blu-ray and ps3 sales the first thought that came to mind:<br> <br>
"Lies, damned lies, and statistics"<br> <br>

Even the CEO of Toshiba conceded the loss of the HD-DVD / Blu Ray "wars".  So for all of you who own an HD DVD player... enjoy the fact very few movies are coming out for you.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Before I even got to this post about the research not combining blu-ray and ps3 sales the first thought that came to mind : " Lies , damned lies , and statistics " Even the CEO of Toshiba conceded the loss of the HD-DVD / Blu Ray " wars " .
So for all of you who own an HD DVD player... enjoy the fact very few movies are coming out for you .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Before I even got to this post about the research not combining blu-ray and ps3 sales the first thought that came to mind: 
"Lies, damned lies, and statistics" 

Even the CEO of Toshiba conceded the loss of the HD-DVD / Blu Ray "wars".
So for all of you who own an HD DVD player... enjoy the fact very few movies are coming out for you.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1339213.28421187</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1339213.28425319</id>
	<title>I've said it before...</title>
	<author>Crimson Wing</author>
	<datestamp>1245696240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>...and I'll say it again: HD-DVD was the superior format.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>...and I 'll say it again : HD-DVD was the superior format .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...and I'll say it again: HD-DVD was the superior format.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1339213.28431121</id>
	<title>Re:Clarification?</title>
	<author>hazydave</author>
	<datestamp>1245673200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Well, yeah. So how about this... Toshiba made a grand total of 300,000 HD-DVD drives for the X-Box 360, world wide. Last quarter, 400,000 stand-alone Blu-Ray players were sold in the USA alone. That should answer why no one really cares about how many HD-DVD drives were sold for X-Boxen.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Well , yeah .
So how about this... Toshiba made a grand total of 300,000 HD-DVD drives for the X-Box 360 , world wide .
Last quarter , 400,000 stand-alone Blu-Ray players were sold in the USA alone .
That should answer why no one really cares about how many HD-DVD drives were sold for X-Boxen .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well, yeah.
So how about this... Toshiba made a grand total of 300,000 HD-DVD drives for the X-Box 360, world wide.
Last quarter, 400,000 stand-alone Blu-Ray players were sold in the USA alone.
That should answer why no one really cares about how many HD-DVD drives were sold for X-Boxen.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1339213.28421619</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1339213.28422573</id>
	<title>Re:I work in he rental industry</title>
	<author>david@ecsd.com</author>
	<datestamp>1245686880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>If the movie's good enough, you don't really  notice after the first five to ten minutes anyway.</htmltext>
<tokenext>If the movie 's good enough , you do n't really notice after the first five to ten minutes anyway .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If the movie's good enough, you don't really  notice after the first five to ten minutes anyway.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1339213.28421501</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1339213.28421379</id>
	<title>Of course there's a high number of HD DVD players</title>
	<author>joe\_cot</author>
	<datestamp>1245682980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Even though blu-ray won, there were still tons of HD DVD players. They went somewhere, and it wasn't landfills. Stores had fire sales on HD DVD players, many selling them as upconverting DVD players.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Even though blu-ray won , there were still tons of HD DVD players .
They went somewhere , and it was n't landfills .
Stores had fire sales on HD DVD players , many selling them as upconverting DVD players .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Even though blu-ray won, there were still tons of HD DVD players.
They went somewhere, and it wasn't landfills.
Stores had fire sales on HD DVD players, many selling them as upconverting DVD players.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1339213.28422413</id>
	<title>VHS is a factor, too.</title>
	<author>lptport1</author>
	<datestamp>1245686340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I haven't even finished replacing all of the VHS tapes I own with DVD. The VHS tapes still work. What makes them think I want to be updating from two different working formats, simultaneously? To a format that is substantially compromised with DRM, and that they'll want me to upgrade from in about five to ten years?</p><p>Planned obsolescence is not a sustainable strategy, culturally, economically or environmentally.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I have n't even finished replacing all of the VHS tapes I own with DVD .
The VHS tapes still work .
What makes them think I want to be updating from two different working formats , simultaneously ?
To a format that is substantially compromised with DRM , and that they 'll want me to upgrade from in about five to ten years ? Planned obsolescence is not a sustainable strategy , culturally , economically or environmentally .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I haven't even finished replacing all of the VHS tapes I own with DVD.
The VHS tapes still work.
What makes them think I want to be updating from two different working formats, simultaneously?
To a format that is substantially compromised with DRM, and that they'll want me to upgrade from in about five to ten years?Planned obsolescence is not a sustainable strategy, culturally, economically or environmentally.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1339213.28421861</id>
	<title>Several years ago...</title>
	<author>ducomputergeek</author>
	<datestamp>1245684660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>when I was working as an IT consultant for videographers they were asking about the coming HD video format (back in 2002/2003) and I kept telling them not to worry about Blu-Ray or HD-DVD because by the time one format wins, digital content distribution would kill them both by 2010.  It looks like my prediction back then was about right.  In 2005 I bought a Mac-Mini and hooked up to my 32" HDTV's DVI port and have used it as my DVD player and play TV shows i've downloaded from iTunes.</p><p>Last fall I cancelled my cable and started downing the half dozen shows I watch from iTunes.  I thought their SD versions were acceptable, but their new HD versions look great.</p><p>Is it 1080P?  No, but my TV's only 720 anyway.  But it is good enough for me.  And I bought all my TV shows for what 2 months of cable was costing me.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>when I was working as an IT consultant for videographers they were asking about the coming HD video format ( back in 2002/2003 ) and I kept telling them not to worry about Blu-Ray or HD-DVD because by the time one format wins , digital content distribution would kill them both by 2010 .
It looks like my prediction back then was about right .
In 2005 I bought a Mac-Mini and hooked up to my 32 " HDTV 's DVI port and have used it as my DVD player and play TV shows i 've downloaded from iTunes.Last fall I cancelled my cable and started downing the half dozen shows I watch from iTunes .
I thought their SD versions were acceptable , but their new HD versions look great.Is it 1080P ?
No , but my TV 's only 720 anyway .
But it is good enough for me .
And I bought all my TV shows for what 2 months of cable was costing me .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>when I was working as an IT consultant for videographers they were asking about the coming HD video format (back in 2002/2003) and I kept telling them not to worry about Blu-Ray or HD-DVD because by the time one format wins, digital content distribution would kill them both by 2010.
It looks like my prediction back then was about right.
In 2005 I bought a Mac-Mini and hooked up to my 32" HDTV's DVI port and have used it as my DVD player and play TV shows i've downloaded from iTunes.Last fall I cancelled my cable and started downing the half dozen shows I watch from iTunes.
I thought their SD versions were acceptable, but their new HD versions look great.Is it 1080P?
No, but my TV's only 720 anyway.
But it is good enough for me.
And I bought all my TV shows for what 2 months of cable was costing me.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1339213.28422597</id>
	<title>Re:Both are obsolete.</title>
	<author>squoozer</author>
	<datestamp>1245686940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I wouldn't count disk based (film) distribution out just yet. Perhaps Blu-Ray and HD-DVD didn't stick but I think it's entirely possible a new format will in the future. There are a wide range of factors that could lead to this not least the technological ones. First of the infrastructure to stream good HD content (e.g. it's not been compressed to the point where you might was well watch it on You Tube) isn't even nearly there in a lot of places and won't be for a good while yet. It might be in a few major cities and all of South Korea but it's not widespread. That puts "streamed" HD into the download now and watch later category which requires planning on the viewers part. Sure it's not a lot of planning but it's more than just gabbing a disk off the shelf so it's a barrier to adoption. Then there's the affective qualities of the disk: a lot of people like owning something tangible. That's really hard to replicate in the digital world especially when it gets pumped so full of DRM it leaves people unsure if they actually bought the movie or not.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I would n't count disk based ( film ) distribution out just yet .
Perhaps Blu-Ray and HD-DVD did n't stick but I think it 's entirely possible a new format will in the future .
There are a wide range of factors that could lead to this not least the technological ones .
First of the infrastructure to stream good HD content ( e.g .
it 's not been compressed to the point where you might was well watch it on You Tube ) is n't even nearly there in a lot of places and wo n't be for a good while yet .
It might be in a few major cities and all of South Korea but it 's not widespread .
That puts " streamed " HD into the download now and watch later category which requires planning on the viewers part .
Sure it 's not a lot of planning but it 's more than just gabbing a disk off the shelf so it 's a barrier to adoption .
Then there 's the affective qualities of the disk : a lot of people like owning something tangible .
That 's really hard to replicate in the digital world especially when it gets pumped so full of DRM it leaves people unsure if they actually bought the movie or not .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I wouldn't count disk based (film) distribution out just yet.
Perhaps Blu-Ray and HD-DVD didn't stick but I think it's entirely possible a new format will in the future.
There are a wide range of factors that could lead to this not least the technological ones.
First of the infrastructure to stream good HD content (e.g.
it's not been compressed to the point where you might was well watch it on You Tube) isn't even nearly there in a lot of places and won't be for a good while yet.
It might be in a few major cities and all of South Korea but it's not widespread.
That puts "streamed" HD into the download now and watch later category which requires planning on the viewers part.
Sure it's not a lot of planning but it's more than just gabbing a disk off the shelf so it's a barrier to adoption.
Then there's the affective qualities of the disk: a lot of people like owning something tangible.
That's really hard to replicate in the digital world especially when it gets pumped so full of DRM it leaves people unsure if they actually bought the movie or not.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1339213.28421543</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1339213.28422503</id>
	<title>Re:I work in he rental industry</title>
	<author>ACMENEWSLLC</author>
	<datestamp>1245686640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I own an Blu-Ray.  Yet I still purchase and rent DVDs.   Yes, the picture quality is great on Blu-Ray.  But it's a pain in the rear making it work.  The local rental store charges more, and the disks are a lot more to purchase.</p><p>I hook up the Blu-Ray to my HD TV, and some of the time HDCP gives some error, causing me to reboot Blu-Ray and watch all the commercials yet again.    Or the Blu-Ray starts skipping frames.  I don't care about the quality when the frame rate drops to 15FPS.   That is really nasty to watch.</p><p>Blu-Ray probably is the future.  This Christmas, players will likely be in the $90 range.   It will likely be the hot Christmas gift.   As the prices drop over the next 5 years, it will begin to replace DVDs, and DVD's will go the way of VHS.   This just takes time as prices fall.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I own an Blu-Ray .
Yet I still purchase and rent DVDs .
Yes , the picture quality is great on Blu-Ray .
But it 's a pain in the rear making it work .
The local rental store charges more , and the disks are a lot more to purchase.I hook up the Blu-Ray to my HD TV , and some of the time HDCP gives some error , causing me to reboot Blu-Ray and watch all the commercials yet again .
Or the Blu-Ray starts skipping frames .
I do n't care about the quality when the frame rate drops to 15FPS .
That is really nasty to watch.Blu-Ray probably is the future .
This Christmas , players will likely be in the $ 90 range .
It will likely be the hot Christmas gift .
As the prices drop over the next 5 years , it will begin to replace DVDs , and DVD 's will go the way of VHS .
This just takes time as prices fall .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I own an Blu-Ray.
Yet I still purchase and rent DVDs.
Yes, the picture quality is great on Blu-Ray.
But it's a pain in the rear making it work.
The local rental store charges more, and the disks are a lot more to purchase.I hook up the Blu-Ray to my HD TV, and some of the time HDCP gives some error, causing me to reboot Blu-Ray and watch all the commercials yet again.
Or the Blu-Ray starts skipping frames.
I don't care about the quality when the frame rate drops to 15FPS.
That is really nasty to watch.Blu-Ray probably is the future.
This Christmas, players will likely be in the $90 range.
It will likely be the hot Christmas gift.
As the prices drop over the next 5 years, it will begin to replace DVDs, and DVD's will go the way of VHS.
This just takes time as prices fall.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1339213.28421193</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1339213.28422259</id>
	<title>Re:Let's get this straight:</title>
	<author>IrquiM</author>
	<datestamp>1245685860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Please stop saying that they don't see the difference between SD and HD. They do - those who don't won't even had noticed the difference between kate moss and susan boyle!</p><p>They might ignore it, yes, but if someone demonstrate it for them, the'll see it.</p><p>My dad was one of those that say "I don't see the big fuss about HD - there's no difference anyway". Then the old TV broke, and we got him a new 46" Sharp Aquarius, and show him a BR on my brothers PS3. Next day he called the cable company and ordered the HD decoder, and went and bought himself a PS3 of his own.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Please stop saying that they do n't see the difference between SD and HD .
They do - those who do n't wo n't even had noticed the difference between kate moss and susan boyle ! They might ignore it , yes , but if someone demonstrate it for them , the 'll see it.My dad was one of those that say " I do n't see the big fuss about HD - there 's no difference anyway " .
Then the old TV broke , and we got him a new 46 " Sharp Aquarius , and show him a BR on my brothers PS3 .
Next day he called the cable company and ordered the HD decoder , and went and bought himself a PS3 of his own .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Please stop saying that they don't see the difference between SD and HD.
They do - those who don't won't even had noticed the difference between kate moss and susan boyle!They might ignore it, yes, but if someone demonstrate it for them, the'll see it.My dad was one of those that say "I don't see the big fuss about HD - there's no difference anyway".
Then the old TV broke, and we got him a new 46" Sharp Aquarius, and show him a BR on my brothers PS3.
Next day he called the cable company and ordered the HD decoder, and went and bought himself a PS3 of his own.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1339213.28421243</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1339213.28424409</id>
	<title>I am astonished at how clueless they are</title>
	<author>terjeber</author>
	<datestamp>1245693180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Are the HD-DVD fanbois still out there spreading their FUD and BS? It seems so. The clueless idiots who did this study, and by extension, the clueless idiot who posted it really need to learn how to read and how to do a minimum amount of research.</p><p>As others have pointed out - there was not enough HD-DVD players sold in the world to make that 11\% number correct. It is total BS. It is absurd. In addition, the number of PS3s is higher than the number of Blu-Ray players. That is similar to saying that there are more Ford Automobiles sold in the US than the total number of cars sold. I had expected better by both hot hardware and a slashdotter. Too dumb.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Are the HD-DVD fanbois still out there spreading their FUD and BS ?
It seems so .
The clueless idiots who did this study , and by extension , the clueless idiot who posted it really need to learn how to read and how to do a minimum amount of research.As others have pointed out - there was not enough HD-DVD players sold in the world to make that 11 \ % number correct .
It is total BS .
It is absurd .
In addition , the number of PS3s is higher than the number of Blu-Ray players .
That is similar to saying that there are more Ford Automobiles sold in the US than the total number of cars sold .
I had expected better by both hot hardware and a slashdotter .
Too dumb .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Are the HD-DVD fanbois still out there spreading their FUD and BS?
It seems so.
The clueless idiots who did this study, and by extension, the clueless idiot who posted it really need to learn how to read and how to do a minimum amount of research.As others have pointed out - there was not enough HD-DVD players sold in the world to make that 11\% number correct.
It is total BS.
It is absurd.
In addition, the number of PS3s is higher than the number of Blu-Ray players.
That is similar to saying that there are more Ford Automobiles sold in the US than the total number of cars sold.
I had expected better by both hot hardware and a slashdotter.
Too dumb.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1339213.28425233</id>
	<title>Re:I work in he rental industry</title>
	<author>benwaggoner</author>
	<datestamp>1245696000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Of course, "normal" viewing distance is based on the distance where a SD image looked good.</p><p>Since 1080p has 6x the pixels of 480p, you'll need to sit 2.4x (square root of 6) closer to see a similar amount of visual detail.</p><p>The most important upgrade after getting a HD video source is pushing your couch closer<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Of course , " normal " viewing distance is based on the distance where a SD image looked good.Since 1080p has 6x the pixels of 480p , you 'll need to sit 2.4x ( square root of 6 ) closer to see a similar amount of visual detail.The most important upgrade after getting a HD video source is pushing your couch closer : ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Of course, "normal" viewing distance is based on the distance where a SD image looked good.Since 1080p has 6x the pixels of 480p, you'll need to sit 2.4x (square root of 6) closer to see a similar amount of visual detail.The most important upgrade after getting a HD video source is pushing your couch closer :).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1339213.28421501</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1339213.28421895</id>
	<title>Comment on HD movies</title>
	<author>foniksonik</author>
	<datestamp>1245684720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I have an AppleTV which means I've had access to HD movies for a year now (well more like 6 months if you're looking at a good selection). I don't rent them... I rent the SD version.</p><p>Why? It's a buck cheaper.</p><p>Really why? Cause I only have a 27 inch flatscreen that plays 720p at best (and wouldn't benefit from 1080i anyways).</p><p>I'm probably the middle of the road in terms of having the capability to benefit from HD movies. My screen is too small, so HD just isn't that compelling. OTOH the screen is the perfect size for good quality SD w/ upscaling.</p><p>Even at 35 in. I suspect that HD is just barely going to be a game changer unless you have perfect vision, in which case you probably do see the compression in SD. With upscaling however it's likely less noticeable.</p><p>Now if I had a 40 in. screen or larger I would say that HD is a requirement. SD just can't scale up to fill that much space without starting to show compression squares or blurring, upscaling included.</p><p>So really the reason I stick with SD movies is that for my setup there is no noticeable benefit. If I get a raise before Christmas I might upgrade my TV to a 40 in. - at which point I will start paying an extra $1 to download HD movies... I still won't be buying a Blueray or HD DVD player.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I have an AppleTV which means I 've had access to HD movies for a year now ( well more like 6 months if you 're looking at a good selection ) .
I do n't rent them... I rent the SD version.Why ?
It 's a buck cheaper.Really why ?
Cause I only have a 27 inch flatscreen that plays 720p at best ( and would n't benefit from 1080i anyways ) .I 'm probably the middle of the road in terms of having the capability to benefit from HD movies .
My screen is too small , so HD just is n't that compelling .
OTOH the screen is the perfect size for good quality SD w/ upscaling.Even at 35 in .
I suspect that HD is just barely going to be a game changer unless you have perfect vision , in which case you probably do see the compression in SD .
With upscaling however it 's likely less noticeable.Now if I had a 40 in .
screen or larger I would say that HD is a requirement .
SD just ca n't scale up to fill that much space without starting to show compression squares or blurring , upscaling included.So really the reason I stick with SD movies is that for my setup there is no noticeable benefit .
If I get a raise before Christmas I might upgrade my TV to a 40 in .
- at which point I will start paying an extra $ 1 to download HD movies... I still wo n't be buying a Blueray or HD DVD player .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I have an AppleTV which means I've had access to HD movies for a year now (well more like 6 months if you're looking at a good selection).
I don't rent them... I rent the SD version.Why?
It's a buck cheaper.Really why?
Cause I only have a 27 inch flatscreen that plays 720p at best (and wouldn't benefit from 1080i anyways).I'm probably the middle of the road in terms of having the capability to benefit from HD movies.
My screen is too small, so HD just isn't that compelling.
OTOH the screen is the perfect size for good quality SD w/ upscaling.Even at 35 in.
I suspect that HD is just barely going to be a game changer unless you have perfect vision, in which case you probably do see the compression in SD.
With upscaling however it's likely less noticeable.Now if I had a 40 in.
screen or larger I would say that HD is a requirement.
SD just can't scale up to fill that much space without starting to show compression squares or blurring, upscaling included.So really the reason I stick with SD movies is that for my setup there is no noticeable benefit.
If I get a raise before Christmas I might upgrade my TV to a 40 in.
- at which point I will start paying an extra $1 to download HD movies... I still won't be buying a Blueray or HD DVD player.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1339213.28425075</id>
	<title>Re:Never FORGET The Real Reason They Gave In!!!</title>
	<author>anthonyfk</author>
	<datestamp>1245695460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Buyer beware.  When two formats are competing it's best to let the dust settle first.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Buyer beware .
When two formats are competing it 's best to let the dust settle first .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Buyer beware.
When two formats are competing it's best to let the dust settle first.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1339213.28421489</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1339213.28441165</id>
	<title>Re:really?</title>
	<author>geekoid</author>
	<datestamp>1245780600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Actually, your interpretation is faulty.</p><p>"30 million Americans own HD-DVD players?"</p><p>If you talk to 4 people from the same house if they had a HD players, they would all say yes.<br>Now, considers the study in question only talked to one member of a house hold, then you realize that 10\% is not 30 million.</p><p>"12 million are in the United States. "<br>Clearly, they do. read it again.</p><p>"a game console is actually clearly better"<br>err.. no. There are too many factors. to coem to that conclusion at this time.<br>If you are thinking of buys an game station and a player separately, then maybe it's true.</p><p>Blu-Ray certianly seems to have won, regardless I just hate when people don't think about about the results from a study, just twist them to 'prove' some point.</p><p>Look at how many peple in this thread in the same argument say the HD number s are wrong and then compare some off the cuff numbers to the same studies Blu-ray numbers.<br>Hello? if the study s flawed, fine but then don't use it to back up the Blu-Ray numbers in the same breath you deride it's HD numbers.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Actually , your interpretation is faulty .
" 30 million Americans own HD-DVD players ?
" If you talk to 4 people from the same house if they had a HD players , they would all say yes.Now , considers the study in question only talked to one member of a house hold , then you realize that 10 \ % is not 30 million .
" 12 million are in the United States .
" Clearly , they do .
read it again .
" a game console is actually clearly better " err.. no. There are too many factors .
to coem to that conclusion at this time.If you are thinking of buys an game station and a player separately , then maybe it 's true.Blu-Ray certianly seems to have won , regardless I just hate when people do n't think about about the results from a study , just twist them to 'prove ' some point.Look at how many peple in this thread in the same argument say the HD number s are wrong and then compare some off the cuff numbers to the same studies Blu-ray numbers.Hello ?
if the study s flawed , fine but then do n't use it to back up the Blu-Ray numbers in the same breath you deride it 's HD numbers .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Actually, your interpretation is faulty.
"30 million Americans own HD-DVD players?
"If you talk to 4 people from the same house if they had a HD players, they would all say yes.Now, considers the study in question only talked to one member of a house hold, then you realize that 10\% is not 30 million.
"12 million are in the United States.
"Clearly, they do.
read it again.
"a game console is actually clearly better"err.. no. There are too many factors.
to coem to that conclusion at this time.If you are thinking of buys an game station and a player separately, then maybe it's true.Blu-Ray certianly seems to have won, regardless I just hate when people don't think about about the results from a study, just twist them to 'prove' some point.Look at how many peple in this thread in the same argument say the HD number s are wrong and then compare some off the cuff numbers to the same studies Blu-ray numbers.Hello?
if the study s flawed, fine but then don't use it to back up the Blu-Ray numbers in the same breath you deride it's HD numbers.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1339213.28421643</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1339213.28421839</id>
	<title>Don't buy into that lie</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245684540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That was how Sony convinced the producers that they had won, by counting PS3's instead of stand alone players.  This is no different than some of the Apple people claiming 10\% market share but failing to state that it included phones!</p><p>Personal account, only one of the circle of friends who has a PS3 have more than two blu ray movies.  Most don't even use it to play regular DVDs, it is the "KIDS MACHINE".</p><p>HD-DVD loaded faster, have less expensive players, and less expensive movies.  It also had some great shows/movies out early that Blu Ray did not.  I have both players now, I would have loved HD-DVD to have won.  Why?  Because of the G-D ads that too many Blu-Ray movies force you to sit through.  See, that AD thing is probably another reason movie producers would favor Sony over HD.  They could force you to watch their ads for other products because HD stated that that feature was not allowed - not so in Blu-Ray</p><p>Well with <a href="http://red2blu.com/" title="red2blu.com" rel="nofollow">http://red2blu.com/</a> [red2blu.com] I could get the blu-ray versions fairly cheap, but my HD-DVD player is again, faster and less prone to abuse by the dvd creator.</p><p>Sony screwed the consumer over by lies and buying off the movie producers.  They are getting exactly what they deserve, flat to falling sales.  The players are overpriced and worse the movies border on extortionist in pricing.  I do not buy new Blu-Ray movies, I rent them on occasion, but if they are higher than standard DVD I will just wait till the price goes down.  This has two effects, by the time the price comes down the movie may no longer be interesting to me meaning I didn't need it anyway, the second being that perhaps one day they will get the hint.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That was how Sony convinced the producers that they had won , by counting PS3 's instead of stand alone players .
This is no different than some of the Apple people claiming 10 \ % market share but failing to state that it included phones ! Personal account , only one of the circle of friends who has a PS3 have more than two blu ray movies .
Most do n't even use it to play regular DVDs , it is the " KIDS MACHINE " .HD-DVD loaded faster , have less expensive players , and less expensive movies .
It also had some great shows/movies out early that Blu Ray did not .
I have both players now , I would have loved HD-DVD to have won .
Why ? Because of the G-D ads that too many Blu-Ray movies force you to sit through .
See , that AD thing is probably another reason movie producers would favor Sony over HD .
They could force you to watch their ads for other products because HD stated that that feature was not allowed - not so in Blu-RayWell with http : //red2blu.com/ [ red2blu.com ] I could get the blu-ray versions fairly cheap , but my HD-DVD player is again , faster and less prone to abuse by the dvd creator.Sony screwed the consumer over by lies and buying off the movie producers .
They are getting exactly what they deserve , flat to falling sales .
The players are overpriced and worse the movies border on extortionist in pricing .
I do not buy new Blu-Ray movies , I rent them on occasion , but if they are higher than standard DVD I will just wait till the price goes down .
This has two effects , by the time the price comes down the movie may no longer be interesting to me meaning I did n't need it anyway , the second being that perhaps one day they will get the hint .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That was how Sony convinced the producers that they had won, by counting PS3's instead of stand alone players.
This is no different than some of the Apple people claiming 10\% market share but failing to state that it included phones!Personal account, only one of the circle of friends who has a PS3 have more than two blu ray movies.
Most don't even use it to play regular DVDs, it is the "KIDS MACHINE".HD-DVD loaded faster, have less expensive players, and less expensive movies.
It also had some great shows/movies out early that Blu Ray did not.
I have both players now, I would have loved HD-DVD to have won.
Why?  Because of the G-D ads that too many Blu-Ray movies force you to sit through.
See, that AD thing is probably another reason movie producers would favor Sony over HD.
They could force you to watch their ads for other products because HD stated that that feature was not allowed - not so in Blu-RayWell with http://red2blu.com/ [red2blu.com] I could get the blu-ray versions fairly cheap, but my HD-DVD player is again, faster and less prone to abuse by the dvd creator.Sony screwed the consumer over by lies and buying off the movie producers.
They are getting exactly what they deserve, flat to falling sales.
The players are overpriced and worse the movies border on extortionist in pricing.
I do not buy new Blu-Ray movies, I rent them on occasion, but if they are higher than standard DVD I will just wait till the price goes down.
This has two effects, by the time the price comes down the movie may no longer be interesting to me meaning I didn't need it anyway, the second being that perhaps one day they will get the hint.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1339213.28421167</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1339213.28421717</id>
	<title>Disingenous, at best</title>
	<author>Coopjust</author>
	<datestamp>1245684120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>If you combine the 360 addon owners with the regular pool, 14\% of those surveyed own an HD-DVD player.
<br> <br>
So, if you combine the PS3 owners with the regular Blu-Ray owners, 16\% of those surveyed owned a Blu-Ray player.
<br> <br>
Here is the logical response you probably have now: "But, every HD-DVD owner (including addon) bought it to watch Blu-Rays, while many PS3 owners probably bought it just to play games."
<br> <br>
That's taken care of by the survey too. Out of all, PS3 owners 25\% buy all their movies in Blu-Ray and another. 32\% buy "most" of their movies in Blu-Ray. So 57\% are regular Blu-Ray buyers now, and many PS3 owners are waiting for prices to come down.
<br> <br>
HD-DVD owners? Stores gave the players away. They were cheaper than other upscaling players at some point. The addon for the 360 was $20 at my local stores with 5 free movies. Many HD-DVD owners probably bought closeout gear at low prices.
<br> <br>
So while the percentages may technically be right, with the fire sale that followed HD-DVDs failure, it's not terribly suprising. And the 7\% is it at least 12\% for Blu-Ray buyers, since over half of all PS3 owners buy movies.</htmltext>
<tokenext>If you combine the 360 addon owners with the regular pool , 14 \ % of those surveyed own an HD-DVD player .
So , if you combine the PS3 owners with the regular Blu-Ray owners , 16 \ % of those surveyed owned a Blu-Ray player .
Here is the logical response you probably have now : " But , every HD-DVD owner ( including addon ) bought it to watch Blu-Rays , while many PS3 owners probably bought it just to play games .
" That 's taken care of by the survey too .
Out of all , PS3 owners 25 \ % buy all their movies in Blu-Ray and another .
32 \ % buy " most " of their movies in Blu-Ray .
So 57 \ % are regular Blu-Ray buyers now , and many PS3 owners are waiting for prices to come down .
HD-DVD owners ?
Stores gave the players away .
They were cheaper than other upscaling players at some point .
The addon for the 360 was $ 20 at my local stores with 5 free movies .
Many HD-DVD owners probably bought closeout gear at low prices .
So while the percentages may technically be right , with the fire sale that followed HD-DVDs failure , it 's not terribly suprising .
And the 7 \ % is it at least 12 \ % for Blu-Ray buyers , since over half of all PS3 owners buy movies .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you combine the 360 addon owners with the regular pool, 14\% of those surveyed own an HD-DVD player.
So, if you combine the PS3 owners with the regular Blu-Ray owners, 16\% of those surveyed owned a Blu-Ray player.
Here is the logical response you probably have now: "But, every HD-DVD owner (including addon) bought it to watch Blu-Rays, while many PS3 owners probably bought it just to play games.
"
 
That's taken care of by the survey too.
Out of all, PS3 owners 25\% buy all their movies in Blu-Ray and another.
32\% buy "most" of their movies in Blu-Ray.
So 57\% are regular Blu-Ray buyers now, and many PS3 owners are waiting for prices to come down.
HD-DVD owners?
Stores gave the players away.
They were cheaper than other upscaling players at some point.
The addon for the 360 was $20 at my local stores with 5 free movies.
Many HD-DVD owners probably bought closeout gear at low prices.
So while the percentages may technically be right, with the fire sale that followed HD-DVDs failure, it's not terribly suprising.
And the 7\% is it at least 12\% for Blu-Ray buyers, since over half of all PS3 owners buy movies.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1339213.28421297</id>
	<title>It was budget because it was failing!</title>
	<author>Sockatume</author>
	<datestamp>1245682740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>HD-DVD wasn't "budget" from the outset or because of any particular economy in the price of players or disks. HD-DVD cost as much as Blu-ray to start off with and then it went cheap fast when it became clear it was losing the battle. Had HD-DVD emerged the victor I'm sure we would've seen plenty of bargain-priced Blu-Ray deals and a correspondingly disproportionate install base.</htmltext>
<tokenext>HD-DVD was n't " budget " from the outset or because of any particular economy in the price of players or disks .
HD-DVD cost as much as Blu-ray to start off with and then it went cheap fast when it became clear it was losing the battle .
Had HD-DVD emerged the victor I 'm sure we would 've seen plenty of bargain-priced Blu-Ray deals and a correspondingly disproportionate install base .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>HD-DVD wasn't "budget" from the outset or because of any particular economy in the price of players or disks.
HD-DVD cost as much as Blu-ray to start off with and then it went cheap fast when it became clear it was losing the battle.
Had HD-DVD emerged the victor I'm sure we would've seen plenty of bargain-priced Blu-Ray deals and a correspondingly disproportionate install base.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1339213.28421543</id>
	<title>Both are obsolete.</title>
	<author>downix</author>
	<datestamp>1245683580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The real telling issue is that less than 20\% of US Households have adopted either, and it's been out for years.  Frankly, this should be no surprise, the "format war" dragged on for so long that by the time the victor had stepped forth, the market they were fighting for was already passing them by.  The migration to HD video on demand, online streaming, and yes, downloading of material makes disk-based distribution an out of date concept who is slowly fading into the past.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The real telling issue is that less than 20 \ % of US Households have adopted either , and it 's been out for years .
Frankly , this should be no surprise , the " format war " dragged on for so long that by the time the victor had stepped forth , the market they were fighting for was already passing them by .
The migration to HD video on demand , online streaming , and yes , downloading of material makes disk-based distribution an out of date concept who is slowly fading into the past .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The real telling issue is that less than 20\% of US Households have adopted either, and it's been out for years.
Frankly, this should be no surprise, the "format war" dragged on for so long that by the time the victor had stepped forth, the market they were fighting for was already passing them by.
The migration to HD video on demand, online streaming, and yes, downloading of material makes disk-based distribution an out of date concept who is slowly fading into the past.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1339213.28428921</id>
	<title>Re:I work in he rental industry</title>
	<author>mahlerfan999</author>
	<datestamp>1245665100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I always hate it when someone uses the dreaded phrase "normal viewing distance" which is completely subjective, vague and ambiguous.  Normal to my parents is sitting 15-20 feet from the tv, normal for me is sitting 8 feet away, normal for some of my friends is 5 feet away.  What's "normal"?</p><p>The real problem is that it's not viewing distance but field-of-view that's important for discerning resolution.  Watching 10 feet from a 26 inch is not the same was 10 feet away from a 60 inch tv.  It's helpful to recast viewing distance into multiples of screen size, most home theater enthusiasts sit between 1.5-2.5 * screen size away from their tvs for that immersive experience.  At that viewing distance hd is clearly superior to sd (assuming that you have reasonable eyesight).  If you sit further away than about 3 * screen size away then hd and sd will look the same.</p><p>This is based on the human eye's ability to distinguish between two lines if they are separated by at least 1 arcminute apart.  Most people that buy hdtvs buy in the 40-46 inch size range and sit typically between 8-10 feet away from the tv.  That means that most people who buy an hdtv (as long as they have 20/20 eyesight) will see an improvement with hd content over sd content.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I always hate it when someone uses the dreaded phrase " normal viewing distance " which is completely subjective , vague and ambiguous .
Normal to my parents is sitting 15-20 feet from the tv , normal for me is sitting 8 feet away , normal for some of my friends is 5 feet away .
What 's " normal " ? The real problem is that it 's not viewing distance but field-of-view that 's important for discerning resolution .
Watching 10 feet from a 26 inch is not the same was 10 feet away from a 60 inch tv .
It 's helpful to recast viewing distance into multiples of screen size , most home theater enthusiasts sit between 1.5-2.5 * screen size away from their tvs for that immersive experience .
At that viewing distance hd is clearly superior to sd ( assuming that you have reasonable eyesight ) .
If you sit further away than about 3 * screen size away then hd and sd will look the same.This is based on the human eye 's ability to distinguish between two lines if they are separated by at least 1 arcminute apart .
Most people that buy hdtvs buy in the 40-46 inch size range and sit typically between 8-10 feet away from the tv .
That means that most people who buy an hdtv ( as long as they have 20/20 eyesight ) will see an improvement with hd content over sd content .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I always hate it when someone uses the dreaded phrase "normal viewing distance" which is completely subjective, vague and ambiguous.
Normal to my parents is sitting 15-20 feet from the tv, normal for me is sitting 8 feet away, normal for some of my friends is 5 feet away.
What's "normal"?The real problem is that it's not viewing distance but field-of-view that's important for discerning resolution.
Watching 10 feet from a 26 inch is not the same was 10 feet away from a 60 inch tv.
It's helpful to recast viewing distance into multiples of screen size, most home theater enthusiasts sit between 1.5-2.5 * screen size away from their tvs for that immersive experience.
At that viewing distance hd is clearly superior to sd (assuming that you have reasonable eyesight).
If you sit further away than about 3 * screen size away then hd and sd will look the same.This is based on the human eye's ability to distinguish between two lines if they are separated by at least 1 arcminute apart.
Most people that buy hdtvs buy in the 40-46 inch size range and sit typically between 8-10 feet away from the tv.
That means that most people who buy an hdtv (as long as they have 20/20 eyesight) will see an improvement with hd content over sd content.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1339213.28421501</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1339213.28422695</id>
	<title>Cheap!</title>
	<author>James Skarzinskas</author>
	<datestamp>1245687240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>And with HD-DVDs failure, retailers dumped their stock cheap. HD-DVD players, HD-DVD discs, all for next to nothing. People picking up that new HDTV, being advised by a sales rep that they'll need an HD source? Probably going to snag that cheap "get rid of all this crap as fast as possible" HD-DVD package. There are many deceptions within these figures, if the figures themselves are not suspect to begin with.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>And with HD-DVDs failure , retailers dumped their stock cheap .
HD-DVD players , HD-DVD discs , all for next to nothing .
People picking up that new HDTV , being advised by a sales rep that they 'll need an HD source ?
Probably going to snag that cheap " get rid of all this crap as fast as possible " HD-DVD package .
There are many deceptions within these figures , if the figures themselves are not suspect to begin with .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And with HD-DVDs failure, retailers dumped their stock cheap.
HD-DVD players, HD-DVD discs, all for next to nothing.
People picking up that new HDTV, being advised by a sales rep that they'll need an HD source?
Probably going to snag that cheap "get rid of all this crap as fast as possible" HD-DVD package.
There are many deceptions within these figures, if the figures themselves are not suspect to begin with.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1339213.28427281</id>
	<title>Re:really?</title>
	<author>suggsjc</author>
	<datestamp>1245703140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>True, but I bought my PS3 primarily for Blu-ray.  Yeah, I play a game every now and then, but I'd say that my ratio of movie watching to game playing is probably 3 to 1.<br> <br>
When people ask me about what Blu-ray player to get, I tell them to get the PS3.  It cost just marginally more than a (decent) standalone player but it has the ability to play games, surf the net, etc.  Even if you don't think you'll use those features that often I still think it is worth it in terms of how future-proof the system is.  I mean, Sony is going to be pushing/updating the system for at least the next few years.  I don't think you'll see that same level of support for some stand-alone player...the manufacturer would rather have you buy yet another player that "now has feature X", whereas Sony will keep the PS3 relevant due to the fact that it does more than just play movies, and that the greater the number of PS3's shipped the larger the potential for game-developers to target the platform which leads to more licensing revenue.<br> <br>
So to recap, I get your point.  But don't underestimate the PS3 as actually being purchased as (more or less) a standalone player as well.</htmltext>
<tokenext>True , but I bought my PS3 primarily for Blu-ray .
Yeah , I play a game every now and then , but I 'd say that my ratio of movie watching to game playing is probably 3 to 1 .
When people ask me about what Blu-ray player to get , I tell them to get the PS3 .
It cost just marginally more than a ( decent ) standalone player but it has the ability to play games , surf the net , etc .
Even if you do n't think you 'll use those features that often I still think it is worth it in terms of how future-proof the system is .
I mean , Sony is going to be pushing/updating the system for at least the next few years .
I do n't think you 'll see that same level of support for some stand-alone player...the manufacturer would rather have you buy yet another player that " now has feature X " , whereas Sony will keep the PS3 relevant due to the fact that it does more than just play movies , and that the greater the number of PS3 's shipped the larger the potential for game-developers to target the platform which leads to more licensing revenue .
So to recap , I get your point .
But do n't underestimate the PS3 as actually being purchased as ( more or less ) a standalone player as well .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>True, but I bought my PS3 primarily for Blu-ray.
Yeah, I play a game every now and then, but I'd say that my ratio of movie watching to game playing is probably 3 to 1.
When people ask me about what Blu-ray player to get, I tell them to get the PS3.
It cost just marginally more than a (decent) standalone player but it has the ability to play games, surf the net, etc.
Even if you don't think you'll use those features that often I still think it is worth it in terms of how future-proof the system is.
I mean, Sony is going to be pushing/updating the system for at least the next few years.
I don't think you'll see that same level of support for some stand-alone player...the manufacturer would rather have you buy yet another player that "now has feature X", whereas Sony will keep the PS3 relevant due to the fact that it does more than just play movies, and that the greater the number of PS3's shipped the larger the potential for game-developers to target the platform which leads to more licensing revenue.
So to recap, I get your point.
But don't underestimate the PS3 as actually being purchased as (more or less) a standalone player as well.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1339213.28421987</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1339213.28424641</id>
	<title>Re:I work in he rental industry</title>
	<author>WndrBr3d</author>
	<datestamp>1245693840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You're actually correct in that the human eye cannot tell the difference between 1080p and 720p at a certain distance.</p><p>I read an article many moons ago when the format war was still in high gear on Audioholics (<a href="http://www.audioholics.com/education/display-formats-technology/1080p-and-the-acuity-of-human-vision" title="audioholics.com">link</a> [audioholics.com]) which was titled "1080p and the Acuity of Human Vision". It's an interesting article because it cuts through all the marketing and gets down to the science of HD and if it ACTUALLY matters.</p><p>A good summary line from the article would be:</p><p>"Put bluntly, from 8 feet away while watching a 50 inch plasma TV, the human eye is generally incapable of reliably distinguishing any detail finer than that shown on a true 720p display!"</p><p>Most "quality" differences people see between the formats (unless they're sitting in the first row of their home movie theater) come from richer colors and cranked up contrast and brightness on sales displays.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You 're actually correct in that the human eye can not tell the difference between 1080p and 720p at a certain distance.I read an article many moons ago when the format war was still in high gear on Audioholics ( link [ audioholics.com ] ) which was titled " 1080p and the Acuity of Human Vision " .
It 's an interesting article because it cuts through all the marketing and gets down to the science of HD and if it ACTUALLY matters.A good summary line from the article would be : " Put bluntly , from 8 feet away while watching a 50 inch plasma TV , the human eye is generally incapable of reliably distinguishing any detail finer than that shown on a true 720p display !
" Most " quality " differences people see between the formats ( unless they 're sitting in the first row of their home movie theater ) come from richer colors and cranked up contrast and brightness on sales displays .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You're actually correct in that the human eye cannot tell the difference between 1080p and 720p at a certain distance.I read an article many moons ago when the format war was still in high gear on Audioholics (link [audioholics.com]) which was titled "1080p and the Acuity of Human Vision".
It's an interesting article because it cuts through all the marketing and gets down to the science of HD and if it ACTUALLY matters.A good summary line from the article would be:"Put bluntly, from 8 feet away while watching a 50 inch plasma TV, the human eye is generally incapable of reliably distinguishing any detail finer than that shown on a true 720p display!
"Most "quality" differences people see between the formats (unless they're sitting in the first row of their home movie theater) come from richer colors and cranked up contrast and brightness on sales displays.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1339213.28421501</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1339213.28422455</id>
	<title>Re:I work in he rental industry</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245686460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You wrote: "I have a 720p capable LCD..."</p><p>There's part of the reason you can't tell the difference.  Then you mention seeing a 1080p display with a sliding effect showing the difference and you add "(presumably with DVD suitably fuzzed to exagerate the affect..." -- um, no, not needed--they ARE honest.</p><p>My 47" 1080p display makes the difference VERY CLEAR at normal viewing distance.  True 1080p material is blatently, obviously superior by far to 480p DVD material.  NO matter how good an "upscaling" player is, DVD, with less than 1/4th the pixels, can't compare.</p><p>That said, I like many Blu-Ray (and HD DVD) player owners, refuse to buy Blu-Ray movies at $29 when the DVD version is $10-$15.  I just put the title on my "future HD wish list" and wait.  I was also one of those who hoped HD DVD would win because overall it was cheaper (in spite of Blu-Ray's superiority in raw byte storage and standardized anti-scratch coating) and because HD DVD's DRM was less invasive (Blu-Ray's BD+ gets really annoying every time some little animated icon starts dancing on screen while the BD+ VM loads and starts decryption).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You wrote : " I have a 720p capable LCD... " There 's part of the reason you ca n't tell the difference .
Then you mention seeing a 1080p display with a sliding effect showing the difference and you add " ( presumably with DVD suitably fuzzed to exagerate the affect... " -- um , no , not needed--they ARE honest.My 47 " 1080p display makes the difference VERY CLEAR at normal viewing distance .
True 1080p material is blatently , obviously superior by far to 480p DVD material .
NO matter how good an " upscaling " player is , DVD , with less than 1/4th the pixels , ca n't compare.That said , I like many Blu-Ray ( and HD DVD ) player owners , refuse to buy Blu-Ray movies at $ 29 when the DVD version is $ 10- $ 15 .
I just put the title on my " future HD wish list " and wait .
I was also one of those who hoped HD DVD would win because overall it was cheaper ( in spite of Blu-Ray 's superiority in raw byte storage and standardized anti-scratch coating ) and because HD DVD 's DRM was less invasive ( Blu-Ray 's BD + gets really annoying every time some little animated icon starts dancing on screen while the BD + VM loads and starts decryption ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You wrote: "I have a 720p capable LCD..."There's part of the reason you can't tell the difference.
Then you mention seeing a 1080p display with a sliding effect showing the difference and you add "(presumably with DVD suitably fuzzed to exagerate the affect..." -- um, no, not needed--they ARE honest.My 47" 1080p display makes the difference VERY CLEAR at normal viewing distance.
True 1080p material is blatently, obviously superior by far to 480p DVD material.
NO matter how good an "upscaling" player is, DVD, with less than 1/4th the pixels, can't compare.That said, I like many Blu-Ray (and HD DVD) player owners, refuse to buy Blu-Ray movies at $29 when the DVD version is $10-$15.
I just put the title on my "future HD wish list" and wait.
I was also one of those who hoped HD DVD would win because overall it was cheaper (in spite of Blu-Ray's superiority in raw byte storage and standardized anti-scratch coating) and because HD DVD's DRM was less invasive (Blu-Ray's BD+ gets really annoying every time some little animated icon starts dancing on screen while the BD+ VM loads and starts decryption).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1339213.28421501</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1339213.28429489</id>
	<title>Re:Physical media is dying</title>
	<author>ADRA</author>
	<datestamp>1245667200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>1. This may be the case, but to be honest, I've seen large numbers of mass-market Blu-Rays selling for $10 recently. It took years before seeing and DVD movies selling for that cheap. I won't bother debating reasons for this, but none the less, Blu-Ray disc costs are not as bad as they were when first released.</p><p>2. Bandwidth is getting a little cheaper, but you won't be downloading Blu-Ray quality movies from my internet provider any time soon (60GB / mo. cap, or 120GB/mo for highest tier). If you're not downloading 30GB movies or the sort, then start comparing apples to apples and just say DVD's will die soon instead.</p><p>3. DRM isn't going anywhere. The influx of piracy makes DRM look immaterial as it unfortunately is for the most part. I hate DRM and I wish it did go away, but sadly this is the only protection a content producer has to restrict their customers from violating their copyrights.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>1 .
This may be the case , but to be honest , I 've seen large numbers of mass-market Blu-Rays selling for $ 10 recently .
It took years before seeing and DVD movies selling for that cheap .
I wo n't bother debating reasons for this , but none the less , Blu-Ray disc costs are not as bad as they were when first released.2 .
Bandwidth is getting a little cheaper , but you wo n't be downloading Blu-Ray quality movies from my internet provider any time soon ( 60GB / mo .
cap , or 120GB/mo for highest tier ) .
If you 're not downloading 30GB movies or the sort , then start comparing apples to apples and just say DVD 's will die soon instead.3 .
DRM is n't going anywhere .
The influx of piracy makes DRM look immaterial as it unfortunately is for the most part .
I hate DRM and I wish it did go away , but sadly this is the only protection a content producer has to restrict their customers from violating their copyrights .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>1.
This may be the case, but to be honest, I've seen large numbers of mass-market Blu-Rays selling for $10 recently.
It took years before seeing and DVD movies selling for that cheap.
I won't bother debating reasons for this, but none the less, Blu-Ray disc costs are not as bad as they were when first released.2.
Bandwidth is getting a little cheaper, but you won't be downloading Blu-Ray quality movies from my internet provider any time soon (60GB / mo.
cap, or 120GB/mo for highest tier).
If you're not downloading 30GB movies or the sort, then start comparing apples to apples and just say DVD's will die soon instead.3.
DRM isn't going anywhere.
The influx of piracy makes DRM look immaterial as it unfortunately is for the most part.
I hate DRM and I wish it did go away, but sadly this is the only protection a content producer has to restrict their customers from violating their copyrights.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1339213.28421671</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1339213.28423493</id>
	<title>Re:Flawed interpretation of the study</title>
	<author>HTH NE1</author>
	<datestamp>1245689940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>AFAIK, the add-on for the XBox is only usable for videos.</p></div><p>Well, not many people released HD DVD-ROM media and the XBOX 360 won't run games off of it, but it is in a USB enclosure and can be used with desktop computers. (Macs must be running at least Leopard to read the disks. Third-party UDF drivers for Tiger simply don't work.)</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>AFAIK , the add-on for the XBox is only usable for videos.Well , not many people released HD DVD-ROM media and the XBOX 360 wo n't run games off of it , but it is in a USB enclosure and can be used with desktop computers .
( Macs must be running at least Leopard to read the disks .
Third-party UDF drivers for Tiger simply do n't work .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>AFAIK, the add-on for the XBox is only usable for videos.Well, not many people released HD DVD-ROM media and the XBOX 360 won't run games off of it, but it is in a USB enclosure and can be used with desktop computers.
(Macs must be running at least Leopard to read the disks.
Third-party UDF drivers for Tiger simply don't work.
)
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1339213.28421487</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1339213.28424503</id>
	<title>Re:Don't buy into that lie</title>
	<author>guruevi</author>
	<datestamp>1245693540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's STATISTICS.</p><p>Mac OS X does have 10\% market share - because it runs on all Apple products regardless of purpose (embedded, desktop)<br>Linux does have 50\% market share - in embedded products because it's the most stable and has the best performance for those purposes and it's cheap for integrators<br>Apache does have 90\% market share - on web servers because again, it's the most compatible and best known solution out there and since most Apache run Linux you could say Linux has about the same market share.<br>Cisco runs 60\% of the Internet - because Cisco products simply have the best routers a million dollars will buy<br>HD-DVD is in more households than Blu-Ray - because they are being resold as upconverting DVD players for $99 - half the people probably don't even know they can play HD-DVD movies (as if you can get any)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's STATISTICS.Mac OS X does have 10 \ % market share - because it runs on all Apple products regardless of purpose ( embedded , desktop ) Linux does have 50 \ % market share - in embedded products because it 's the most stable and has the best performance for those purposes and it 's cheap for integratorsApache does have 90 \ % market share - on web servers because again , it 's the most compatible and best known solution out there and since most Apache run Linux you could say Linux has about the same market share.Cisco runs 60 \ % of the Internet - because Cisco products simply have the best routers a million dollars will buyHD-DVD is in more households than Blu-Ray - because they are being resold as upconverting DVD players for $ 99 - half the people probably do n't even know they can play HD-DVD movies ( as if you can get any )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's STATISTICS.Mac OS X does have 10\% market share - because it runs on all Apple products regardless of purpose (embedded, desktop)Linux does have 50\% market share - in embedded products because it's the most stable and has the best performance for those purposes and it's cheap for integratorsApache does have 90\% market share - on web servers because again, it's the most compatible and best known solution out there and since most Apache run Linux you could say Linux has about the same market share.Cisco runs 60\% of the Internet - because Cisco products simply have the best routers a million dollars will buyHD-DVD is in more households than Blu-Ray - because they are being resold as upconverting DVD players for $99 - half the people probably don't even know they can play HD-DVD movies (as if you can get any)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1339213.28421839</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1339213.28422781</id>
	<title>ummm something needs to be said</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245687600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>the ONLY place HD-DVD was winning was in north america, Europe, Japan, the rest of the world Blu-ray was winning, another thing the HD-DVD players were cheaper but the the combo format that was getting more and more use by HD-DVD was actually $5 more expensive than if you just got the Blu-ray version. the Player were lower in price not because they could make they cheaper, remember the expensive part was the blue laser something both formats used. how long did it take DVD to drop to $99 players? it took HD-DVD less than 2 years to do that lol very realistic...</p><p>Blu-ray is more and more becoming the 'common man's format' as the price continues to drop and as the adoption of HDTV increases. if you look at their own chart http://hothardware.com/newsimages/Item10047/blu-ray-adoption.png you take the Blu-ray players and PS3's and compare it to the HD-DVD players and Xbox 360 add-ons Blu-ray is winning, every PS3 out there IS a Blu-ray player and alot of people out there bought the PS3 for just watching Blu-ray movies. for the longest time it was the absolute best Blu-ray player out there, and it was also less expensive too.</p><p>It was ultimately the PS3 that really won the format war for Blu-ray, HD-DVD was leading in sales (movie titles sales) until the PS3 was release they might of won a week or 2 after words but they didn't even win 'transformers' week and that was supposed to be the week that would turn things around for HD-DVD, Blu-ray dominated all through 2007 and when 2008 came HD-DVD died since then Blu-ray prices have been coming down as mass production increased.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>the ONLY place HD-DVD was winning was in north america , Europe , Japan , the rest of the world Blu-ray was winning , another thing the HD-DVD players were cheaper but the the combo format that was getting more and more use by HD-DVD was actually $ 5 more expensive than if you just got the Blu-ray version .
the Player were lower in price not because they could make they cheaper , remember the expensive part was the blue laser something both formats used .
how long did it take DVD to drop to $ 99 players ?
it took HD-DVD less than 2 years to do that lol very realistic...Blu-ray is more and more becoming the 'common man 's format ' as the price continues to drop and as the adoption of HDTV increases .
if you look at their own chart http : //hothardware.com/newsimages/Item10047/blu-ray-adoption.png you take the Blu-ray players and PS3 's and compare it to the HD-DVD players and Xbox 360 add-ons Blu-ray is winning , every PS3 out there IS a Blu-ray player and alot of people out there bought the PS3 for just watching Blu-ray movies .
for the longest time it was the absolute best Blu-ray player out there , and it was also less expensive too.It was ultimately the PS3 that really won the format war for Blu-ray , HD-DVD was leading in sales ( movie titles sales ) until the PS3 was release they might of won a week or 2 after words but they did n't even win 'transformers ' week and that was supposed to be the week that would turn things around for HD-DVD , Blu-ray dominated all through 2007 and when 2008 came HD-DVD died since then Blu-ray prices have been coming down as mass production increased .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>the ONLY place HD-DVD was winning was in north america, Europe, Japan, the rest of the world Blu-ray was winning, another thing the HD-DVD players were cheaper but the the combo format that was getting more and more use by HD-DVD was actually $5 more expensive than if you just got the Blu-ray version.
the Player were lower in price not because they could make they cheaper, remember the expensive part was the blue laser something both formats used.
how long did it take DVD to drop to $99 players?
it took HD-DVD less than 2 years to do that lol very realistic...Blu-ray is more and more becoming the 'common man's format' as the price continues to drop and as the adoption of HDTV increases.
if you look at their own chart http://hothardware.com/newsimages/Item10047/blu-ray-adoption.png you take the Blu-ray players and PS3's and compare it to the HD-DVD players and Xbox 360 add-ons Blu-ray is winning, every PS3 out there IS a Blu-ray player and alot of people out there bought the PS3 for just watching Blu-ray movies.
for the longest time it was the absolute best Blu-ray player out there, and it was also less expensive too.It was ultimately the PS3 that really won the format war for Blu-ray, HD-DVD was leading in sales (movie titles sales) until the PS3 was release they might of won a week or 2 after words but they didn't even win 'transformers' week and that was supposed to be the week that would turn things around for HD-DVD, Blu-ray dominated all through 2007 and when 2008 came HD-DVD died since then Blu-ray prices have been coming down as mass production increased.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1339213.28422275</id>
	<title>Re:I work in he rental industry</title>
	<author>GreatAntibob</author>
	<datestamp>1245685980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Wait.....</p><p>So, getting a refurbed Blu-Ray player for a higher price point than a brand new upscaling DVD player is "economical?"</p><p>And Top Gun looks better on Blu-Ray?  I have to call BS on that.  The Blu-Ray transfer was none too kind to this movie.  They cropped the image for the transfer so a side-by-side comparison will be massively unfair - to Blu-Ray.  The original was recorded on film, so the upscaling makes print artifacts more noticeable on the Blu-Ray versus the DVD.  Unless you play the same tricks electronics retailers use (like turning the brightness way, way up on the Blu-Ray and way, way down on the standard def DVD), the DVD is not only going to have a comparable image, it actually looks better in many scenes, particularly the fighter jet sequences (where Blu-Ray should theoretically be better).</p><p>The only thing that "might" be better is that room shattering bass in the audio, and the Dolby 5.1 transfer they did for the DVD release is as good as it's going to get.  You have to play funny audio games with the original source (read distort) to get any more bass out of it, and it doesn't sound any better (and noticeably worse for the transfer).</p><p>If you want to convince people to switch formats, go with the latest blockbusters with all the pretty visuals. Otherwise, the original wasn't recorded with enough fidelity to get a better image, and you may actually degrade the image if the film print is old enough (e.g. pre-digital recording). That and the dishonesty factor.  The "improvement" you see for old movies on Blu-Ray is often simply the interlaced to progressive conversion that any old cheap $30 upscaling DVD player can achieve (that can still produce bad motion artifacting, no matter what digital format you use).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Wait.....So , getting a refurbed Blu-Ray player for a higher price point than a brand new upscaling DVD player is " economical ?
" And Top Gun looks better on Blu-Ray ?
I have to call BS on that .
The Blu-Ray transfer was none too kind to this movie .
They cropped the image for the transfer so a side-by-side comparison will be massively unfair - to Blu-Ray .
The original was recorded on film , so the upscaling makes print artifacts more noticeable on the Blu-Ray versus the DVD .
Unless you play the same tricks electronics retailers use ( like turning the brightness way , way up on the Blu-Ray and way , way down on the standard def DVD ) , the DVD is not only going to have a comparable image , it actually looks better in many scenes , particularly the fighter jet sequences ( where Blu-Ray should theoretically be better ) .The only thing that " might " be better is that room shattering bass in the audio , and the Dolby 5.1 transfer they did for the DVD release is as good as it 's going to get .
You have to play funny audio games with the original source ( read distort ) to get any more bass out of it , and it does n't sound any better ( and noticeably worse for the transfer ) .If you want to convince people to switch formats , go with the latest blockbusters with all the pretty visuals .
Otherwise , the original was n't recorded with enough fidelity to get a better image , and you may actually degrade the image if the film print is old enough ( e.g .
pre-digital recording ) .
That and the dishonesty factor .
The " improvement " you see for old movies on Blu-Ray is often simply the interlaced to progressive conversion that any old cheap $ 30 upscaling DVD player can achieve ( that can still produce bad motion artifacting , no matter what digital format you use ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Wait.....So, getting a refurbed Blu-Ray player for a higher price point than a brand new upscaling DVD player is "economical?
"And Top Gun looks better on Blu-Ray?
I have to call BS on that.
The Blu-Ray transfer was none too kind to this movie.
They cropped the image for the transfer so a side-by-side comparison will be massively unfair - to Blu-Ray.
The original was recorded on film, so the upscaling makes print artifacts more noticeable on the Blu-Ray versus the DVD.
Unless you play the same tricks electronics retailers use (like turning the brightness way, way up on the Blu-Ray and way, way down on the standard def DVD), the DVD is not only going to have a comparable image, it actually looks better in many scenes, particularly the fighter jet sequences (where Blu-Ray should theoretically be better).The only thing that "might" be better is that room shattering bass in the audio, and the Dolby 5.1 transfer they did for the DVD release is as good as it's going to get.
You have to play funny audio games with the original source (read distort) to get any more bass out of it, and it doesn't sound any better (and noticeably worse for the transfer).If you want to convince people to switch formats, go with the latest blockbusters with all the pretty visuals.
Otherwise, the original wasn't recorded with enough fidelity to get a better image, and you may actually degrade the image if the film print is old enough (e.g.
pre-digital recording).
That and the dishonesty factor.
The "improvement" you see for old movies on Blu-Ray is often simply the interlaced to progressive conversion that any old cheap $30 upscaling DVD player can achieve (that can still produce bad motion artifacting, no matter what digital format you use).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1339213.28421765</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1339213.28421857</id>
	<title>don't forget</title>
	<author>juenger1701</author>
	<datestamp>1245684600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>then HD surrendered the fight retailers slashed the price on players to $50 or less and movies to $5 or less to clear inventory</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>then HD surrendered the fight retailers slashed the price on players to $ 50 or less and movies to $ 5 or less to clear inventory</tokentext>
<sentencetext>then HD surrendered the fight retailers slashed the price on players to $50 or less and movies to $5 or less to clear inventory</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1339213.28423185</id>
	<title>Re:Don't buy into that lie</title>
	<author>epiphani</author>
	<datestamp>1245689040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Personal account, only one of the circle of friends who has a PS3 have more than two blu ray movies.</p></div><p>Funny, I have a PS3 and I only have two games.  I use it more for the blu-ray, media center options, and internet access on my tv.</p><p>Everyone I know that bought a PS3 uses it more because its a blu-ray player and an excellent DVD upscaler.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Personal account , only one of the circle of friends who has a PS3 have more than two blu ray movies.Funny , I have a PS3 and I only have two games .
I use it more for the blu-ray , media center options , and internet access on my tv.Everyone I know that bought a PS3 uses it more because its a blu-ray player and an excellent DVD upscaler .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Personal account, only one of the circle of friends who has a PS3 have more than two blu ray movies.Funny, I have a PS3 and I only have two games.
I use it more for the blu-ray, media center options, and internet access on my tv.Everyone I know that bought a PS3 uses it more because its a blu-ray player and an excellent DVD upscaler.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1339213.28421839</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1339213.28421487</id>
	<title>Re:Flawed interpretation of the study</title>
	<author>91degrees</author>
	<datestamp>1245683400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The table's in the article.  HD-DVD + XBOX with external drive = 14\% (assuming no overlap).  PS3 + Blu-ray player = 16\% likewise assuming no overlap).  Of course, some of those PS3 owners bought a PS3 solely for games, and AFAIK, the add-on for the XBox is only usable for videos.  So, blu-ray has sold slightly more but still surprisingly not the roaring success that everyone expected Blu-Ray to be after HD-DVD officially died.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The table 's in the article .
HD-DVD + XBOX with external drive = 14 \ % ( assuming no overlap ) .
PS3 + Blu-ray player = 16 \ % likewise assuming no overlap ) .
Of course , some of those PS3 owners bought a PS3 solely for games , and AFAIK , the add-on for the XBox is only usable for videos .
So , blu-ray has sold slightly more but still surprisingly not the roaring success that everyone expected Blu-Ray to be after HD-DVD officially died .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The table's in the article.
HD-DVD + XBOX with external drive = 14\% (assuming no overlap).
PS3 + Blu-ray player = 16\% likewise assuming no overlap).
Of course, some of those PS3 owners bought a PS3 solely for games, and AFAIK, the add-on for the XBox is only usable for videos.
So, blu-ray has sold slightly more but still surprisingly not the roaring success that everyone expected Blu-Ray to be after HD-DVD officially died.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1339213.28421187</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1339213.28422723</id>
	<title>Re:Physical media is dying</title>
	<author>CyberLord Seven</author>
	<datestamp>1245687360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>2. Bandwidth is getting cheaper while high-speed internet is becoming more accessible.</p></div></blockquote><p>
Read the below this morning on <i>ComputerWorld</i>.</p><blockquote><div><p>Computerworld - DreamWorks Animation SKG is releasing all of its films in stereoscopic 3D, more than doubling the amount of data storage capacity required to store its movies.
</p><p>The move to 3D animation also requires the company's IT shop to migrate away from tape-based storage systems to disk systems in order to keep archived films online for animators to use as references for future sequels, which is the company's mainstay.
</p><p>DreamWorks recently released its first 3D animated moviem Monsters vs. Aliens, which packed its newly installed disk array from Hewlett-Packard Co. with 93TB worth of images. The company plans to release five feature films every two years. In the past, each animated film averaged less than 25TB, according to Derek Chan, head of digital operations for DreamWorks Animation.
</p><p>The creation of three-dimensional movies means for every film frame there will be two images instead of one: one image for the left eye and one for the right eye of a viewer. Those cheap plastic or cardboard bi-colored glasses handed out at the theater polarize the images on the screen and combine in order to give the perception of depth.
</p><p>DreamWorks' philosophy on feature-length animated films is to build franchises. There are three Shrek movies, for example, Madagascar has two and Kung Fu Panda will also have a sequel, Chan said.</p></div>
</blockquote><p>
In order to compete with bootleggers, high-definition television, the internet, cell-phones, and a host of new threats to their profits movie studios will <b>HAVE</b> to embrace 3-D and make it work this time.  This will push streaming video out of the reach of most US customers for a LOOOOONG time.</p><p>
Yes, I know, the above storage requirements are for the studio not for streaming the movie.  Regardless, the bandwidth requirements will need a significant increase.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>2 .
Bandwidth is getting cheaper while high-speed internet is becoming more accessible .
Read the below this morning on ComputerWorld.Computerworld - DreamWorks Animation SKG is releasing all of its films in stereoscopic 3D , more than doubling the amount of data storage capacity required to store its movies .
The move to 3D animation also requires the company 's IT shop to migrate away from tape-based storage systems to disk systems in order to keep archived films online for animators to use as references for future sequels , which is the company 's mainstay .
DreamWorks recently released its first 3D animated moviem Monsters vs. Aliens , which packed its newly installed disk array from Hewlett-Packard Co. with 93TB worth of images .
The company plans to release five feature films every two years .
In the past , each animated film averaged less than 25TB , according to Derek Chan , head of digital operations for DreamWorks Animation .
The creation of three-dimensional movies means for every film frame there will be two images instead of one : one image for the left eye and one for the right eye of a viewer .
Those cheap plastic or cardboard bi-colored glasses handed out at the theater polarize the images on the screen and combine in order to give the perception of depth .
DreamWorks ' philosophy on feature-length animated films is to build franchises .
There are three Shrek movies , for example , Madagascar has two and Kung Fu Panda will also have a sequel , Chan said .
In order to compete with bootleggers , high-definition television , the internet , cell-phones , and a host of new threats to their profits movie studios will HAVE to embrace 3-D and make it work this time .
This will push streaming video out of the reach of most US customers for a LOOOOONG time .
Yes , I know , the above storage requirements are for the studio not for streaming the movie .
Regardless , the bandwidth requirements will need a significant increase .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>2.
Bandwidth is getting cheaper while high-speed internet is becoming more accessible.
Read the below this morning on ComputerWorld.Computerworld - DreamWorks Animation SKG is releasing all of its films in stereoscopic 3D, more than doubling the amount of data storage capacity required to store its movies.
The move to 3D animation also requires the company's IT shop to migrate away from tape-based storage systems to disk systems in order to keep archived films online for animators to use as references for future sequels, which is the company's mainstay.
DreamWorks recently released its first 3D animated moviem Monsters vs. Aliens, which packed its newly installed disk array from Hewlett-Packard Co. with 93TB worth of images.
The company plans to release five feature films every two years.
In the past, each animated film averaged less than 25TB, according to Derek Chan, head of digital operations for DreamWorks Animation.
The creation of three-dimensional movies means for every film frame there will be two images instead of one: one image for the left eye and one for the right eye of a viewer.
Those cheap plastic or cardboard bi-colored glasses handed out at the theater polarize the images on the screen and combine in order to give the perception of depth.
DreamWorks' philosophy on feature-length animated films is to build franchises.
There are three Shrek movies, for example, Madagascar has two and Kung Fu Panda will also have a sequel, Chan said.
In order to compete with bootleggers, high-definition television, the internet, cell-phones, and a host of new threats to their profits movie studios will HAVE to embrace 3-D and make it work this time.
This will push streaming video out of the reach of most US customers for a LOOOOONG time.
Yes, I know, the above storage requirements are for the studio not for streaming the movie.
Regardless, the bandwidth requirements will need a significant increase.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1339213.28421671</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1339213.28422317</id>
	<title>citation needed</title>
	<author>squoozer</author>
	<datestamp>1245686100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I struggle to believe these numbers. Perhaps your average USian has a huge amount more money to burn than your average UKian (the lump of dirt I call home) but even then I struggle to believe that around 15\% of people own a HD player of some kind (assuming some own both formats). I'm a moderate home theatre buff (1000+ DVDs, projector, etc) and I don't own a HD player of any kind. I know a fair number of people that are also cinema buffs to varying degrees and they don't own HD players either (one has a PS3 but no Blu-Ray film disks so doesn't count). I'm guessing that uptake of film based HD content is very low and those HD player numbers are almost certainly from games consoles which probably aren't being used for films.</p><p>As for purchasing Blu-Ray films in a 1:6 ratio with DVD's, come on, have you ever bought a Blu-Ray movie? Have you even seen anyone buying one? I don't even remember seeing people looking at the Blu-Ray stand in my local DVD purchasing establishments. I do however see people heading to the checkouts with armfuls of cheap DVDs on a regular basis.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I struggle to believe these numbers .
Perhaps your average USian has a huge amount more money to burn than your average UKian ( the lump of dirt I call home ) but even then I struggle to believe that around 15 \ % of people own a HD player of some kind ( assuming some own both formats ) .
I 'm a moderate home theatre buff ( 1000 + DVDs , projector , etc ) and I do n't own a HD player of any kind .
I know a fair number of people that are also cinema buffs to varying degrees and they do n't own HD players either ( one has a PS3 but no Blu-Ray film disks so does n't count ) .
I 'm guessing that uptake of film based HD content is very low and those HD player numbers are almost certainly from games consoles which probably are n't being used for films.As for purchasing Blu-Ray films in a 1 : 6 ratio with DVD 's , come on , have you ever bought a Blu-Ray movie ?
Have you even seen anyone buying one ?
I do n't even remember seeing people looking at the Blu-Ray stand in my local DVD purchasing establishments .
I do however see people heading to the checkouts with armfuls of cheap DVDs on a regular basis .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I struggle to believe these numbers.
Perhaps your average USian has a huge amount more money to burn than your average UKian (the lump of dirt I call home) but even then I struggle to believe that around 15\% of people own a HD player of some kind (assuming some own both formats).
I'm a moderate home theatre buff (1000+ DVDs, projector, etc) and I don't own a HD player of any kind.
I know a fair number of people that are also cinema buffs to varying degrees and they don't own HD players either (one has a PS3 but no Blu-Ray film disks so doesn't count).
I'm guessing that uptake of film based HD content is very low and those HD player numbers are almost certainly from games consoles which probably aren't being used for films.As for purchasing Blu-Ray films in a 1:6 ratio with DVD's, come on, have you ever bought a Blu-Ray movie?
Have you even seen anyone buying one?
I don't even remember seeing people looking at the Blu-Ray stand in my local DVD purchasing establishments.
I do however see people heading to the checkouts with armfuls of cheap DVDs on a regular basis.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1339213.28423059</id>
	<title>I call Bullshit!. More people one PS3 than HD DVD</title>
	<author>Jackie\_Chan\_Fan</author>
	<datestamp>1245688620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This has to be bullshit. There is no way that more people own an HD DVD player than a Playstation 3.</p><p>I like Blu Ray just fine...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This has to be bullshit .
There is no way that more people own an HD DVD player than a Playstation 3.I like Blu Ray just fine.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This has to be bullshit.
There is no way that more people own an HD DVD player than a Playstation 3.I like Blu Ray just fine...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1339213.28422643</id>
	<title>pointless format war</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245687060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The general public is happy with DVD quality.  The incremental improvement of DVD to HD-DVD / Blu-ray is minor.  And is nothing compared to the improvement we saw from VHS to DVD.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The general public is happy with DVD quality .
The incremental improvement of DVD to HD-DVD / Blu-ray is minor .
And is nothing compared to the improvement we saw from VHS to DVD .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The general public is happy with DVD quality.
The incremental improvement of DVD to HD-DVD / Blu-ray is minor.
And is nothing compared to the improvement we saw from VHS to DVD.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1339213.28424223</id>
	<title>Re:Flawed interpretation of the study</title>
	<author>internerdj</author>
	<datestamp>1245692460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I guess I'm a bit of an oddball but I have a PS3 and have yet to watch a single blu-ray movie at home.  I don't intend on purchasing any movies as blu-ray in the immediate or distant future.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I guess I 'm a bit of an oddball but I have a PS3 and have yet to watch a single blu-ray movie at home .
I do n't intend on purchasing any movies as blu-ray in the immediate or distant future .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I guess I'm a bit of an oddball but I have a PS3 and have yet to watch a single blu-ray movie at home.
I don't intend on purchasing any movies as blu-ray in the immediate or distant future.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1339213.28421187</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1339213.28424775</id>
	<title>Blue ray getting cheaper</title>
	<author>scharkalvin</author>
	<datestamp>1245694380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I saw a $99 BD player at Wally*World last night.<br>I also noticed that the prices on BD disks are going down.<br>Few titles now sell for more that $25, many are available<br>for around $20, and some for under $10.  Also there are<br>now available some nice multi disk packs with several movies<br>in the range of $50-$99 (Costco had all 6 StarTrek movies with<br>Kirk and Spock for $89).</p><p>Yes BD software prices still need to come down some more, but they are<br>now going in the right direction.  Cheap players are out there, BD players<br>are now priced where DVD machines were a few years ago.</p><p>The DVD machine I'm waiting for is the Oppo BD83, which will play EVERYTHING<br>made on a 5.25" disk (IE: BD, BDR, BDW, DVD(-R,-RW,+R,+RW), CD, CDR, CDRW<br>SACD, DVD-Audio (eventually), MP3, OGG, AVI, MP4, etc......<br>Also will play files on a USB stick (yes it has a front panel USB A connector).<br>It also has 7.1 analog outputs so you don't need an external Dolby digital decoder,<br>digital coax and optical outputs, component video, svideo, video, and of course,<br>HDMI outputs.  This every AND the kitchen sink machine will probably retail for<br>between $500-600, but I think it's worth the price.  (My current Oppo<br>DVD player does EVERYTHING this one does except for BD, component video and USB<br>file play).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I saw a $ 99 BD player at Wally * World last night.I also noticed that the prices on BD disks are going down.Few titles now sell for more that $ 25 , many are availablefor around $ 20 , and some for under $ 10 .
Also there arenow available some nice multi disk packs with several moviesin the range of $ 50- $ 99 ( Costco had all 6 StarTrek movies withKirk and Spock for $ 89 ) .Yes BD software prices still need to come down some more , but they arenow going in the right direction .
Cheap players are out there , BD playersare now priced where DVD machines were a few years ago.The DVD machine I 'm waiting for is the Oppo BD83 , which will play EVERYTHINGmade on a 5.25 " disk ( IE : BD , BDR , BDW , DVD ( -R,-RW , + R , + RW ) , CD , CDR , CDRWSACD , DVD-Audio ( eventually ) , MP3 , OGG , AVI , MP4 , etc......Also will play files on a USB stick ( yes it has a front panel USB A connector ) .It also has 7.1 analog outputs so you do n't need an external Dolby digital decoder,digital coax and optical outputs , component video , svideo , video , and of course,HDMI outputs .
This every AND the kitchen sink machine will probably retail forbetween $ 500-600 , but I think it 's worth the price .
( My current OppoDVD player does EVERYTHING this one does except for BD , component video and USBfile play ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I saw a $99 BD player at Wally*World last night.I also noticed that the prices on BD disks are going down.Few titles now sell for more that $25, many are availablefor around $20, and some for under $10.
Also there arenow available some nice multi disk packs with several moviesin the range of $50-$99 (Costco had all 6 StarTrek movies withKirk and Spock for $89).Yes BD software prices still need to come down some more, but they arenow going in the right direction.
Cheap players are out there, BD playersare now priced where DVD machines were a few years ago.The DVD machine I'm waiting for is the Oppo BD83, which will play EVERYTHINGmade on a 5.25" disk (IE: BD, BDR, BDW, DVD(-R,-RW,+R,+RW), CD, CDR, CDRWSACD, DVD-Audio (eventually), MP3, OGG, AVI, MP4, etc......Also will play files on a USB stick (yes it has a front panel USB A connector).It also has 7.1 analog outputs so you don't need an external Dolby digital decoder,digital coax and optical outputs, component video, svideo, video, and of course,HDMI outputs.
This every AND the kitchen sink machine will probably retail forbetween $500-600, but I think it's worth the price.
(My current OppoDVD player does EVERYTHING this one does except for BD, component video and USBfile play).</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1339213.28422327</id>
	<title>Re:I work in he rental industry</title>
	<author>mcgrew</author>
	<datestamp>1245686100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Why would anyone want to promote ANT Sony product or format? Sony is the anyigoogle, its motto is "be evil". I can't fathom anyone wanting to buy a product from a company that has placed rootkits on music CDs to infect their paying customers with.</p><p>I can understand a non-nerd not knowing about Sony's blatantly evil tendancies, but we should all know better. I mean, if Google knowingly put malware on their site, wouldn't you start using MS or Yahoo? I would.</p><p>As long as there is an alternative to Sony, I'll pick the alternative. Sony is simply not trustworthy.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Why would anyone want to promote ANT Sony product or format ?
Sony is the anyigoogle , its motto is " be evil " .
I ca n't fathom anyone wanting to buy a product from a company that has placed rootkits on music CDs to infect their paying customers with.I can understand a non-nerd not knowing about Sony 's blatantly evil tendancies , but we should all know better .
I mean , if Google knowingly put malware on their site , would n't you start using MS or Yahoo ?
I would.As long as there is an alternative to Sony , I 'll pick the alternative .
Sony is simply not trustworthy .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why would anyone want to promote ANT Sony product or format?
Sony is the anyigoogle, its motto is "be evil".
I can't fathom anyone wanting to buy a product from a company that has placed rootkits on music CDs to infect their paying customers with.I can understand a non-nerd not knowing about Sony's blatantly evil tendancies, but we should all know better.
I mean, if Google knowingly put malware on their site, wouldn't you start using MS or Yahoo?
I would.As long as there is an alternative to Sony, I'll pick the alternative.
Sony is simply not trustworthy.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1339213.28421765</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1339213.28421415</id>
	<title>Not surprising</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245683160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I have a DVD player with HDMI output that up-scales my DVDs to 1080p.  The only exposure to Blu-Ray that I've had is in the stores, so it may not be the most fair comparison, but it looked marginally better than my up-converted DVDs.  It certainly did not look superior enough to warrant spending $200+ on a new player.  Of course, the player alone won't get you anywhere; assuming I bought one that plays DVDs, I'd be in no better shape than I am now.  The real expense that I don't want to take is re-buying whatever titles happen to be on Blu-Ray without knowing whether I can make an archival copy to protect my investment. DVD has the same legal uncertainty, but for Blu-Ray it's a matter of technological ability even if I shell out money for a BD-R drive and blank discs.  DVD does not have that problem so long as the geniuses at Sony et al don't keep screwing with the copy protection and further abuse the DMCA to stamp out fair use rights by making a civil matter criminal.</p><p>Obviously, posted AC because asserting one's fair use rights is becoming more and more illegal.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I have a DVD player with HDMI output that up-scales my DVDs to 1080p .
The only exposure to Blu-Ray that I 've had is in the stores , so it may not be the most fair comparison , but it looked marginally better than my up-converted DVDs .
It certainly did not look superior enough to warrant spending $ 200 + on a new player .
Of course , the player alone wo n't get you anywhere ; assuming I bought one that plays DVDs , I 'd be in no better shape than I am now .
The real expense that I do n't want to take is re-buying whatever titles happen to be on Blu-Ray without knowing whether I can make an archival copy to protect my investment .
DVD has the same legal uncertainty , but for Blu-Ray it 's a matter of technological ability even if I shell out money for a BD-R drive and blank discs .
DVD does not have that problem so long as the geniuses at Sony et al do n't keep screwing with the copy protection and further abuse the DMCA to stamp out fair use rights by making a civil matter criminal.Obviously , posted AC because asserting one 's fair use rights is becoming more and more illegal .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I have a DVD player with HDMI output that up-scales my DVDs to 1080p.
The only exposure to Blu-Ray that I've had is in the stores, so it may not be the most fair comparison, but it looked marginally better than my up-converted DVDs.
It certainly did not look superior enough to warrant spending $200+ on a new player.
Of course, the player alone won't get you anywhere; assuming I bought one that plays DVDs, I'd be in no better shape than I am now.
The real expense that I don't want to take is re-buying whatever titles happen to be on Blu-Ray without knowing whether I can make an archival copy to protect my investment.
DVD has the same legal uncertainty, but for Blu-Ray it's a matter of technological ability even if I shell out money for a BD-R drive and blank discs.
DVD does not have that problem so long as the geniuses at Sony et al don't keep screwing with the copy protection and further abuse the DMCA to stamp out fair use rights by making a civil matter criminal.Obviously, posted AC because asserting one's fair use rights is becoming more and more illegal.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1339213.28421187</id>
	<title>Flawed interpretation of the study</title>
	<author>Joehonkie</author>
	<datestamp>1245682380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>So they're counting the PS3 and the Blu-Ray players as separate items in their study.  If you add the two together, Blu-Ray adoption is higher.

Of course, the question is if they count Xbox HD-DVD drives, but those numbers are probably low.</htmltext>
<tokenext>So they 're counting the PS3 and the Blu-Ray players as separate items in their study .
If you add the two together , Blu-Ray adoption is higher .
Of course , the question is if they count Xbox HD-DVD drives , but those numbers are probably low .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So they're counting the PS3 and the Blu-Ray players as separate items in their study.
If you add the two together, Blu-Ray adoption is higher.
Of course, the question is if they count Xbox HD-DVD drives, but those numbers are probably low.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1339213.28423543</id>
	<title>Open the Window</title>
	<author>DynaSoar</author>
	<datestamp>1245690120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The numbers given don't carry the same weight when put into the broader context of user reality.</p><p>The amount of true HD material is tiny compared to the vast amount of material available. Hardware for HD disks gets used to simply store more regular material. Which HD disk format is used is irrelevant.</p><p>Many users convert and compress for storage. Where AVI package dominated before (often a movie stored in 700 MB), MKV format is growing in popularity for HD compression (~ 2 GB for a movie). Even the commercial Xvid variant DivX is including MKV format in their new software. There are over 100 million home and handheld devices sold with DivX capabilty and these can be used to read HD material compressed to either DivX (actually most any AVI) or MKV format. Again, which HD format makes no difference, if one is used at all. As long as material stays smaller than a single standard DVD, adoption of HD formats is stifled and ratios don't reflect much more than current price and previous purchase.</p><p>Which particular HD format gets adopted by producers only impacts those whose main activity is obtaining material on original media. More get it elsewhere, and far more material is available than the little bit on HD disks that is actually HD material (ie, they're releasing material on HD formats that aren't capable ot making use of the format).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The numbers given do n't carry the same weight when put into the broader context of user reality.The amount of true HD material is tiny compared to the vast amount of material available .
Hardware for HD disks gets used to simply store more regular material .
Which HD disk format is used is irrelevant.Many users convert and compress for storage .
Where AVI package dominated before ( often a movie stored in 700 MB ) , MKV format is growing in popularity for HD compression ( ~ 2 GB for a movie ) .
Even the commercial Xvid variant DivX is including MKV format in their new software .
There are over 100 million home and handheld devices sold with DivX capabilty and these can be used to read HD material compressed to either DivX ( actually most any AVI ) or MKV format .
Again , which HD format makes no difference , if one is used at all .
As long as material stays smaller than a single standard DVD , adoption of HD formats is stifled and ratios do n't reflect much more than current price and previous purchase.Which particular HD format gets adopted by producers only impacts those whose main activity is obtaining material on original media .
More get it elsewhere , and far more material is available than the little bit on HD disks that is actually HD material ( ie , they 're releasing material on HD formats that are n't capable ot making use of the format ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The numbers given don't carry the same weight when put into the broader context of user reality.The amount of true HD material is tiny compared to the vast amount of material available.
Hardware for HD disks gets used to simply store more regular material.
Which HD disk format is used is irrelevant.Many users convert and compress for storage.
Where AVI package dominated before (often a movie stored in 700 MB), MKV format is growing in popularity for HD compression (~ 2 GB for a movie).
Even the commercial Xvid variant DivX is including MKV format in their new software.
There are over 100 million home and handheld devices sold with DivX capabilty and these can be used to read HD material compressed to either DivX (actually most any AVI) or MKV format.
Again, which HD format makes no difference, if one is used at all.
As long as material stays smaller than a single standard DVD, adoption of HD formats is stifled and ratios don't reflect much more than current price and previous purchase.Which particular HD format gets adopted by producers only impacts those whose main activity is obtaining material on original media.
More get it elsewhere, and far more material is available than the little bit on HD disks that is actually HD material (ie, they're releasing material on HD formats that aren't capable ot making use of the format).</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1339213.28423639</id>
	<title>Re:I wonder</title>
	<author>AxelTorvalds</author>
	<datestamp>1245690480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>These numbers seem flawed to me.   There weren't enough HD-DVD players created.  Still only like 1/3 of US households even have HD monitors. (<a href="http://www.engadgethd.com/2009/05/21/nielsen-stats-find-33-of-u-s-households-with-at-least-one-hdtv/" title="engadgethd.com">Here.</a> [engadgethd.com])    According to <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HD\_DVD" title="wikipedia.org">Wikipedia</a> [wikipedia.org] (yes, I know) Toshiba, the largest HD-DVD unit maker had sold about 1 million units right before they pulled the plug.
<p>
Now a lot of folks might think they have HD TV and have a DVD player that is either 480p or an upscaling one but that's not HD-DVD.  It just doesn't seem like it's possible for those numbers to be correct.   If you look at the income distribution as well,  it suggests to me that the sample set is flawed if nothing else.  Computer ownership went down?  HD TV ownership is substantially different than the Neilsen numbers. Original xbox numbers are consistent but PS2 numbers went down?  The $50k to $75k folks own way more gadgets than the $75k+ crowd?   'splain that to me.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>These numbers seem flawed to me .
There were n't enough HD-DVD players created .
Still only like 1/3 of US households even have HD monitors .
( Here. [ engadgethd.com ] ) According to Wikipedia [ wikipedia.org ] ( yes , I know ) Toshiba , the largest HD-DVD unit maker had sold about 1 million units right before they pulled the plug .
Now a lot of folks might think they have HD TV and have a DVD player that is either 480p or an upscaling one but that 's not HD-DVD .
It just does n't seem like it 's possible for those numbers to be correct .
If you look at the income distribution as well , it suggests to me that the sample set is flawed if nothing else .
Computer ownership went down ?
HD TV ownership is substantially different than the Neilsen numbers .
Original xbox numbers are consistent but PS2 numbers went down ?
The $ 50k to $ 75k folks own way more gadgets than the $ 75k + crowd ?
'splain that to me .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>These numbers seem flawed to me.
There weren't enough HD-DVD players created.
Still only like 1/3 of US households even have HD monitors.
(Here. [engadgethd.com])    According to Wikipedia [wikipedia.org] (yes, I know) Toshiba, the largest HD-DVD unit maker had sold about 1 million units right before they pulled the plug.
Now a lot of folks might think they have HD TV and have a DVD player that is either 480p or an upscaling one but that's not HD-DVD.
It just doesn't seem like it's possible for those numbers to be correct.
If you look at the income distribution as well,  it suggests to me that the sample set is flawed if nothing else.
Computer ownership went down?
HD TV ownership is substantially different than the Neilsen numbers.
Original xbox numbers are consistent but PS2 numbers went down?
The $50k to $75k folks own way more gadgets than the $75k+ crowd?
'splain that to me.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1339213.28421195</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1339213.28424077</id>
	<title>Re:I work in he rental industry</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245691980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>At normal viewing distance I honestly can't tell the difference.</p></div><p>I'm sorry to hear about your vision problems.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>At normal viewing distance I honestly ca n't tell the difference.I 'm sorry to hear about your vision problems .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>At normal viewing distance I honestly can't tell the difference.I'm sorry to hear about your vision problems.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1339213.28421501</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1339213.28421265</id>
	<title>Weird...</title>
	<author>c</author>
	<datestamp>1245682620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's like I'm suddenly in some strange parallel universe where Beta won.</p><p>Of course, one does have to consider that these statistics also mean that somewhere between 80-90\% of the population simply don't give a shit about Blu-ray versus HD-DVD.</p><p>c.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's like I 'm suddenly in some strange parallel universe where Beta won.Of course , one does have to consider that these statistics also mean that somewhere between 80-90 \ % of the population simply do n't give a shit about Blu-ray versus HD-DVD.c .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's like I'm suddenly in some strange parallel universe where Beta won.Of course, one does have to consider that these statistics also mean that somewhere between 80-90\% of the population simply don't give a shit about Blu-ray versus HD-DVD.c.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1339213.28422291</id>
	<title>Re:early adopters VSs the luddites</title>
	<author>Ceiynt</author>
	<datestamp>1245686040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>For, wait even a few more years, wait for optical media to die, and pick up micro flash media players. One player on the shelf will do it all. Play videos, music, the card from your camera, display your files from your thumb drive. Also, no moving parts except for cooling fan, so it should last forever.</htmltext>
<tokenext>For , wait even a few more years , wait for optical media to die , and pick up micro flash media players .
One player on the shelf will do it all .
Play videos , music , the card from your camera , display your files from your thumb drive .
Also , no moving parts except for cooling fan , so it should last forever .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>For, wait even a few more years, wait for optical media to die, and pick up micro flash media players.
One player on the shelf will do it all.
Play videos, music, the card from your camera, display your files from your thumb drive.
Also, no moving parts except for cooling fan, so it should last forever.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1339213.28421309</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1339213.28479529</id>
	<title>Re: Blu-ray...soon on ebay too</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246013340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>HD DVD lost in 2008.<br>Blu-ray will be gone in 2010-12 timeframe.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>HD DVD lost in 2008.Blu-ray will be gone in 2010-12 timeframe .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>HD DVD lost in 2008.Blu-ray will be gone in 2010-12 timeframe.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1339213.28421669</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1339213.28422801</id>
	<title>Re:Flawed interpretation of the study</title>
	<author>Bakkster</author>
	<datestamp>1245687660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Of course, neither of these numbers gives a truly useful measure: how prevalent is Blu-ray movie watching?  We have an upper bound (PS3s plus stand-alone players, about 15\%) on viewers.  We also have a count of Blu-Ray sales (1 in 6-months per American) and a comparison to DVD sales (about 1/6th).  All three taken together show that the format is far from prevalent, but also not dead on the vine.  If the buying rate is distributed to the install base, then the average Blu-ray household buys about one disk every month.  Is this enough to sustain the format?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Of course , neither of these numbers gives a truly useful measure : how prevalent is Blu-ray movie watching ?
We have an upper bound ( PS3s plus stand-alone players , about 15 \ % ) on viewers .
We also have a count of Blu-Ray sales ( 1 in 6-months per American ) and a comparison to DVD sales ( about 1/6th ) .
All three taken together show that the format is far from prevalent , but also not dead on the vine .
If the buying rate is distributed to the install base , then the average Blu-ray household buys about one disk every month .
Is this enough to sustain the format ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Of course, neither of these numbers gives a truly useful measure: how prevalent is Blu-ray movie watching?
We have an upper bound (PS3s plus stand-alone players, about 15\%) on viewers.
We also have a count of Blu-Ray sales (1 in 6-months per American) and a comparison to DVD sales (about 1/6th).
All three taken together show that the format is far from prevalent, but also not dead on the vine.
If the buying rate is distributed to the install base, then the average Blu-ray household buys about one disk every month.
Is this enough to sustain the format?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1339213.28421187</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1339213.28421607</id>
	<title>Re:I work in he rental industry</title>
	<author>AndrewNeo</author>
	<datestamp>1245683760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Every movie I rent from Netflix is Blu-Ray (when available). Why? Because B&amp;M movie rental stores wanted to charge me $4-5 per release. I get way more than two movies per month by paying $10 for Netflix. I'm on the two out at a time plan with Blu-Ray and with my common rental rate it comes out to like $2.30 a rental.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Every movie I rent from Netflix is Blu-Ray ( when available ) .
Why ? Because B&amp;M movie rental stores wanted to charge me $ 4-5 per release .
I get way more than two movies per month by paying $ 10 for Netflix .
I 'm on the two out at a time plan with Blu-Ray and with my common rental rate it comes out to like $ 2.30 a rental .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Every movie I rent from Netflix is Blu-Ray (when available).
Why? Because B&amp;M movie rental stores wanted to charge me $4-5 per release.
I get way more than two movies per month by paying $10 for Netflix.
I'm on the two out at a time plan with Blu-Ray and with my common rental rate it comes out to like $2.30 a rental.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1339213.28421193</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1339213.28434627</id>
	<title>Re:early adopters VSs the luddites</title>
	<author>bloodhawk</author>
	<datestamp>1245691200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The point of the article is not about whether HD DVD is dead or not, it is, no ifs or buts. The article is about whether Blu ray is looking at the same premature death through lack of sales. At the current rate downloads and new formats will have taken off before Blu ray gets much more than the current high end niche status it has.

So really you are wrong in that Blu Ray won, HD DVD lost and at this point it looks like so did Blu ray. DVD is good enough till the next wave of inovation or till people move on to downloads.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The point of the article is not about whether HD DVD is dead or not , it is , no ifs or buts .
The article is about whether Blu ray is looking at the same premature death through lack of sales .
At the current rate downloads and new formats will have taken off before Blu ray gets much more than the current high end niche status it has .
So really you are wrong in that Blu Ray won , HD DVD lost and at this point it looks like so did Blu ray .
DVD is good enough till the next wave of inovation or till people move on to downloads .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The point of the article is not about whether HD DVD is dead or not, it is, no ifs or buts.
The article is about whether Blu ray is looking at the same premature death through lack of sales.
At the current rate downloads and new formats will have taken off before Blu ray gets much more than the current high end niche status it has.
So really you are wrong in that Blu Ray won, HD DVD lost and at this point it looks like so did Blu ray.
DVD is good enough till the next wave of inovation or till people move on to downloads.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1339213.28421669</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1339213.28422757</id>
	<title>Compare vs HD On-Demand</title>
	<author>HockeyPuck</author>
	<datestamp>1245687540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm of the camp that doesn't want ANY new DVD player in the house. I was one of those that bought DVDs and now probably have 50 DVDs that I haven't watched in atleast a year.  However, I probably watch 1-2 HD On Demand movies a month.  I know the audio/video quality isn't as good as a bluray dvd, however, I would take me almost <i>four years&gt; <i> to recoup the cost of the player ALONE (when the movie's are $5 from comcast).</i></i></p><p><i><i>I'd like to know what percentage of HD movies are watched 'on demand' vs. physical media.</i></i></p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm of the camp that does n't want ANY new DVD player in the house .
I was one of those that bought DVDs and now probably have 50 DVDs that I have n't watched in atleast a year .
However , I probably watch 1-2 HD On Demand movies a month .
I know the audio/video quality is n't as good as a bluray dvd , however , I would take me almost four years &gt; to recoup the cost of the player ALONE ( when the movie 's are $ 5 from comcast ) .I 'd like to know what percentage of HD movies are watched 'on demand ' vs. physical media .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm of the camp that doesn't want ANY new DVD player in the house.
I was one of those that bought DVDs and now probably have 50 DVDs that I haven't watched in atleast a year.
However, I probably watch 1-2 HD On Demand movies a month.
I know the audio/video quality isn't as good as a bluray dvd, however, I would take me almost four years&gt;  to recoup the cost of the player ALONE (when the movie's are $5 from comcast).I'd like to know what percentage of HD movies are watched 'on demand' vs. physical media.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1339213.28441591</id>
	<title>Re:Both are obsolete.</title>
	<author>hazydave</author>
	<datestamp>1245782100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This sort of cycle happens with every new consumer media format, and people say exactly the same things every time. When CD players came out, at $1000 or more, the format was "only for the rich", and even years later, it hadn't been adopted by enough... it was doomed. Of course, the truth was that those early adopters did have enough cash to not only spend $1000 on the player, but to buy many discs. I waited until the CD players fell below $200... some folks waited until they came free in your cornflakes... but the format did launch and take the market.</p><p>DVD came out, with players at $1000, and all the video people worried about how evil compressed video would be compared to VHS, how these were only for the rich, etc. The Circuit City "DiVX" thing actually did create a format war, ex-post-facto, at least for a short time, and folks like US spread the word and ensured that DiVX failed. DVD was still too expensive, the discs were expensive, they'd just never be able to oust VHS... until they did. I waited until the players cost about $200... some didn't buy them unitl you could pick one up at a yard sale for $2.00 (that one's installed in the kids' TV room, so they didn't have to drag out their PS2 or the DVD players from their rooms).</p><p>SACD and DVD-Audio came out, with $1000 players and a format war from the get-go. People complained about the expense of the formats, how these would only ever be used by high-end audiophile types, etc. They were kind of correct on this one, for several reasons. The format wars certainly split the market. And the market here was inherently limited, since very few people in the USA actually have stereo systems in which CD is the weakest link. So the real expense of getting the most out of SACD or DVD-Audio is dramatically more than the cost of the player. And you can't rip it to your iPod (well, not easily).</p><p>Now it's Blu-Ray... it came out with $1000 players, and people said exactly the same things they said with CD and DVD did this... maybe they were too young to know it, but they did. Now they're down to sub $200 players.. I bought mine at the $400 level... I was already committed, being into HD video production, and just needed for the format war to end (I bought a BD-R drive six months before I bought a player for my media room). If they had put BD or something like it out in 1999, it would more than likely have been marginalized like SACD, but HDTV was already well on the way... enough at least that most of the early adopter types already had their HDTVs... or, as in my case, were on their second one. The digital switch-over helps too (and will continue to).. people are getting better quality video, if they watch video at all, like it or not.</p><p>Downloading of anything like HD isn't practical yet. Most people don't have the internet connections, and of those who do, none have ISPs who will tolerate a few 30GB downloads per week. The little "HD" video that is being offered online is lower resolution, overly compressed, and lacks the high quality audio of Blu-Ray.. it's not much better than DVD (of course, when your SD video offerings are a bit worse than DVD, the relative difference suggests "HD" is real, but only within the download world).</p><p>But the bandwith issues will be solved... the others, we'll see. The big problem with digital video downloads is the same big problem we had until recently with digtial audio downloads. When all of the recording companies demanded DRM, music was essentially proprietary to sites like iTunes matched with the iPod. That meant no price competition -- you were always paying full retail. Compare that to DVD or Blu-Ray shopping... I rarely pay for anything at or even that near the list price. So that $39.95 "Lost: Season 3" BD I bought on Amazon last year might well have cost me $80 as a download... and another $25-$30 worth of hard disc space or BD-Rs to store it. And after all that, what's it going to play on? I can play it on my main HDTV and one of the HD monitors in my computer room? What about a portable player?</p><p>Once</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This sort of cycle happens with every new consumer media format , and people say exactly the same things every time .
When CD players came out , at $ 1000 or more , the format was " only for the rich " , and even years later , it had n't been adopted by enough... it was doomed .
Of course , the truth was that those early adopters did have enough cash to not only spend $ 1000 on the player , but to buy many discs .
I waited until the CD players fell below $ 200... some folks waited until they came free in your cornflakes... but the format did launch and take the market.DVD came out , with players at $ 1000 , and all the video people worried about how evil compressed video would be compared to VHS , how these were only for the rich , etc .
The Circuit City " DiVX " thing actually did create a format war , ex-post-facto , at least for a short time , and folks like US spread the word and ensured that DiVX failed .
DVD was still too expensive , the discs were expensive , they 'd just never be able to oust VHS... until they did .
I waited until the players cost about $ 200... some did n't buy them unitl you could pick one up at a yard sale for $ 2.00 ( that one 's installed in the kids ' TV room , so they did n't have to drag out their PS2 or the DVD players from their rooms ) .SACD and DVD-Audio came out , with $ 1000 players and a format war from the get-go .
People complained about the expense of the formats , how these would only ever be used by high-end audiophile types , etc .
They were kind of correct on this one , for several reasons .
The format wars certainly split the market .
And the market here was inherently limited , since very few people in the USA actually have stereo systems in which CD is the weakest link .
So the real expense of getting the most out of SACD or DVD-Audio is dramatically more than the cost of the player .
And you ca n't rip it to your iPod ( well , not easily ) .Now it 's Blu-Ray... it came out with $ 1000 players , and people said exactly the same things they said with CD and DVD did this... maybe they were too young to know it , but they did .
Now they 're down to sub $ 200 players.. I bought mine at the $ 400 level... I was already committed , being into HD video production , and just needed for the format war to end ( I bought a BD-R drive six months before I bought a player for my media room ) .
If they had put BD or something like it out in 1999 , it would more than likely have been marginalized like SACD , but HDTV was already well on the way... enough at least that most of the early adopter types already had their HDTVs... or , as in my case , were on their second one .
The digital switch-over helps too ( and will continue to ) .. people are getting better quality video , if they watch video at all , like it or not.Downloading of anything like HD is n't practical yet .
Most people do n't have the internet connections , and of those who do , none have ISPs who will tolerate a few 30GB downloads per week .
The little " HD " video that is being offered online is lower resolution , overly compressed , and lacks the high quality audio of Blu-Ray.. it 's not much better than DVD ( of course , when your SD video offerings are a bit worse than DVD , the relative difference suggests " HD " is real , but only within the download world ) .But the bandwith issues will be solved... the others , we 'll see .
The big problem with digital video downloads is the same big problem we had until recently with digtial audio downloads .
When all of the recording companies demanded DRM , music was essentially proprietary to sites like iTunes matched with the iPod .
That meant no price competition -- you were always paying full retail .
Compare that to DVD or Blu-Ray shopping... I rarely pay for anything at or even that near the list price .
So that $ 39.95 " Lost : Season 3 " BD I bought on Amazon last year might well have cost me $ 80 as a download... and another $ 25- $ 30 worth of hard disc space or BD-Rs to store it .
And after all that , what 's it going to play on ?
I can play it on my main HDTV and one of the HD monitors in my computer room ?
What about a portable player ? Once</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This sort of cycle happens with every new consumer media format, and people say exactly the same things every time.
When CD players came out, at $1000 or more, the format was "only for the rich", and even years later, it hadn't been adopted by enough... it was doomed.
Of course, the truth was that those early adopters did have enough cash to not only spend $1000 on the player, but to buy many discs.
I waited until the CD players fell below $200... some folks waited until they came free in your cornflakes... but the format did launch and take the market.DVD came out, with players at $1000, and all the video people worried about how evil compressed video would be compared to VHS, how these were only for the rich, etc.
The Circuit City "DiVX" thing actually did create a format war, ex-post-facto, at least for a short time, and folks like US spread the word and ensured that DiVX failed.
DVD was still too expensive, the discs were expensive, they'd just never be able to oust VHS... until they did.
I waited until the players cost about $200... some didn't buy them unitl you could pick one up at a yard sale for $2.00 (that one's installed in the kids' TV room, so they didn't have to drag out their PS2 or the DVD players from their rooms).SACD and DVD-Audio came out, with $1000 players and a format war from the get-go.
People complained about the expense of the formats, how these would only ever be used by high-end audiophile types, etc.
They were kind of correct on this one, for several reasons.
The format wars certainly split the market.
And the market here was inherently limited, since very few people in the USA actually have stereo systems in which CD is the weakest link.
So the real expense of getting the most out of SACD or DVD-Audio is dramatically more than the cost of the player.
And you can't rip it to your iPod (well, not easily).Now it's Blu-Ray... it came out with $1000 players, and people said exactly the same things they said with CD and DVD did this... maybe they were too young to know it, but they did.
Now they're down to sub $200 players.. I bought mine at the $400 level... I was already committed, being into HD video production, and just needed for the format war to end (I bought a BD-R drive six months before I bought a player for my media room).
If they had put BD or something like it out in 1999, it would more than likely have been marginalized like SACD, but HDTV was already well on the way... enough at least that most of the early adopter types already had their HDTVs... or, as in my case, were on their second one.
The digital switch-over helps too (and will continue to).. people are getting better quality video, if they watch video at all, like it or not.Downloading of anything like HD isn't practical yet.
Most people don't have the internet connections, and of those who do, none have ISPs who will tolerate a few 30GB downloads per week.
The little "HD" video that is being offered online is lower resolution, overly compressed, and lacks the high quality audio of Blu-Ray.. it's not much better than DVD (of course, when your SD video offerings are a bit worse than DVD, the relative difference suggests "HD" is real, but only within the download world).But the bandwith issues will be solved... the others, we'll see.
The big problem with digital video downloads is the same big problem we had until recently with digtial audio downloads.
When all of the recording companies demanded DRM, music was essentially proprietary to sites like iTunes matched with the iPod.
That meant no price competition -- you were always paying full retail.
Compare that to DVD or Blu-Ray shopping... I rarely pay for anything at or even that near the list price.
So that $39.95 "Lost: Season 3" BD I bought on Amazon last year might well have cost me $80 as a download... and another $25-$30 worth of hard disc space or BD-Rs to store it.
And after all that, what's it going to play on?
I can play it on my main HDTV and one of the HD monitors in my computer room?
What about a portable player?Once</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1339213.28421543</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1339213.28421539</id>
	<title>Re:Let's get this straight:</title>
	<author>Ritz\_Just\_Ritz</author>
	<datestamp>1245683520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>For the moment, people don't see/hear a difference because there is a vanishingly small number of people that have a 1080p TV (though these are becoming quite affordable now) and even fewer that have a surround processor/receiver that can deal with the new audio formats (which can only be excreted digitally by HDMI).  So if you play a bluray movie on a 720p (or less) display and use an older processor that can only do Dolby Digital it isn't surprising that people "don't see much of a difference."</p><p>Best,</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>For the moment , people do n't see/hear a difference because there is a vanishingly small number of people that have a 1080p TV ( though these are becoming quite affordable now ) and even fewer that have a surround processor/receiver that can deal with the new audio formats ( which can only be excreted digitally by HDMI ) .
So if you play a bluray movie on a 720p ( or less ) display and use an older processor that can only do Dolby Digital it is n't surprising that people " do n't see much of a difference .
" Best,</tokentext>
<sentencetext>For the moment, people don't see/hear a difference because there is a vanishingly small number of people that have a 1080p TV (though these are becoming quite affordable now) and even fewer that have a surround processor/receiver that can deal with the new audio formats (which can only be excreted digitally by HDMI).
So if you play a bluray movie on a 720p (or less) display and use an older processor that can only do Dolby Digital it isn't surprising that people "don't see much of a difference.
"Best,</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1339213.28421243</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1339213.28428721</id>
	<title>OMG, they forget the PS3!</title>
	<author>Parker Lewis</author>
	<datestamp>1245664500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>People are complaining about Blu-Ray + PS3 = 16\%... so, HD-DVD + 360 addon = 14\%... still a impressive number (only 2\% lower) for a looser format. As a lot of people told, Sony win was a Pyrrhic win.</p><p>Or, as a greater brazilian writer says, "to the winner, the potatoes!".</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>People are complaining about Blu-Ray + PS3 = 16 \ % ... so , HD-DVD + 360 addon = 14 \ % ... still a impressive number ( only 2 \ % lower ) for a looser format .
As a lot of people told , Sony win was a Pyrrhic win.Or , as a greater brazilian writer says , " to the winner , the potatoes !
" .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>People are complaining about Blu-Ray + PS3 = 16\%... so, HD-DVD + 360 addon = 14\%... still a impressive number (only 2\% lower) for a looser format.
As a lot of people told, Sony win was a Pyrrhic win.Or, as a greater brazilian writer says, "to the winner, the potatoes!
".</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1339213.28422381</id>
	<title>There's a big, wide, world out there</title>
	<author>harrisben</author>
	<datestamp>1245686220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>When did anything that occurs in the US become representative of the planet? The US accounts for 4.52\% of the worlds population (<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List\_of\_countries\_by\_population" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">List of countries by population</a> [wikipedia.org]). The remaining 95.48\% says hi.</htmltext>
<tokenext>When did anything that occurs in the US become representative of the planet ?
The US accounts for 4.52 \ % of the worlds population ( List of countries by population [ wikipedia.org ] ) .
The remaining 95.48 \ % says hi .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>When did anything that occurs in the US become representative of the planet?
The US accounts for 4.52\% of the worlds population (List of countries by population [wikipedia.org]).
The remaining 95.48\% says hi.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1339213.28421309</id>
	<title>early adopters VSs the luddites</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245682740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>i will stick with the luddites and keep my old 4.7 gig DVDs and wait another year for market forces to decide who is the real winner before i upgrade to the new format, six on one hand have a dozen on the other is the way i see it = sure HD-DVD is cheaper now but that wont make a difference if BlueRay pulls ahead in a few years, i take great pride in being a luddite living on the older tech = dont laugh - i dont have the money sunk in to crap i dont really need so i can keep it buried in canning jars in my back yard - BEWARE OF DOG!</htmltext>
<tokenext>i will stick with the luddites and keep my old 4.7 gig DVDs and wait another year for market forces to decide who is the real winner before i upgrade to the new format , six on one hand have a dozen on the other is the way i see it = sure HD-DVD is cheaper now but that wont make a difference if BlueRay pulls ahead in a few years , i take great pride in being a luddite living on the older tech = dont laugh - i dont have the money sunk in to crap i dont really need so i can keep it buried in canning jars in my back yard - BEWARE OF DOG !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>i will stick with the luddites and keep my old 4.7 gig DVDs and wait another year for market forces to decide who is the real winner before i upgrade to the new format, six on one hand have a dozen on the other is the way i see it = sure HD-DVD is cheaper now but that wont make a difference if BlueRay pulls ahead in a few years, i take great pride in being a luddite living on the older tech = dont laugh - i dont have the money sunk in to crap i dont really need so i can keep it buried in canning jars in my back yard - BEWARE OF DOG!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1339213.28422423</id>
	<title>Re:I work in he rental industry</title>
	<author>takev</author>
	<datestamp>1245686340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You do know the officially "normal viewing distance" means 1.2 to 1.4 times the width of the screen, right?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You do know the officially " normal viewing distance " means 1.2 to 1.4 times the width of the screen , right ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You do know the officially "normal viewing distance" means 1.2 to 1.4 times the width of the screen, right?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1339213.28421501</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1339213.28422165</id>
	<title>Re:But...</title>
	<author>furby076</author>
	<datestamp>1245685560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I went to the site and looking at the image file they seperated Blu ray and PS3 sales, so probably not? I didn't spend too much reading their stats - it was badly written.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I went to the site and looking at the image file they seperated Blu ray and PS3 sales , so probably not ?
I did n't spend too much reading their stats - it was badly written .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I went to the site and looking at the image file they seperated Blu ray and PS3 sales, so probably not?
I didn't spend too much reading their stats - it was badly written.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1339213.28421201</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1339213.28423631</id>
	<title>this study is terrible flawed</title>
	<author>YesIAmAScript</author>
	<datestamp>1245690420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I would in fact say it might be useless. Clearly the pollsters didn't distinguish between a DVD player (perhaps upconverting) and an HD-DVD player well enough.</p><p>I say this because the poll would have you think that 11\% of US households have an HD-DVD player. Since there are about 100M households in the US that would mean that 11M US households have an HD-DVD player. This is impossible since Toshiba said there were only 1M standalone players sold plus some number of 360 add-ons, and I can assure you there weren't nearly 10M 360 add-ons made. So there weren't enough players in the world to make this figure nearly as large as it is, even if every HD-DVD player was sold into the US and not elsewhere.</p><p>Add in the fact that this study counts consoles separate from standalone players (allegedly), and the actual penetration of HD-DVD into US households mathematically cannot be more than about 2-3\% tops.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I would in fact say it might be useless .
Clearly the pollsters did n't distinguish between a DVD player ( perhaps upconverting ) and an HD-DVD player well enough.I say this because the poll would have you think that 11 \ % of US households have an HD-DVD player .
Since there are about 100M households in the US that would mean that 11M US households have an HD-DVD player .
This is impossible since Toshiba said there were only 1M standalone players sold plus some number of 360 add-ons , and I can assure you there were n't nearly 10M 360 add-ons made .
So there were n't enough players in the world to make this figure nearly as large as it is , even if every HD-DVD player was sold into the US and not elsewhere.Add in the fact that this study counts consoles separate from standalone players ( allegedly ) , and the actual penetration of HD-DVD into US households mathematically can not be more than about 2-3 \ % tops .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I would in fact say it might be useless.
Clearly the pollsters didn't distinguish between a DVD player (perhaps upconverting) and an HD-DVD player well enough.I say this because the poll would have you think that 11\% of US households have an HD-DVD player.
Since there are about 100M households in the US that would mean that 11M US households have an HD-DVD player.
This is impossible since Toshiba said there were only 1M standalone players sold plus some number of 360 add-ons, and I can assure you there weren't nearly 10M 360 add-ons made.
So there weren't enough players in the world to make this figure nearly as large as it is, even if every HD-DVD player was sold into the US and not elsewhere.Add in the fact that this study counts consoles separate from standalone players (allegedly), and the actual penetration of HD-DVD into US households mathematically cannot be more than about 2-3\% tops.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1339213.28432189</id>
	<title>The world is bigger then that.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245677460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The world is bigger than North America.</p><p>Blu Ray sales have eclipsed DVD sales in Japan.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The world is bigger than North America.Blu Ray sales have eclipsed DVD sales in Japan .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The world is bigger than North America.Blu Ray sales have eclipsed DVD sales in Japan.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1339213.28422153</id>
	<title>Re:I work in he rental industry</title>
	<author>IrquiM</author>
	<datestamp>1245685560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>At normal viewing distance, it's easy to tell if it's an upscaled DVD or a BR on my old 42" LCD. Very easy! It's also possible to see the diffhttp://slashdot.org/story/09/06/22/1339213/Blu-ray-Adoption-Soft-More-Still-Own-HD-DVD#erence between an upscaled DVD and a non-upscaled one.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>At normal viewing distance , it 's easy to tell if it 's an upscaled DVD or a BR on my old 42 " LCD .
Very easy !
It 's also possible to see the diffhttp : //slashdot.org/story/09/06/22/1339213/Blu-ray-Adoption-Soft-More-Still-Own-HD-DVD # erence between an upscaled DVD and a non-upscaled one .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>At normal viewing distance, it's easy to tell if it's an upscaled DVD or a BR on my old 42" LCD.
Very easy!
It's also possible to see the diffhttp://slashdot.org/story/09/06/22/1339213/Blu-ray-Adoption-Soft-More-Still-Own-HD-DVD#erence between an upscaled DVD and a non-upscaled one.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1339213.28421501</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1339213.28422433</id>
	<title>Re:Open Letter to Movie Studios</title>
	<author>Steauengeglase</author>
	<datestamp>1245686400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If I had the points...</p><p>The PC always beat out the set top box. I can remember having to re-encode my media down to the NTSC resolution levels, wasting hours, just to view my movies on a NTSC television. Thank goodness that high resolution projectors and large monitors -er HD sets finally became more affordable. So with people still arguing about HD-DVD and Blu-Ray, I say screw 'em and give me media that supports my "monitors" highest resolution and the best way to get that particular format is via download, not disc. I'd like to say that both camps of fanbois need to get out of the past and stop trying to hold everyone else back with their pissing contests, but it doesn't matter, they are already left behind.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If I had the points...The PC always beat out the set top box .
I can remember having to re-encode my media down to the NTSC resolution levels , wasting hours , just to view my movies on a NTSC television .
Thank goodness that high resolution projectors and large monitors -er HD sets finally became more affordable .
So with people still arguing about HD-DVD and Blu-Ray , I say screw 'em and give me media that supports my " monitors " highest resolution and the best way to get that particular format is via download , not disc .
I 'd like to say that both camps of fanbois need to get out of the past and stop trying to hold everyone else back with their pissing contests , but it does n't matter , they are already left behind .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If I had the points...The PC always beat out the set top box.
I can remember having to re-encode my media down to the NTSC resolution levels, wasting hours, just to view my movies on a NTSC television.
Thank goodness that high resolution projectors and large monitors -er HD sets finally became more affordable.
So with people still arguing about HD-DVD and Blu-Ray, I say screw 'em and give me media that supports my "monitors" highest resolution and the best way to get that particular format is via download, not disc.
I'd like to say that both camps of fanbois need to get out of the past and stop trying to hold everyone else back with their pissing contests, but it doesn't matter, they are already left behind.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1339213.28421429</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1339213.28423349</id>
	<title>Re:Don't buy into that lie</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245689580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You can and should very much count the ps3 as a bluray player. The most obvious reason is that it is, indeed, a bluray player. Your friends have 2 bluray movies for their PS3s? Gee, wonder what they watch them on... Maybe... the PS3?<br>The next obvious reason is that a lot of people bought ps3s because they wanted a (wait for it) bluray player. The PS3 was targeted as a high-end movie/game player and that's why it was so expensive. Yet, it was still cheaper than the majority of the players at the time and allowed people to play video games. It's pretty clear it's a bluray player and people are obviously buying movies to play on the ps3.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You can and should very much count the ps3 as a bluray player .
The most obvious reason is that it is , indeed , a bluray player .
Your friends have 2 bluray movies for their PS3s ?
Gee , wonder what they watch them on... Maybe... the PS3 ? The next obvious reason is that a lot of people bought ps3s because they wanted a ( wait for it ) bluray player .
The PS3 was targeted as a high-end movie/game player and that 's why it was so expensive .
Yet , it was still cheaper than the majority of the players at the time and allowed people to play video games .
It 's pretty clear it 's a bluray player and people are obviously buying movies to play on the ps3 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You can and should very much count the ps3 as a bluray player.
The most obvious reason is that it is, indeed, a bluray player.
Your friends have 2 bluray movies for their PS3s?
Gee, wonder what they watch them on... Maybe... the PS3?The next obvious reason is that a lot of people bought ps3s because they wanted a (wait for it) bluray player.
The PS3 was targeted as a high-end movie/game player and that's why it was so expensive.
Yet, it was still cheaper than the majority of the players at the time and allowed people to play video games.
It's pretty clear it's a bluray player and people are obviously buying movies to play on the ps3.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1339213.28421839</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1339213.28422163</id>
	<title>Re:Clarification?</title>
	<author>ratboy666</author>
	<datestamp>1245685560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>These figures show <i>something</i> but I am not sure I like it.</p><p>People who have stand-alone players probably want to buy media in that format. Even when the gaming systems are included, the numbers are roughly equivalent. But, there is a sizable lead HD-DVD over BluRay.</p><p>I have an HD-DVD player. A few movies for it (although, its mostly just a DVD player for me). Would I buy HD-DVD movies? Hell, yes, I keep getting marketing literature for Hi-def movies, to which I reply "Yes, I would be interested, please give me HD-DVD format".</p><p>The demand is there (30\% greater install base) -- where is the media?</p><p>Yes, I believe there is a conspiracy to eliminate HD-DVD. Personally, I don't give a hoot if players are no longer available, but, given the install base, it WOULD make sense to make HD-DVD releases.</p><p>But, no new HD-DVDS: <a href="http://hddvd.highdefdigest.com/releasedates.html" title="highdefdigest.com">http://hddvd.highdefdigest.com/releasedates.html</a> [highdefdigest.com]</p><p>No HD-DVD rentals, no HD-DVD "classic" sales at Walmart. EVEN THOUGH THERE ARE MORE INSTALLED HD-DVD PLAYERS. Sounds like cartel behaviour to me. Certainly no market forces at work. Why doesn't someone get into the business of mastering "bargain" HD-DVDs to sell for $15? If one in ten US households have an HD-DVD player, it certainly sounds like a business opportunity to me. At least I should be seeing HD-DVDs in the second-tier retailers "XS Cargo". Simply run more of the movies already mastered!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>These figures show something but I am not sure I like it.People who have stand-alone players probably want to buy media in that format .
Even when the gaming systems are included , the numbers are roughly equivalent .
But , there is a sizable lead HD-DVD over BluRay.I have an HD-DVD player .
A few movies for it ( although , its mostly just a DVD player for me ) .
Would I buy HD-DVD movies ?
Hell , yes , I keep getting marketing literature for Hi-def movies , to which I reply " Yes , I would be interested , please give me HD-DVD format " .The demand is there ( 30 \ % greater install base ) -- where is the media ? Yes , I believe there is a conspiracy to eliminate HD-DVD .
Personally , I do n't give a hoot if players are no longer available , but , given the install base , it WOULD make sense to make HD-DVD releases.But , no new HD-DVDS : http : //hddvd.highdefdigest.com/releasedates.html [ highdefdigest.com ] No HD-DVD rentals , no HD-DVD " classic " sales at Walmart .
EVEN THOUGH THERE ARE MORE INSTALLED HD-DVD PLAYERS .
Sounds like cartel behaviour to me .
Certainly no market forces at work .
Why does n't someone get into the business of mastering " bargain " HD-DVDs to sell for $ 15 ?
If one in ten US households have an HD-DVD player , it certainly sounds like a business opportunity to me .
At least I should be seeing HD-DVDs in the second-tier retailers " XS Cargo " .
Simply run more of the movies already mastered !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>These figures show something but I am not sure I like it.People who have stand-alone players probably want to buy media in that format.
Even when the gaming systems are included, the numbers are roughly equivalent.
But, there is a sizable lead HD-DVD over BluRay.I have an HD-DVD player.
A few movies for it (although, its mostly just a DVD player for me).
Would I buy HD-DVD movies?
Hell, yes, I keep getting marketing literature for Hi-def movies, to which I reply "Yes, I would be interested, please give me HD-DVD format".The demand is there (30\% greater install base) -- where is the media?Yes, I believe there is a conspiracy to eliminate HD-DVD.
Personally, I don't give a hoot if players are no longer available, but, given the install base, it WOULD make sense to make HD-DVD releases.But, no new HD-DVDS: http://hddvd.highdefdigest.com/releasedates.html [highdefdigest.com]No HD-DVD rentals, no HD-DVD "classic" sales at Walmart.
EVEN THOUGH THERE ARE MORE INSTALLED HD-DVD PLAYERS.
Sounds like cartel behaviour to me.
Certainly no market forces at work.
Why doesn't someone get into the business of mastering "bargain" HD-DVDs to sell for $15?
If one in ten US households have an HD-DVD player, it certainly sounds like a business opportunity to me.
At least I should be seeing HD-DVDs in the second-tier retailers "XS Cargo".
Simply run more of the movies already mastered!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1339213.28421217</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1339213.28421281</id>
	<title>HDDVD in laptops?</title>
	<author>Poltras</author>
	<datestamp>1245682680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>My girlfriend has an HP laptop and bought it at around 800$ a year and a half ago. It has an HD-DVD. She never used it (except for reading standard DVD). Does she still count toward this idiot statistic? Likewise, how many have HD-DVD <b>discs</b> around? Just for myself, I have way more blu-ray than all my friends have HD-DVD (even if you remove my PS3 games). Crazy, uh?</htmltext>
<tokenext>My girlfriend has an HP laptop and bought it at around 800 $ a year and a half ago .
It has an HD-DVD .
She never used it ( except for reading standard DVD ) .
Does she still count toward this idiot statistic ?
Likewise , how many have HD-DVD discs around ?
Just for myself , I have way more blu-ray than all my friends have HD-DVD ( even if you remove my PS3 games ) .
Crazy , uh ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>My girlfriend has an HP laptop and bought it at around 800$ a year and a half ago.
It has an HD-DVD.
She never used it (except for reading standard DVD).
Does she still count toward this idiot statistic?
Likewise, how many have HD-DVD discs around?
Just for myself, I have way more blu-ray than all my friends have HD-DVD (even if you remove my PS3 games).
Crazy, uh?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1339213.28433255</id>
	<title>Re:Flawed interpretation of the study</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245682680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I dunno, I originally bought a PS2 because it was a game console AND a DVD player. Saving me a purchase. I am sure a few slick salesman have used this line to sell the higher priced PS3. Not that it was a marketing tactic by Sony specifically. Although I do remember a line from Sony along the lines of "buy a PS3 get a Blu-ray player free!".</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I dunno , I originally bought a PS2 because it was a game console AND a DVD player .
Saving me a purchase .
I am sure a few slick salesman have used this line to sell the higher priced PS3 .
Not that it was a marketing tactic by Sony specifically .
Although I do remember a line from Sony along the lines of " buy a PS3 get a Blu-ray player free !
" .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I dunno, I originally bought a PS2 because it was a game console AND a DVD player.
Saving me a purchase.
I am sure a few slick salesman have used this line to sell the higher priced PS3.
Not that it was a marketing tactic by Sony specifically.
Although I do remember a line from Sony along the lines of "buy a PS3 get a Blu-ray player free!
".</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1339213.28424571</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1339213.28422355</id>
	<title>Re:It was budget because it was failing!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245686160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Umm, Actually it was.</p><p>http://www.businessweek.com/technology/content/apr2007/tc20070406\_288377.htm</p><p>In the early adoption days, Bluray players (with the exception of the ps3) were priced around $800-$1000 while HD-DVD players (with the exception of the xbox addon) were priced around $500.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Umm , Actually it was.http : //www.businessweek.com/technology/content/apr2007/tc20070406 \ _288377.htmIn the early adoption days , Bluray players ( with the exception of the ps3 ) were priced around $ 800- $ 1000 while HD-DVD players ( with the exception of the xbox addon ) were priced around $ 500 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Umm, Actually it was.http://www.businessweek.com/technology/content/apr2007/tc20070406\_288377.htmIn the early adoption days, Bluray players (with the exception of the ps3) were priced around $800-$1000 while HD-DVD players (with the exception of the xbox addon) were priced around $500.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1339213.28421297</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1339213.28425689</id>
	<title>Faulty data/procedure?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245697500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I dont see any methodology mentioned, or who they polled. Or even how many people.</p><p>10\% seems a bit high since I don't know anyone with a HD-DVD player.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I dont see any methodology mentioned , or who they polled .
Or even how many people.10 \ % seems a bit high since I do n't know anyone with a HD-DVD player .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I dont see any methodology mentioned, or who they polled.
Or even how many people.10\% seems a bit high since I don't know anyone with a HD-DVD player.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1339213.28422969</id>
	<title>Re:Open Letter to Movie Studios</title>
	<author>thePowerOfGrayskull</author>
	<datestamp>1245688200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Dear anonymous,
<p>
We care.
</p><p>
Signed,
</p><p>
The Movie Studios</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Dear anonymous , We care .
Signed , The Movie Studios</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Dear anonymous,

We care.
Signed,

The Movie Studios</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1339213.28421429</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1339213.28424439</id>
	<title>The Article's Conclusion is Incorrect.</title>
	<author>gobbligook</author>
	<datestamp>1245693360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The article is not taking into account those owners of PS3 systems that use the PS3 exclusively for blue ray content.  Or alternatively the owners of an XBox 360 with HDDVD.</p><p>If you account for this and for the rate of adoption the articles conclusion is incorrect.</p><p>=16\% BluRay vs 14\% HDDVD</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The article is not taking into account those owners of PS3 systems that use the PS3 exclusively for blue ray content .
Or alternatively the owners of an XBox 360 with HDDVD.If you account for this and for the rate of adoption the articles conclusion is incorrect. = 16 \ % BluRay vs 14 \ % HDDVD</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The article is not taking into account those owners of PS3 systems that use the PS3 exclusively for blue ray content.
Or alternatively the owners of an XBox 360 with HDDVD.If you account for this and for the rate of adoption the articles conclusion is incorrect.=16\% BluRay vs 14\% HDDVD</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1339213.28421659</id>
	<title>not gonna buy until</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245683880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>pricing returns to its previous level.</p><p>Did anyone notice how the prices jumped by about $10 per movie when HD DVD "lost" the war?</p><p>Sorry, but that kind of blatant profiteering is a major turn off for me. I get that its an open market and all that. My choice is to hold off buying something that really is a luxury until pricing goes back to where it was. Call it my simple, quiet protest against that business practice if you want.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>pricing returns to its previous level.Did anyone notice how the prices jumped by about $ 10 per movie when HD DVD " lost " the war ? Sorry , but that kind of blatant profiteering is a major turn off for me .
I get that its an open market and all that .
My choice is to hold off buying something that really is a luxury until pricing goes back to where it was .
Call it my simple , quiet protest against that business practice if you want .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>pricing returns to its previous level.Did anyone notice how the prices jumped by about $10 per movie when HD DVD "lost" the war?Sorry, but that kind of blatant profiteering is a major turn off for me.
I get that its an open market and all that.
My choice is to hold off buying something that really is a luxury until pricing goes back to where it was.
Call it my simple, quiet protest against that business practice if you want.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1339213.28428717</id>
	<title>Forest, meet trees.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245664440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>We know HD-DVD is dead, that isn't the issue being contested by these numbers.</p><p>It may be only simple speculation,  but the number of people claiming HD-DVD to BluRay ownership is representative of pissed off consumers that refused to buy into BluRay, despite it winning the format war. Many of us are sitting this round of formats out and waiting for the next one, just to get Sony's goat.</p><p>Meanwhile, we'll just watch whatever our overpriced HD cable providers offer us in premium channels.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>We know HD-DVD is dead , that is n't the issue being contested by these numbers.It may be only simple speculation , but the number of people claiming HD-DVD to BluRay ownership is representative of pissed off consumers that refused to buy into BluRay , despite it winning the format war .
Many of us are sitting this round of formats out and waiting for the next one , just to get Sony 's goat.Meanwhile , we 'll just watch whatever our overpriced HD cable providers offer us in premium channels .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We know HD-DVD is dead, that isn't the issue being contested by these numbers.It may be only simple speculation,  but the number of people claiming HD-DVD to BluRay ownership is representative of pissed off consumers that refused to buy into BluRay, despite it winning the format war.
Many of us are sitting this round of formats out and waiting for the next one, just to get Sony's goat.Meanwhile, we'll just watch whatever our overpriced HD cable providers offer us in premium channels.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1339213.28421669</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1339213.28432241</id>
	<title>SLASHDOT FAIL.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245677760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>toshiba made 1.3 million hddvd players globally.  there are 300 million americans.  how does 1 in 10 own an hd dvd player?  lest i get concerned my hddvd player is not wearing a condom, i suggest we be concerned this sample is inaccurate.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>toshiba made 1.3 million hddvd players globally .
there are 300 million americans .
how does 1 in 10 own an hd dvd player ?
lest i get concerned my hddvd player is not wearing a condom , i suggest we be concerned this sample is inaccurate .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>toshiba made 1.3 million hddvd players globally.
there are 300 million americans.
how does 1 in 10 own an hd dvd player?
lest i get concerned my hddvd player is not wearing a condom, i suggest we be concerned this sample is inaccurate.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1339213.28425421</id>
	<title>Re:I work in he rental industry</title>
	<author>Memroid</author>
	<datestamp>1245696540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Some reasons Blu-Ray is failing (or not quickly succeeding): Unreasonably higher price of disks, unreasonably higher rental cost, not available via (most) redbox locations. If this is a change the movie industry actually wants, they should push for pricing this format the same as DVDs, instead of as an improvement over DVDs. If the industry is not actually interested in 'switching' over, and this Blu-Ray segment is just a profitable small consumer demand segment wanting higher quality, then they will probably be fine for now sticking with their current strategy.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Some reasons Blu-Ray is failing ( or not quickly succeeding ) : Unreasonably higher price of disks , unreasonably higher rental cost , not available via ( most ) redbox locations .
If this is a change the movie industry actually wants , they should push for pricing this format the same as DVDs , instead of as an improvement over DVDs .
If the industry is not actually interested in 'switching ' over , and this Blu-Ray segment is just a profitable small consumer demand segment wanting higher quality , then they will probably be fine for now sticking with their current strategy .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Some reasons Blu-Ray is failing (or not quickly succeeding): Unreasonably higher price of disks, unreasonably higher rental cost, not available via (most) redbox locations.
If this is a change the movie industry actually wants, they should push for pricing this format the same as DVDs, instead of as an improvement over DVDs.
If the industry is not actually interested in 'switching' over, and this Blu-Ray segment is just a profitable small consumer demand segment wanting higher quality, then they will probably be fine for now sticking with their current strategy.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1339213.28421193</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1339213.28421641</id>
	<title>"was always viewed as a niche format" ...Bullshit.</title>
	<author>distantbody</author>
	<datestamp>1245683880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>That's some subjective BS right there. HD-DVD came out earlier anyway and I think with better marketing. The support of the film studios and electronics companies played roles also.</htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's some subjective BS right there .
HD-DVD came out earlier anyway and I think with better marketing .
The support of the film studios and electronics companies played roles also .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That's some subjective BS right there.
HD-DVD came out earlier anyway and I think with better marketing.
The support of the film studios and electronics companies played roles also.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1339213.28425881</id>
	<title>Re:Never FORGET The Real Reason They Gave In!!!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245698280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Forced them? Toshiba accepted the bribe, so they're the sole to blame. It was in Sony's interest to try to disrupt the competition; they're here to make money, not to be fair.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Forced them ?
Toshiba accepted the bribe , so they 're the sole to blame .
It was in Sony 's interest to try to disrupt the competition ; they 're here to make money , not to be fair .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Forced them?
Toshiba accepted the bribe, so they're the sole to blame.
It was in Sony's interest to try to disrupt the competition; they're here to make money, not to be fair.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1339213.28421489</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1339213.28421669</id>
	<title>Re:early adopters VSs the luddites</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245683880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>HD-DVD is dead.  There's no need to wait to see who will win, as that question was answered a year and a half ago when Toshiba (the banner carrier for HD-DVD) announced that they would discontinue all HD-DVD production.  According to the wiki article, the entire HD-DVD promotion group was dissolved March of last year.  To my knowledge, no one builds a new HD-DVD player; there are a small number of PC drives that include HD-DVD compatibility, but I assume that's because of the low cost of inclusion once the blue laser diodes for Blu-ray are already in the drive.  You can not walk into a retail store and find an HD-DVD player unless they found some hidden stock in the back and are clearance selling it for $20.  You can't find HD-DVD discs unless the same thing happens.  Any movie that's come out since then will never come out on HD-DVD.  HD-DVD is dead and voluntarily buried by its own support and manufacturing group.</p><p>In summary, there is no more waiting.  The race was over last year.  You can debate whether the quality improvement is worth the money, and there's some definite complaints to be made about the cost of the discs. If your only concern, however, is which of the formats will win, then there's no reason to continue waiting.  Blu-Ray won last year.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>HD-DVD is dead .
There 's no need to wait to see who will win , as that question was answered a year and a half ago when Toshiba ( the banner carrier for HD-DVD ) announced that they would discontinue all HD-DVD production .
According to the wiki article , the entire HD-DVD promotion group was dissolved March of last year .
To my knowledge , no one builds a new HD-DVD player ; there are a small number of PC drives that include HD-DVD compatibility , but I assume that 's because of the low cost of inclusion once the blue laser diodes for Blu-ray are already in the drive .
You can not walk into a retail store and find an HD-DVD player unless they found some hidden stock in the back and are clearance selling it for $ 20 .
You ca n't find HD-DVD discs unless the same thing happens .
Any movie that 's come out since then will never come out on HD-DVD .
HD-DVD is dead and voluntarily buried by its own support and manufacturing group.In summary , there is no more waiting .
The race was over last year .
You can debate whether the quality improvement is worth the money , and there 's some definite complaints to be made about the cost of the discs .
If your only concern , however , is which of the formats will win , then there 's no reason to continue waiting .
Blu-Ray won last year .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>HD-DVD is dead.
There's no need to wait to see who will win, as that question was answered a year and a half ago when Toshiba (the banner carrier for HD-DVD) announced that they would discontinue all HD-DVD production.
According to the wiki article, the entire HD-DVD promotion group was dissolved March of last year.
To my knowledge, no one builds a new HD-DVD player; there are a small number of PC drives that include HD-DVD compatibility, but I assume that's because of the low cost of inclusion once the blue laser diodes for Blu-ray are already in the drive.
You can not walk into a retail store and find an HD-DVD player unless they found some hidden stock in the back and are clearance selling it for $20.
You can't find HD-DVD discs unless the same thing happens.
Any movie that's come out since then will never come out on HD-DVD.
HD-DVD is dead and voluntarily buried by its own support and manufacturing group.In summary, there is no more waiting.
The race was over last year.
You can debate whether the quality improvement is worth the money, and there's some definite complaints to be made about the cost of the discs.
If your only concern, however, is which of the formats will win, then there's no reason to continue waiting.
Blu-Ray won last year.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1339213.28421309</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1339213.28422817</id>
	<title>Re:I work in he rental industry</title>
	<author>cswiii</author>
	<datestamp>1245687660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You may find this website useful in determining whether or not your screen resolution and viewing distance can/should be adjusted to affect any discernible difference.</p><p><a href="http://www.carltonbale.com/home-theater/home-theater-calculator/" title="carltonbale.com">http://www.carltonbale.com/home-theater/home-theater-calculator/</a> [carltonbale.com]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You may find this website useful in determining whether or not your screen resolution and viewing distance can/should be adjusted to affect any discernible difference.http : //www.carltonbale.com/home-theater/home-theater-calculator/ [ carltonbale.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You may find this website useful in determining whether or not your screen resolution and viewing distance can/should be adjusted to affect any discernible difference.http://www.carltonbale.com/home-theater/home-theater-calculator/ [carltonbale.com]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1339213.28421501</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1339213.28423591</id>
	<title>Re:Clarification?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245690240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt; PS3 does so because they want to play Blu Ray discs</p><p>The capability to play Blu Ray does count to a certain extent. Since the format war is over, few will buy a XBox taking the ability to play hd-dvds into consideration. However, I doubt that PS3 owners will forgo the blu-ray capability on their $400 "game" machine.</p><p>From my own experience, I have not purchased a single blu ray movies (not planning to do so in the short run because my salary has not increased 300\% like movie discs prices). However I've rented scores of blu-ray movies and only a small fraction of DVDs in the last few months of deliveries.</p><p>I do enjoy the extra definition, even if it is only psychological.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; PS3 does so because they want to play Blu Ray discsThe capability to play Blu Ray does count to a certain extent .
Since the format war is over , few will buy a XBox taking the ability to play hd-dvds into consideration .
However , I doubt that PS3 owners will forgo the blu-ray capability on their $ 400 " game " machine.From my own experience , I have not purchased a single blu ray movies ( not planning to do so in the short run because my salary has not increased 300 \ % like movie discs prices ) .
However I 've rented scores of blu-ray movies and only a small fraction of DVDs in the last few months of deliveries.I do enjoy the extra definition , even if it is only psychological .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt; PS3 does so because they want to play Blu Ray discsThe capability to play Blu Ray does count to a certain extent.
Since the format war is over, few will buy a XBox taking the ability to play hd-dvds into consideration.
However, I doubt that PS3 owners will forgo the blu-ray capability on their $400 "game" machine.From my own experience, I have not purchased a single blu ray movies (not planning to do so in the short run because my salary has not increased 300\% like movie discs prices).
However I've rented scores of blu-ray movies and only a small fraction of DVDs in the last few months of deliveries.I do enjoy the extra definition, even if it is only psychological.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1339213.28421619</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1339213.28433559</id>
	<title>Re:I wonder</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245684660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Even without an upscaling player, how many people think that standard definition DVDs are high definition?  Lots!  As good geeks, we may know better than that.  The fundamental flaw in these stats is that they expect the people who fill out the survey to know what they're talking about and to fill in everything accurately.  Unfortunately bad stats on the internet travel faster than the speed of light.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Even without an upscaling player , how many people think that standard definition DVDs are high definition ?
Lots ! As good geeks , we may know better than that .
The fundamental flaw in these stats is that they expect the people who fill out the survey to know what they 're talking about and to fill in everything accurately .
Unfortunately bad stats on the internet travel faster than the speed of light .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Even without an upscaling player, how many people think that standard definition DVDs are high definition?
Lots!  As good geeks, we may know better than that.
The fundamental flaw in these stats is that they expect the people who fill out the survey to know what they're talking about and to fill in everything accurately.
Unfortunately bad stats on the internet travel faster than the speed of light.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1339213.28421195</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1339213.28426163</id>
	<title>both are idiotic anyway..</title>
	<author>SQLz</author>
	<datestamp>1245699300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Why do I want a piece of garbage plastic disk when I can store and play HD movies from my computer to the TV?  Its stupid.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Why do I want a piece of garbage plastic disk when I can store and play HD movies from my computer to the TV ?
Its stupid .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why do I want a piece of garbage plastic disk when I can store and play HD movies from my computer to the TV?
Its stupid.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1339213.28427325</id>
	<title>Re:Don't buy into that lie</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245703260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I don't want to break this to you the wrong way, but they made a Top Menu button.  If you press it, the menu will come.  Additionally, the "G-D ads that too many Blu-ray movies force you to sit through" are done by the distributor.  Disney movies = eleventybillion ads before the movie.  Additionally, HIT THE FRIGGIN TOP MENU BUTTON AND STOP BITCHING.</p><p>Most sane people would realize that a Blu-ray player whether it is stand-alone or a PS3 plays Blu-ray movies.  So I wonder whether any intelligent person would notice that the PS3 was of a comparable price to the stand alone players.  Oh yes, yes they would.  And guess what happens after that, they say to themselves, "Self, I like to play  me some games...ur hur!"  Don't know why they talk like that, but they do.  So they decide it is more economical to buy the PS3 and get the pleasure of doing both, but we can ignore that if it helps your rhetoric sound better.  Mrr mrr loading times....mrr mrr I fail at hitting a Top Menu button.</p><p>Thank you, that is all.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't want to break this to you the wrong way , but they made a Top Menu button .
If you press it , the menu will come .
Additionally , the " G-D ads that too many Blu-ray movies force you to sit through " are done by the distributor .
Disney movies = eleventybillion ads before the movie .
Additionally , HIT THE FRIGGIN TOP MENU BUTTON AND STOP BITCHING.Most sane people would realize that a Blu-ray player whether it is stand-alone or a PS3 plays Blu-ray movies .
So I wonder whether any intelligent person would notice that the PS3 was of a comparable price to the stand alone players .
Oh yes , yes they would .
And guess what happens after that , they say to themselves , " Self , I like to play me some games...ur hur !
" Do n't know why they talk like that , but they do .
So they decide it is more economical to buy the PS3 and get the pleasure of doing both , but we can ignore that if it helps your rhetoric sound better .
Mrr mrr loading times....mrr mrr I fail at hitting a Top Menu button.Thank you , that is all .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't want to break this to you the wrong way, but they made a Top Menu button.
If you press it, the menu will come.
Additionally, the "G-D ads that too many Blu-ray movies force you to sit through" are done by the distributor.
Disney movies = eleventybillion ads before the movie.
Additionally, HIT THE FRIGGIN TOP MENU BUTTON AND STOP BITCHING.Most sane people would realize that a Blu-ray player whether it is stand-alone or a PS3 plays Blu-ray movies.
So I wonder whether any intelligent person would notice that the PS3 was of a comparable price to the stand alone players.
Oh yes, yes they would.
And guess what happens after that, they say to themselves, "Self, I like to play  me some games...ur hur!
"  Don't know why they talk like that, but they do.
So they decide it is more economical to buy the PS3 and get the pleasure of doing both, but we can ignore that if it helps your rhetoric sound better.
Mrr mrr loading times....mrr mrr I fail at hitting a Top Menu button.Thank you, that is all.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1339213.28421839</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1339213.28422191</id>
	<title>Re:I work in he rental industry</title>
	<author>Arkham</author>
	<datestamp>1245685680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>At 720p you can barely tell a difference.  At 1080p the difference is more noticeable.</p><p>However, the difference between Blue-Ray and DVD isn't just in the picture, it's in the sound.  If you have a true HT setup (I have a 7.1 home theater room with a 1080p projector), and the difference between a DVD and a Blue-Ray is noticeable in the picture quality, but especially in the sound quality.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>At 720p you can barely tell a difference .
At 1080p the difference is more noticeable.However , the difference between Blue-Ray and DVD is n't just in the picture , it 's in the sound .
If you have a true HT setup ( I have a 7.1 home theater room with a 1080p projector ) , and the difference between a DVD and a Blue-Ray is noticeable in the picture quality , but especially in the sound quality .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>At 720p you can barely tell a difference.
At 1080p the difference is more noticeable.However, the difference between Blue-Ray and DVD isn't just in the picture, it's in the sound.
If you have a true HT setup (I have a 7.1 home theater room with a 1080p projector), and the difference between a DVD and a Blue-Ray is noticeable in the picture quality, but especially in the sound quality.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1339213.28421501</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1339213.28421679</id>
	<title>Death to physical media!</title>
	<author>jollyreaper</author>
	<datestamp>1245683940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Owning movies really isn't worth it these days. First off, there's rarely a movie I'd want to see more than once. Second off, services like Netflix make it easy to get the movies I do want to see, first time or repeat, with very little delay. And as they're working out the legal kinks with the streaming service, it'd be just like owning the originals at home. Why clutter my life with all those discs? Let's not forget there's also the issue of format wars, buying all your movies again when the latest format drops. Who needs that? I'll stream the movie at HD resolution and when they come out with super-HD a few years from now, I'll stream it like that as well, no worries about buying new hardware.</p><p>Granted, there's still going to be the situations where you don't have broadband and want to bring your movies with you. If Netflix has good lawyers, they'll be able to let you operate in cache mode. Select the movies you want, plug in your thumb drive, you download them and are in cache mode and can watch them on the go wherever you want. If they don't have good lawyers and can't make that happen, I can still bittorrent what I want to watch offline.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Owning movies really is n't worth it these days .
First off , there 's rarely a movie I 'd want to see more than once .
Second off , services like Netflix make it easy to get the movies I do want to see , first time or repeat , with very little delay .
And as they 're working out the legal kinks with the streaming service , it 'd be just like owning the originals at home .
Why clutter my life with all those discs ?
Let 's not forget there 's also the issue of format wars , buying all your movies again when the latest format drops .
Who needs that ?
I 'll stream the movie at HD resolution and when they come out with super-HD a few years from now , I 'll stream it like that as well , no worries about buying new hardware.Granted , there 's still going to be the situations where you do n't have broadband and want to bring your movies with you .
If Netflix has good lawyers , they 'll be able to let you operate in cache mode .
Select the movies you want , plug in your thumb drive , you download them and are in cache mode and can watch them on the go wherever you want .
If they do n't have good lawyers and ca n't make that happen , I can still bittorrent what I want to watch offline .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Owning movies really isn't worth it these days.
First off, there's rarely a movie I'd want to see more than once.
Second off, services like Netflix make it easy to get the movies I do want to see, first time or repeat, with very little delay.
And as they're working out the legal kinks with the streaming service, it'd be just like owning the originals at home.
Why clutter my life with all those discs?
Let's not forget there's also the issue of format wars, buying all your movies again when the latest format drops.
Who needs that?
I'll stream the movie at HD resolution and when they come out with super-HD a few years from now, I'll stream it like that as well, no worries about buying new hardware.Granted, there's still going to be the situations where you don't have broadband and want to bring your movies with you.
If Netflix has good lawyers, they'll be able to let you operate in cache mode.
Select the movies you want, plug in your thumb drive, you download them and are in cache mode and can watch them on the go wherever you want.
If they don't have good lawyers and can't make that happen, I can still bittorrent what I want to watch offline.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1339213.28423225</id>
	<title>Re:Both are obsolete.</title>
	<author>Jackie\_Chan\_Fan</author>
	<datestamp>1245689160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'll take a disc that I own over digital downloads full of DRM.</p><p>Granted the disc has DRM also but at least its a physical disc that I own and know has a higher bitrate than a streaming HD video.</p><p>I cant stand digital on demand HD video because its overly compressed. It generally looks ok until fast motion scenes come on, and then suddenly it looks like 320x400 real player video 1998.</p><p>Digital distribution is ok to a point, but I want to own a physical copy. Once the central service goes out of business etc, you're digital download is worthless. This applies to videogames as much as movies and music.</p><p>Think of the classic gaming scene. In the future there wont be a chance to play today's games because most of them require a multiplayer server that is tied to xbox live, or psn.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'll take a disc that I own over digital downloads full of DRM.Granted the disc has DRM also but at least its a physical disc that I own and know has a higher bitrate than a streaming HD video.I cant stand digital on demand HD video because its overly compressed .
It generally looks ok until fast motion scenes come on , and then suddenly it looks like 320x400 real player video 1998.Digital distribution is ok to a point , but I want to own a physical copy .
Once the central service goes out of business etc , you 're digital download is worthless .
This applies to videogames as much as movies and music.Think of the classic gaming scene .
In the future there wont be a chance to play today 's games because most of them require a multiplayer server that is tied to xbox live , or psn .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'll take a disc that I own over digital downloads full of DRM.Granted the disc has DRM also but at least its a physical disc that I own and know has a higher bitrate than a streaming HD video.I cant stand digital on demand HD video because its overly compressed.
It generally looks ok until fast motion scenes come on, and then suddenly it looks like 320x400 real player video 1998.Digital distribution is ok to a point, but I want to own a physical copy.
Once the central service goes out of business etc, you're digital download is worthless.
This applies to videogames as much as movies and music.Think of the classic gaming scene.
In the future there wont be a chance to play today's games because most of them require a multiplayer server that is tied to xbox live, or psn.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1339213.28421543</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1339213.28426309</id>
	<title>Re:I work in he rental industry</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245699900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Then you must have the greatest ears on the planet.  I have a 5.1 setup, with a big old bass in the corner.  I choose DTS as the soundtrack of choice on my DVDs, but I can notice zero difference when selecting DTS-HD (which my receiver supports).  They both sound great!  So I am not going to pan BluRay, but the problem with the format is that it is simply not that much better than upconverting DVD players.  I wish I could tell the difference so I can justify the additional cost, but if I had to do it all over again, I would just hold off on the BR purchase.</p><p>The movies which really are great in BR are Pixar.  But live-action heavy CGI films look worse on BR in my opinion, have a look at 300, it is a farce.  It is totally obvious they are in front of a green screen on BR, it looks much more realistic on DVD.  The picture is simply too clear on BR, the res is too high.  Either the CGI is going to have to get massively better, or I'll have to stick to DVD.</p><p>AC.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Then you must have the greatest ears on the planet .
I have a 5.1 setup , with a big old bass in the corner .
I choose DTS as the soundtrack of choice on my DVDs , but I can notice zero difference when selecting DTS-HD ( which my receiver supports ) .
They both sound great !
So I am not going to pan BluRay , but the problem with the format is that it is simply not that much better than upconverting DVD players .
I wish I could tell the difference so I can justify the additional cost , but if I had to do it all over again , I would just hold off on the BR purchase.The movies which really are great in BR are Pixar .
But live-action heavy CGI films look worse on BR in my opinion , have a look at 300 , it is a farce .
It is totally obvious they are in front of a green screen on BR , it looks much more realistic on DVD .
The picture is simply too clear on BR , the res is too high .
Either the CGI is going to have to get massively better , or I 'll have to stick to DVD.AC .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Then you must have the greatest ears on the planet.
I have a 5.1 setup, with a big old bass in the corner.
I choose DTS as the soundtrack of choice on my DVDs, but I can notice zero difference when selecting DTS-HD (which my receiver supports).
They both sound great!
So I am not going to pan BluRay, but the problem with the format is that it is simply not that much better than upconverting DVD players.
I wish I could tell the difference so I can justify the additional cost, but if I had to do it all over again, I would just hold off on the BR purchase.The movies which really are great in BR are Pixar.
But live-action heavy CGI films look worse on BR in my opinion, have a look at 300, it is a farce.
It is totally obvious they are in front of a green screen on BR, it looks much more realistic on DVD.
The picture is simply too clear on BR, the res is too high.
Either the CGI is going to have to get massively better, or I'll have to stick to DVD.AC.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1339213.28422191</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1339213.28424639</id>
	<title>Re:early adopters VSs the luddites</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245693840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Except the winner is (as someone said earlier) DVD.<br>I have a 46 inch 1080p Toshiba LCD set, I have 5.1 (high end panasonic set up), we have a PS3...</p><p>I don't care about the "better quality", I am happy enough with DVD quality. (I don't even bother using the PS3 to watch movies, it's typical Sony in that it is region locked, hiccups on normal discs and there is a concern that overusing it will break it.) For &#194;&pound;20 we bought a really good upscaling DVD player.<br>You can tell me BluRay is better until you go the same color, I don't CARE. I am happy, most people seem happy (even friends with HD sets).</p><p>My only concern is that Sony and their cronies will start downgrading the quality of DVD's so that they become so bad they are unwatchable. (There is NO excuse for this BTW, most of the films I buy the disc is half empty!) If they do they will kill DVD but I suspect streaming will take it's place and Sony will still have a medium no one wants. Sony came up with a solution to a "problem" that just doesn't exist. DVD is "good enough" for the films and shows I watch and until BluRay discs are $10 a dozen and cheaper than DVD (sort of messes up Sony's business plans I guess), I will stick to DVD.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Except the winner is ( as someone said earlier ) DVD.I have a 46 inch 1080p Toshiba LCD set , I have 5.1 ( high end panasonic set up ) , we have a PS3...I do n't care about the " better quality " , I am happy enough with DVD quality .
( I do n't even bother using the PS3 to watch movies , it 's typical Sony in that it is region locked , hiccups on normal discs and there is a concern that overusing it will break it .
) For     20 we bought a really good upscaling DVD player.You can tell me BluRay is better until you go the same color , I do n't CARE .
I am happy , most people seem happy ( even friends with HD sets ) .My only concern is that Sony and their cronies will start downgrading the quality of DVD 's so that they become so bad they are unwatchable .
( There is NO excuse for this BTW , most of the films I buy the disc is half empty !
) If they do they will kill DVD but I suspect streaming will take it 's place and Sony will still have a medium no one wants .
Sony came up with a solution to a " problem " that just does n't exist .
DVD is " good enough " for the films and shows I watch and until BluRay discs are $ 10 a dozen and cheaper than DVD ( sort of messes up Sony 's business plans I guess ) , I will stick to DVD .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Except the winner is (as someone said earlier) DVD.I have a 46 inch 1080p Toshiba LCD set, I have 5.1 (high end panasonic set up), we have a PS3...I don't care about the "better quality", I am happy enough with DVD quality.
(I don't even bother using the PS3 to watch movies, it's typical Sony in that it is region locked, hiccups on normal discs and there is a concern that overusing it will break it.
) For Â£20 we bought a really good upscaling DVD player.You can tell me BluRay is better until you go the same color, I don't CARE.
I am happy, most people seem happy (even friends with HD sets).My only concern is that Sony and their cronies will start downgrading the quality of DVD's so that they become so bad they are unwatchable.
(There is NO excuse for this BTW, most of the films I buy the disc is half empty!
) If they do they will kill DVD but I suspect streaming will take it's place and Sony will still have a medium no one wants.
Sony came up with a solution to a "problem" that just doesn't exist.
DVD is "good enough" for the films and shows I watch and until BluRay discs are $10 a dozen and cheaper than DVD (sort of messes up Sony's business plans I guess), I will stick to DVD.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1339213.28421669</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1339213.28423793</id>
	<title>Re:early adopters VSs the luddites</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245691140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Your claim only makes sense in a world where there is only two options: Blu-Ray or HD-DVD.  Unfortunately, the market has more options than that.  The market has spoken: DVD (plain old regular, non-high-definition) is the format war winner.</p><p>VHS died a quick and painful death at the hands of the most quickly adopted consumer technology ever, the DVD, simply because the advantages of the technology so favored DVD.  That is not the case with DVD vs. Blu-Ray.</p><p>In short, Congrats Sony!  Welcome to the LaserDisc club!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Your claim only makes sense in a world where there is only two options : Blu-Ray or HD-DVD .
Unfortunately , the market has more options than that .
The market has spoken : DVD ( plain old regular , non-high-definition ) is the format war winner.VHS died a quick and painful death at the hands of the most quickly adopted consumer technology ever , the DVD , simply because the advantages of the technology so favored DVD .
That is not the case with DVD vs. Blu-Ray.In short , Congrats Sony !
Welcome to the LaserDisc club !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Your claim only makes sense in a world where there is only two options: Blu-Ray or HD-DVD.
Unfortunately, the market has more options than that.
The market has spoken: DVD (plain old regular, non-high-definition) is the format war winner.VHS died a quick and painful death at the hands of the most quickly adopted consumer technology ever, the DVD, simply because the advantages of the technology so favored DVD.
That is not the case with DVD vs. Blu-Ray.In short, Congrats Sony!
Welcome to the LaserDisc club!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1339213.28421669</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1339213.28423453</id>
	<title>My Experience With HD-DVD</title>
	<author>cybrpnk2</author>
	<datestamp>1245689820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I got a closeout HD-DVD player off of EBay for $40 delivered and bought it primarily to play standard DVDs on my HDTV.  The HD-DVD unit reads the standard DVD at 480p just fine but outputs a 1080p signal to the HDTV via the HDMI inputs - so I'm effectively using it as a cheap scanline upconverter staying digital all the way.  The result looks BEAUTIFUL, much better than letting the HDTV having to convert an analog signal from a standard cheap DVD player.


Plus there are around 300 movies out there in HD-DVD format that are going for under $5 - MUCH  cheaper than your average Blu-Ray disk.


I am a very happy HD-DVD owner with no Blu-Ray and with the expense of the latter and free DVDs from the library, I'm going to stay that way for a long time to come.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I got a closeout HD-DVD player off of EBay for $ 40 delivered and bought it primarily to play standard DVDs on my HDTV .
The HD-DVD unit reads the standard DVD at 480p just fine but outputs a 1080p signal to the HDTV via the HDMI inputs - so I 'm effectively using it as a cheap scanline upconverter staying digital all the way .
The result looks BEAUTIFUL , much better than letting the HDTV having to convert an analog signal from a standard cheap DVD player .
Plus there are around 300 movies out there in HD-DVD format that are going for under $ 5 - MUCH cheaper than your average Blu-Ray disk .
I am a very happy HD-DVD owner with no Blu-Ray and with the expense of the latter and free DVDs from the library , I 'm going to stay that way for a long time to come .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I got a closeout HD-DVD player off of EBay for $40 delivered and bought it primarily to play standard DVDs on my HDTV.
The HD-DVD unit reads the standard DVD at 480p just fine but outputs a 1080p signal to the HDTV via the HDMI inputs - so I'm effectively using it as a cheap scanline upconverter staying digital all the way.
The result looks BEAUTIFUL, much better than letting the HDTV having to convert an analog signal from a standard cheap DVD player.
Plus there are around 300 movies out there in HD-DVD format that are going for under $5 - MUCH  cheaper than your average Blu-Ray disk.
I am a very happy HD-DVD owner with no Blu-Ray and with the expense of the latter and free DVDs from the library, I'm going to stay that way for a long time to come.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1339213.28421501</id>
	<title>Re:I work in he rental industry</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245683400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>At normal viewing distance I honestly can't tell the difference.</p><p>I have a 720p capable LCD hooked up to a 360 (via HDMI) with the HD-DVD add-on. Really can't tell the difference between a DVD upscaled on the 360 and an HD-DVD. Not a stellar setup, though, so<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...</p><p>The other day I was in Blockbuster and watching their BluRay demo disc (Hancock) on a proper Sony 1080p capable telly. It does a sliding effect where it shows the difference between Blu-Ray and DVD (presumably with DVD suitably fuzzed to exagerate the effect, although maybe they're just honest and don't need to do that). Up close the difference was obviously quite noticable, but at normal viewing distance it was really hard to tell.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>At normal viewing distance I honestly ca n't tell the difference.I have a 720p capable LCD hooked up to a 360 ( via HDMI ) with the HD-DVD add-on .
Really ca n't tell the difference between a DVD upscaled on the 360 and an HD-DVD .
Not a stellar setup , though , so ...The other day I was in Blockbuster and watching their BluRay demo disc ( Hancock ) on a proper Sony 1080p capable telly .
It does a sliding effect where it shows the difference between Blu-Ray and DVD ( presumably with DVD suitably fuzzed to exagerate the effect , although maybe they 're just honest and do n't need to do that ) .
Up close the difference was obviously quite noticable , but at normal viewing distance it was really hard to tell .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>At normal viewing distance I honestly can't tell the difference.I have a 720p capable LCD hooked up to a 360 (via HDMI) with the HD-DVD add-on.
Really can't tell the difference between a DVD upscaled on the 360 and an HD-DVD.
Not a stellar setup, though, so ...The other day I was in Blockbuster and watching their BluRay demo disc (Hancock) on a proper Sony 1080p capable telly.
It does a sliding effect where it shows the difference between Blu-Ray and DVD (presumably with DVD suitably fuzzed to exagerate the effect, although maybe they're just honest and don't need to do that).
Up close the difference was obviously quite noticable, but at normal viewing distance it was really hard to tell.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1339213.28421193</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1339213.28423407</id>
	<title>HD-DVD/BlueRay = lies, damned lies, and statistics</title>
	<author>thijsh</author>
	<datestamp>1245689760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>HD-DVD and BlueRay both suck (and so does the PS3 and the HD-DVD extension for Xbox). They are all owned by the rippers + torrents + basic Xbox360.<br>
When there were just a handfull of titles available (this was back when BlueRay was reportedly 'uncrackable') you could already find some great quality HD rips on torrent sites that *just played* in full HD on your Xbox360. Play over LAN (from the PC) or copy to harddisk and connect to USB, no sweat.<br>
If a bunch of geeks can get the movies to your HDTV without hassle for free (obviously for you, but more importantly to them since they don't get payed or pay for any technology) why can't we just buy/rent HD movies for a small price directly on our TV. The reason is just as simple as it is stupid: money, greed, and of course <b> <i>lies, damned lies, and statistics</i> </b>.</htmltext>
<tokenext>HD-DVD and BlueRay both suck ( and so does the PS3 and the HD-DVD extension for Xbox ) .
They are all owned by the rippers + torrents + basic Xbox360 .
When there were just a handfull of titles available ( this was back when BlueRay was reportedly 'uncrackable ' ) you could already find some great quality HD rips on torrent sites that * just played * in full HD on your Xbox360 .
Play over LAN ( from the PC ) or copy to harddisk and connect to USB , no sweat .
If a bunch of geeks can get the movies to your HDTV without hassle for free ( obviously for you , but more importantly to them since they do n't get payed or pay for any technology ) why ca n't we just buy/rent HD movies for a small price directly on our TV .
The reason is just as simple as it is stupid : money , greed , and of course lies , damned lies , and statistics .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>HD-DVD and BlueRay both suck (and so does the PS3 and the HD-DVD extension for Xbox).
They are all owned by the rippers + torrents + basic Xbox360.
When there were just a handfull of titles available (this was back when BlueRay was reportedly 'uncrackable') you could already find some great quality HD rips on torrent sites that *just played* in full HD on your Xbox360.
Play over LAN (from the PC) or copy to harddisk and connect to USB, no sweat.
If a bunch of geeks can get the movies to your HDTV without hassle for free (obviously for you, but more importantly to them since they don't get payed or pay for any technology) why can't we just buy/rent HD movies for a small price directly on our TV.
The reason is just as simple as it is stupid: money, greed, and of course  lies, damned lies, and statistics .</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1339213.28421987</id>
	<title>Re:really?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245685080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Second, this clearly isn't taking into account the 22 million PS3's out there, of which about 12 million are in the United States. This is still the player of choice for most people - at least until that $99 player announced over the weekend comes along. But this is one case where a game console is actually clearly better than most standalone players and most people know it.</p></div><p>On the other hand, games compete with films --  quite a few of those PS3 owners do not own a single Blu-Ray movie.</p><p>The install base is there, but it doesn't translate into market potential in the same way that standalone players do.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Second , this clearly is n't taking into account the 22 million PS3 's out there , of which about 12 million are in the United States .
This is still the player of choice for most people - at least until that $ 99 player announced over the weekend comes along .
But this is one case where a game console is actually clearly better than most standalone players and most people know it.On the other hand , games compete with films -- quite a few of those PS3 owners do not own a single Blu-Ray movie.The install base is there , but it does n't translate into market potential in the same way that standalone players do .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Second, this clearly isn't taking into account the 22 million PS3's out there, of which about 12 million are in the United States.
This is still the player of choice for most people - at least until that $99 player announced over the weekend comes along.
But this is one case where a game console is actually clearly better than most standalone players and most people know it.On the other hand, games compete with films --  quite a few of those PS3 owners do not own a single Blu-Ray movie.The install base is there, but it doesn't translate into market potential in the same way that standalone players do.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1339213.28421643</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1339213.28421719</id>
	<title>Too Expensive</title>
	<author>bhunachchicken</author>
	<datestamp>1245684120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm one of those freaks that happily still pays for the music and movies that I love, but even I won't pay &pound;25 for Dark Knight on Blu-Ray. The HMV stores that I go into have things like Kung Fu Panda, Iron Man, HellBoy 2 and a bunch of other films for &pound;30 each. That's just fucking insane pricing.</p><p>I'd rather see newly released DVDs at &pound;9.99 and Blu-Rays at &pound;14.99 or lower, each. That way the stores could enjoy their little price wars and then I could pick up things like Watchmen and Star Trek for &pound;12 or so each on Blu-Ray. I'd probably walk out the store with three films.</p><p>I appreciate that Blu-Ray is new(ish), but they really need to more readily adopt the pile-it-high and see-it-low approach now.</p><p>Either that or regularly offer 2 for &pound;25 on Blu Rays, even for new releases.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm one of those freaks that happily still pays for the music and movies that I love , but even I wo n't pay   25 for Dark Knight on Blu-Ray .
The HMV stores that I go into have things like Kung Fu Panda , Iron Man , HellBoy 2 and a bunch of other films for   30 each .
That 's just fucking insane pricing.I 'd rather see newly released DVDs at   9.99 and Blu-Rays at   14.99 or lower , each .
That way the stores could enjoy their little price wars and then I could pick up things like Watchmen and Star Trek for   12 or so each on Blu-Ray .
I 'd probably walk out the store with three films.I appreciate that Blu-Ray is new ( ish ) , but they really need to more readily adopt the pile-it-high and see-it-low approach now.Either that or regularly offer 2 for   25 on Blu Rays , even for new releases .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm one of those freaks that happily still pays for the music and movies that I love, but even I won't pay £25 for Dark Knight on Blu-Ray.
The HMV stores that I go into have things like Kung Fu Panda, Iron Man, HellBoy 2 and a bunch of other films for £30 each.
That's just fucking insane pricing.I'd rather see newly released DVDs at £9.99 and Blu-Rays at £14.99 or lower, each.
That way the stores could enjoy their little price wars and then I could pick up things like Watchmen and Star Trek for £12 or so each on Blu-Ray.
I'd probably walk out the store with three films.I appreciate that Blu-Ray is new(ish), but they really need to more readily adopt the pile-it-high and see-it-low approach now.Either that or regularly offer 2 for £25 on Blu Rays, even for new releases.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1339213.28421511</id>
	<title>Re:Weird...</title>
	<author>MillionthMonkey</author>
	<datestamp>1245683460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Blu-Ray looks like another videodisc-style flop. DVDs are probably the last shiny spinning disks most people will ever buy; after this it's going to be Flash.
<br> <br>
My parents had both VHS and Beta. Except for the tapes being shorter (oops), Beta was a better format; we were surprised by how crappy VHS looked. The porn industry wanted the longer play time though, so my dad had to get the other player.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Blu-Ray looks like another videodisc-style flop .
DVDs are probably the last shiny spinning disks most people will ever buy ; after this it 's going to be Flash .
My parents had both VHS and Beta .
Except for the tapes being shorter ( oops ) , Beta was a better format ; we were surprised by how crappy VHS looked .
The porn industry wanted the longer play time though , so my dad had to get the other player .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Blu-Ray looks like another videodisc-style flop.
DVDs are probably the last shiny spinning disks most people will ever buy; after this it's going to be Flash.
My parents had both VHS and Beta.
Except for the tapes being shorter (oops), Beta was a better format; we were surprised by how crappy VHS looked.
The porn industry wanted the longer play time though, so my dad had to get the other player.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1339213.28421265</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1339213.28424979</id>
	<title>Up-converting - almost as good</title>
	<author>Animats</author>
	<datestamp>1245695100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>
Up-converting DVD players with HDMI output ($50 to $99 and dropping) fed digitally into a 1080p display (the default today) are a huge improvement over DVD to analog NTSC. The resolution improves, the full color gamut is supported, and the "widescreen" format adjustment takes place automatically, without any button pushing or display in the wrong aspect ratio.  That was the big jump in quality.
</p><p>
The next step up, input from a true HD source, produces a much smaller improvement than the conversion to digital.  There's a big improvement in audio quality, but unless you have unusually good speakers, all five channels, and a quiet listening environment, you won't notice. The video improvement isn't noticeable from across the room, unless you still-frame and zoom, or you have some screen bigger than 50 inches.
</p><p>
That's why Blu-Ray adoption is slow.  Just be patient; once player cost drops below $99, all new players will be Blu-Ray.
</p><p>
I don't see downloaded video being the future.  Downloaded content with DRM is good for only a few years before the distributor goes bust or the authorization system is discontinued.  That's happened with WalMart music, Microsoft PlaysForSure, Circuit City's DIVX, and Major League Baseball.  In fact, the mean life of DRM content seems to be less than five years. Physical media have a long life ahead of them.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Up-converting DVD players with HDMI output ( $ 50 to $ 99 and dropping ) fed digitally into a 1080p display ( the default today ) are a huge improvement over DVD to analog NTSC .
The resolution improves , the full color gamut is supported , and the " widescreen " format adjustment takes place automatically , without any button pushing or display in the wrong aspect ratio .
That was the big jump in quality .
The next step up , input from a true HD source , produces a much smaller improvement than the conversion to digital .
There 's a big improvement in audio quality , but unless you have unusually good speakers , all five channels , and a quiet listening environment , you wo n't notice .
The video improvement is n't noticeable from across the room , unless you still-frame and zoom , or you have some screen bigger than 50 inches .
That 's why Blu-Ray adoption is slow .
Just be patient ; once player cost drops below $ 99 , all new players will be Blu-Ray .
I do n't see downloaded video being the future .
Downloaded content with DRM is good for only a few years before the distributor goes bust or the authorization system is discontinued .
That 's happened with WalMart music , Microsoft PlaysForSure , Circuit City 's DIVX , and Major League Baseball .
In fact , the mean life of DRM content seems to be less than five years .
Physical media have a long life ahead of them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
Up-converting DVD players with HDMI output ($50 to $99 and dropping) fed digitally into a 1080p display (the default today) are a huge improvement over DVD to analog NTSC.
The resolution improves, the full color gamut is supported, and the "widescreen" format adjustment takes place automatically, without any button pushing or display in the wrong aspect ratio.
That was the big jump in quality.
The next step up, input from a true HD source, produces a much smaller improvement than the conversion to digital.
There's a big improvement in audio quality, but unless you have unusually good speakers, all five channels, and a quiet listening environment, you won't notice.
The video improvement isn't noticeable from across the room, unless you still-frame and zoom, or you have some screen bigger than 50 inches.
That's why Blu-Ray adoption is slow.
Just be patient; once player cost drops below $99, all new players will be Blu-Ray.
I don't see downloaded video being the future.
Downloaded content with DRM is good for only a few years before the distributor goes bust or the authorization system is discontinued.
That's happened with WalMart music, Microsoft PlaysForSure, Circuit City's DIVX, and Major League Baseball.
In fact, the mean life of DRM content seems to be less than five years.
Physical media have a long life ahead of them.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1339213.28426809</id>
	<title>Re:Flawed interpretation of the study</title>
	<author>Aidtopia</author>
	<datestamp>1245701700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You could speculate that the XBox numbers don't overcome the PS3 numbers, or you could RTFA and find out the actual results of the survey.</p><p>Assuming that there's negligible overlap:</p><p>Blu-ray (7\%) + PS3 (9\%) = 16\%</p><p>HD-DVD (11\%) + XBox 360 (13\%) = 24\%</p><p>So, according to the referenced survey, HD-DVD has more U.S. household penetration than Blu-ray whether you count the game consoles or not.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You could speculate that the XBox numbers do n't overcome the PS3 numbers , or you could RTFA and find out the actual results of the survey.Assuming that there 's negligible overlap : Blu-ray ( 7 \ % ) + PS3 ( 9 \ % ) = 16 \ % HD-DVD ( 11 \ % ) + XBox 360 ( 13 \ % ) = 24 \ % So , according to the referenced survey , HD-DVD has more U.S. household penetration than Blu-ray whether you count the game consoles or not .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You could speculate that the XBox numbers don't overcome the PS3 numbers, or you could RTFA and find out the actual results of the survey.Assuming that there's negligible overlap:Blu-ray (7\%) + PS3 (9\%) = 16\%HD-DVD (11\%) + XBox 360 (13\%) = 24\%So, according to the referenced survey, HD-DVD has more U.S. household penetration than Blu-ray whether you count the game consoles or not.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1339213.28421187</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1339213.28422605</id>
	<title>Re:really?</title>
	<author>Dan667</author>
	<datestamp>1245687000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>I own a blue ray player, but do not own a single blue ray disc (bought it after our dvd player died, but just use it to play dvd's).  Those who actually own blue ray movies is a much more relevant statistic than who has a player capable of playing them.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I own a blue ray player , but do not own a single blue ray disc ( bought it after our dvd player died , but just use it to play dvd 's ) .
Those who actually own blue ray movies is a much more relevant statistic than who has a player capable of playing them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I own a blue ray player, but do not own a single blue ray disc (bought it after our dvd player died, but just use it to play dvd's).
Those who actually own blue ray movies is a much more relevant statistic than who has a player capable of playing them.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1339213.28421167</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1339213.28421193</id>
	<title>I work in he rental industry</title>
	<author>SchizoStatic</author>
	<datestamp>1245682380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>As a way to make some extra dough I work at a video rental chain (the largest here in the US) and just from what I have seen no one really wants to rent Blu-Ray. We got 90\% of the new releases on Blu-Ray and yet they prefer dvd even at the same price point. Who wants to buy a blu-ray player at over $200 right now when I can keep buying dvds at a cheaper price. Blu-Ray is beautiful yes but for most pictures I don't need or want to pay an extra 10-20 dollars for it.</htmltext>
<tokenext>As a way to make some extra dough I work at a video rental chain ( the largest here in the US ) and just from what I have seen no one really wants to rent Blu-Ray .
We got 90 \ % of the new releases on Blu-Ray and yet they prefer dvd even at the same price point .
Who wants to buy a blu-ray player at over $ 200 right now when I can keep buying dvds at a cheaper price .
Blu-Ray is beautiful yes but for most pictures I do n't need or want to pay an extra 10-20 dollars for it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As a way to make some extra dough I work at a video rental chain (the largest here in the US) and just from what I have seen no one really wants to rent Blu-Ray.
We got 90\% of the new releases on Blu-Ray and yet they prefer dvd even at the same price point.
Who wants to buy a blu-ray player at over $200 right now when I can keep buying dvds at a cheaper price.
Blu-Ray is beautiful yes but for most pictures I don't need or want to pay an extra 10-20 dollars for it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1339213.28430285</id>
	<title>Re:Flawed interpretation of the study</title>
	<author>hazydave</author>
	<datestamp>1245670260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If that's your conclusion... someone messed up. Toshoba only mad 1.3 million HD-DVDs... that's world-wide, stand-alone, X-Box, PC drive, everything. There were about 10.7 million Blu-Ray players in the USA as of January 1, 2009... including an estimated 3.1 million stand-alone players. In the first quarter, another 400,000 were sold.</p><p>I think it's far more likely that the fools who answered this survey (think about it, too... this was a survey of people's opinions about their gear at home, not a factual analysis of what they really had) knew no difference between "HD-DVD" and "DVD player with HDMI upconversion". While someone can usually fudge sales figures if they like, Toshiba published the 1.3 million figure last year, and had no reason to lie about it, and they certainly weren't confused about the question.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If that 's your conclusion... someone messed up .
Toshoba only mad 1.3 million HD-DVDs... that 's world-wide , stand-alone , X-Box , PC drive , everything .
There were about 10.7 million Blu-Ray players in the USA as of January 1 , 2009... including an estimated 3.1 million stand-alone players .
In the first quarter , another 400,000 were sold.I think it 's far more likely that the fools who answered this survey ( think about it , too... this was a survey of people 's opinions about their gear at home , not a factual analysis of what they really had ) knew no difference between " HD-DVD " and " DVD player with HDMI upconversion " .
While someone can usually fudge sales figures if they like , Toshiba published the 1.3 million figure last year , and had no reason to lie about it , and they certainly were n't confused about the question .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If that's your conclusion... someone messed up.
Toshoba only mad 1.3 million HD-DVDs... that's world-wide, stand-alone, X-Box, PC drive, everything.
There were about 10.7 million Blu-Ray players in the USA as of January 1, 2009... including an estimated 3.1 million stand-alone players.
In the first quarter, another 400,000 were sold.I think it's far more likely that the fools who answered this survey (think about it, too... this was a survey of people's opinions about their gear at home, not a factual analysis of what they really had) knew no difference between "HD-DVD" and "DVD player with HDMI upconversion".
While someone can usually fudge sales figures if they like, Toshiba published the 1.3 million figure last year, and had no reason to lie about it, and they certainly weren't confused about the question.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1339213.28421487</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1339213.28421201</id>
	<title>But...</title>
	<author>PlantPerson</author>
	<datestamp>1245682380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>...does this statistic take into account PlayStations,  laptops,  and other electronics which include Blu-ray players?</htmltext>
<tokenext>...does this statistic take into account PlayStations , laptops , and other electronics which include Blu-ray players ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...does this statistic take into account PlayStations,  laptops,  and other electronics which include Blu-ray players?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1339213.28431301</id>
	<title>Re:It was budget because it was failing!</title>
	<author>hazydave</author>
	<datestamp>1245673800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Actually, HD-DVD was weird, and you have to look at it as what it was... Toshiba's proprietary format. They subsudized the cost of the players, directly, like Sony does for the PS3 or Microsoft for the X-Box 360. The goal, of course, was to make it up on licensing fees... Toshiba collected most of those, so they could do this. That, however, prevented anyone else (well, aside from Samsung's dual-mode players, which cost more than one of each) from competing in the HD-DVD player market.</p><p>Sony was brilliant here. They could subsudize the PS3 as any old gaming platform, keep it as the cheapest Blu-Ray player for a few years, and yet let the hardware market for dedicated units follows its natural course. Thus, every CE company except Toshiba joined the Blu-Ray alliance, and they all made players, and you got the same kind of dynamic that the DVD market had, rather than something controlled only by Toshiba.</p><p>The other side is the disc market... Toshiba claimed a price advantage, and they had it for a short time. Today, that's long gone.. the cost of a BD vs. an HD-DVD vs. a plain old DVD is negligable in Hollywood quantities. Hell, I can put a DVD in a case with pro-looking labels and all for under $5.00, quantity one. But the ugly side of Toshiba's strategy is that they could never really give you a lower media cost, because they counted on extra licensing fees per disc... they had to, since they lost money selling you the cheap players in an effort to defeat Sony.</p><p>The other thing up Sony's sleeve was that Blu-Ray really had been out for three years already... they had already become pretty good at making the discs, at least the readers and the BD-Rs... I guess BD-ROMs had a few early glitches in 2007 (they didn't get dual layer until early 2008). The disc technology was the basis of their XDCAM format, released in 2003.</p><p>So Toshiba's two big advantages were ultimately not advantages. And we should all be glad Sony won.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Actually , HD-DVD was weird , and you have to look at it as what it was... Toshiba 's proprietary format .
They subsudized the cost of the players , directly , like Sony does for the PS3 or Microsoft for the X-Box 360 .
The goal , of course , was to make it up on licensing fees... Toshiba collected most of those , so they could do this .
That , however , prevented anyone else ( well , aside from Samsung 's dual-mode players , which cost more than one of each ) from competing in the HD-DVD player market.Sony was brilliant here .
They could subsudize the PS3 as any old gaming platform , keep it as the cheapest Blu-Ray player for a few years , and yet let the hardware market for dedicated units follows its natural course .
Thus , every CE company except Toshiba joined the Blu-Ray alliance , and they all made players , and you got the same kind of dynamic that the DVD market had , rather than something controlled only by Toshiba.The other side is the disc market... Toshiba claimed a price advantage , and they had it for a short time .
Today , that 's long gone.. the cost of a BD vs. an HD-DVD vs. a plain old DVD is negligable in Hollywood quantities .
Hell , I can put a DVD in a case with pro-looking labels and all for under $ 5.00 , quantity one .
But the ugly side of Toshiba 's strategy is that they could never really give you a lower media cost , because they counted on extra licensing fees per disc... they had to , since they lost money selling you the cheap players in an effort to defeat Sony.The other thing up Sony 's sleeve was that Blu-Ray really had been out for three years already... they had already become pretty good at making the discs , at least the readers and the BD-Rs... I guess BD-ROMs had a few early glitches in 2007 ( they did n't get dual layer until early 2008 ) .
The disc technology was the basis of their XDCAM format , released in 2003.So Toshiba 's two big advantages were ultimately not advantages .
And we should all be glad Sony won .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Actually, HD-DVD was weird, and you have to look at it as what it was... Toshiba's proprietary format.
They subsudized the cost of the players, directly, like Sony does for the PS3 or Microsoft for the X-Box 360.
The goal, of course, was to make it up on licensing fees... Toshiba collected most of those, so they could do this.
That, however, prevented anyone else (well, aside from Samsung's dual-mode players, which cost more than one of each) from competing in the HD-DVD player market.Sony was brilliant here.
They could subsudize the PS3 as any old gaming platform, keep it as the cheapest Blu-Ray player for a few years, and yet let the hardware market for dedicated units follows its natural course.
Thus, every CE company except Toshiba joined the Blu-Ray alliance, and they all made players, and you got the same kind of dynamic that the DVD market had, rather than something controlled only by Toshiba.The other side is the disc market... Toshiba claimed a price advantage, and they had it for a short time.
Today, that's long gone.. the cost of a BD vs. an HD-DVD vs. a plain old DVD is negligable in Hollywood quantities.
Hell, I can put a DVD in a case with pro-looking labels and all for under $5.00, quantity one.
But the ugly side of Toshiba's strategy is that they could never really give you a lower media cost, because they counted on extra licensing fees per disc... they had to, since they lost money selling you the cheap players in an effort to defeat Sony.The other thing up Sony's sleeve was that Blu-Ray really had been out for three years already... they had already become pretty good at making the discs, at least the readers and the BD-Rs... I guess BD-ROMs had a few early glitches in 2007 (they didn't get dual layer until early 2008).
The disc technology was the basis of their XDCAM format, released in 2003.So Toshiba's two big advantages were ultimately not advantages.
And we should all be glad Sony won.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1339213.28421297</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1339213.28423641</id>
	<title>Re:Flawed interpretation of the study</title>
	<author>DragonWriter</author>
	<datestamp>1245690480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>So, blu-ray has sold slightly more but still surprisingly not the roaring success that everyone expected Blu-Ray to be after HD-DVD officially died.</p></div></blockquote><p>Yeah, mass adoption of new luxury products is slower during a severe recession than during more normal conditions, and "everyone" (at least, most entertainment market analysts) probably didn't expect the economy to slow down over the following few years into a major recession at the time of the format war.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>So , blu-ray has sold slightly more but still surprisingly not the roaring success that everyone expected Blu-Ray to be after HD-DVD officially died.Yeah , mass adoption of new luxury products is slower during a severe recession than during more normal conditions , and " everyone " ( at least , most entertainment market analysts ) probably did n't expect the economy to slow down over the following few years into a major recession at the time of the format war .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So, blu-ray has sold slightly more but still surprisingly not the roaring success that everyone expected Blu-Ray to be after HD-DVD officially died.Yeah, mass adoption of new luxury products is slower during a severe recession than during more normal conditions, and "everyone" (at least, most entertainment market analysts) probably didn't expect the economy to slow down over the following few years into a major recession at the time of the format war.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1339213.28421487</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1339213.28423847</id>
	<title>I call BS</title>
	<author>gravis777</author>
	<datestamp>1245691320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>First, there is a problem with them not counting PS3s in with sales. One of the main driving forces of the PS3 is the Blu-Ray drive. I know half a dozen people, including myself, off the top of my head, who have PS3s, and we use them as Blu-Ray players. Not a single person I know has a PS3 JUST to play games, and making that comment is insane. On top of that, there are numorous people who got Blu-Ray and such in the past year. How old is this study? Seriously!</p><p>I know two people, myself and my friend, who have HD-DVD players, and I got one cheap after Toshiba announced their death just so I can pick up $5 movies. Its a horrid format. The ethernet did not work on the first two generations of the firmware updates, and it was not until several months after its death that Toshiba released a firmware upgrade fixing that problem, and by that time, most of the content servers seemed to have been shut off on the discs I did have. They scratch if you look at them wierd - in fact, most movies I got from Netflix on HD-DVD had to send back two or three times before I got a disc that was even playable. The 30 gig maximum limit ment that we lost out on HD bonus features and High-Def audio for lack of space. The ONLY thing HD-DVD had going for it was that it could do 1080p at 30 FPS (bluray only does 24), and most of the players out there did not even do 1080p. And then there is the horindious load times! I could power on my PS3, put my movie in, and even with BD-Java, and skiping through previews, I can still have my movie loaded up in less time than it takes my Toshiba A2 to even power on (I have actually done side by side tests on this), then waiting another half minute after you put the disc in for it to even recognize the format.</p><p>Sorry, I went chasing rabbits. Point is, the only other person I know who even has an HD-DVD player has one because he was an A/V buff, and bought it the day it came out for an insane price. However, I know at least four people with stand-alone Blu-Ray players, three who have Blu-Ray drives in their computer and hook those up to the TV for watching, and another 7 (just thought of another one) who has a PS3 and use it for Blu-Ray viewing. That is 14 people who have Blu-Ray devices compared to the two who have HD-DVD. And talking to others, that seems to be the norm, not the standard. Blu-Ray sales in two years are surpassing what DVD did in its first couple of years by a longshot. (Too lazy to look up the figures right now, but have seen it posted all over the place over the past year).</p><p>Look, HD-DVD is DEAD. Stop beating a dead horse and throwing out all of this FUD. And if you STILL don't believe that Blu-Ray is successful, look at movie sales.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>First , there is a problem with them not counting PS3s in with sales .
One of the main driving forces of the PS3 is the Blu-Ray drive .
I know half a dozen people , including myself , off the top of my head , who have PS3s , and we use them as Blu-Ray players .
Not a single person I know has a PS3 JUST to play games , and making that comment is insane .
On top of that , there are numorous people who got Blu-Ray and such in the past year .
How old is this study ?
Seriously ! I know two people , myself and my friend , who have HD-DVD players , and I got one cheap after Toshiba announced their death just so I can pick up $ 5 movies .
Its a horrid format .
The ethernet did not work on the first two generations of the firmware updates , and it was not until several months after its death that Toshiba released a firmware upgrade fixing that problem , and by that time , most of the content servers seemed to have been shut off on the discs I did have .
They scratch if you look at them wierd - in fact , most movies I got from Netflix on HD-DVD had to send back two or three times before I got a disc that was even playable .
The 30 gig maximum limit ment that we lost out on HD bonus features and High-Def audio for lack of space .
The ONLY thing HD-DVD had going for it was that it could do 1080p at 30 FPS ( bluray only does 24 ) , and most of the players out there did not even do 1080p .
And then there is the horindious load times !
I could power on my PS3 , put my movie in , and even with BD-Java , and skiping through previews , I can still have my movie loaded up in less time than it takes my Toshiba A2 to even power on ( I have actually done side by side tests on this ) , then waiting another half minute after you put the disc in for it to even recognize the format.Sorry , I went chasing rabbits .
Point is , the only other person I know who even has an HD-DVD player has one because he was an A/V buff , and bought it the day it came out for an insane price .
However , I know at least four people with stand-alone Blu-Ray players , three who have Blu-Ray drives in their computer and hook those up to the TV for watching , and another 7 ( just thought of another one ) who has a PS3 and use it for Blu-Ray viewing .
That is 14 people who have Blu-Ray devices compared to the two who have HD-DVD .
And talking to others , that seems to be the norm , not the standard .
Blu-Ray sales in two years are surpassing what DVD did in its first couple of years by a longshot .
( Too lazy to look up the figures right now , but have seen it posted all over the place over the past year ) .Look , HD-DVD is DEAD .
Stop beating a dead horse and throwing out all of this FUD .
And if you STILL do n't believe that Blu-Ray is successful , look at movie sales .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>First, there is a problem with them not counting PS3s in with sales.
One of the main driving forces of the PS3 is the Blu-Ray drive.
I know half a dozen people, including myself, off the top of my head, who have PS3s, and we use them as Blu-Ray players.
Not a single person I know has a PS3 JUST to play games, and making that comment is insane.
On top of that, there are numorous people who got Blu-Ray and such in the past year.
How old is this study?
Seriously!I know two people, myself and my friend, who have HD-DVD players, and I got one cheap after Toshiba announced their death just so I can pick up $5 movies.
Its a horrid format.
The ethernet did not work on the first two generations of the firmware updates, and it was not until several months after its death that Toshiba released a firmware upgrade fixing that problem, and by that time, most of the content servers seemed to have been shut off on the discs I did have.
They scratch if you look at them wierd - in fact, most movies I got from Netflix on HD-DVD had to send back two or three times before I got a disc that was even playable.
The 30 gig maximum limit ment that we lost out on HD bonus features and High-Def audio for lack of space.
The ONLY thing HD-DVD had going for it was that it could do 1080p at 30 FPS (bluray only does 24), and most of the players out there did not even do 1080p.
And then there is the horindious load times!
I could power on my PS3, put my movie in, and even with BD-Java, and skiping through previews, I can still have my movie loaded up in less time than it takes my Toshiba A2 to even power on (I have actually done side by side tests on this), then waiting another half minute after you put the disc in for it to even recognize the format.Sorry, I went chasing rabbits.
Point is, the only other person I know who even has an HD-DVD player has one because he was an A/V buff, and bought it the day it came out for an insane price.
However, I know at least four people with stand-alone Blu-Ray players, three who have Blu-Ray drives in their computer and hook those up to the TV for watching, and another 7 (just thought of another one) who has a PS3 and use it for Blu-Ray viewing.
That is 14 people who have Blu-Ray devices compared to the two who have HD-DVD.
And talking to others, that seems to be the norm, not the standard.
Blu-Ray sales in two years are surpassing what DVD did in its first couple of years by a longshot.
(Too lazy to look up the figures right now, but have seen it posted all over the place over the past year).Look, HD-DVD is DEAD.
Stop beating a dead horse and throwing out all of this FUD.
And if you STILL don't believe that Blu-Ray is successful, look at movie sales.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1339213.28421531</id>
	<title>PS3 Blu-ray vs Xbox 360 HD-DVD</title>
	<author>CritterNYC</author>
	<datestamp>1245683520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The difference between the PS3's Blu-ray capability and the Xbox 360's HD DVD drive is that the PS3 is a game machine that has a built-in Blu-ray capability, like the PS2 had built in DVD capability.  The 360 only has DVD built in.  If you wanted HD-DVD, you had to buy an HD-DVD drive.  So, everyone who bought the 360's HD-DVD drive bought it to play movies.  Not every who bought a PS3 bought it to play movies.  My few friends that own a PS3 don't really use it for movies (honestly, they don't use the PS3 much, they all also have an Xbox 360 and a Wii and mainly use the 360 for games, streaming movies, connecting to their media on the PC, etc).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The difference between the PS3 's Blu-ray capability and the Xbox 360 's HD DVD drive is that the PS3 is a game machine that has a built-in Blu-ray capability , like the PS2 had built in DVD capability .
The 360 only has DVD built in .
If you wanted HD-DVD , you had to buy an HD-DVD drive .
So , everyone who bought the 360 's HD-DVD drive bought it to play movies .
Not every who bought a PS3 bought it to play movies .
My few friends that own a PS3 do n't really use it for movies ( honestly , they do n't use the PS3 much , they all also have an Xbox 360 and a Wii and mainly use the 360 for games , streaming movies , connecting to their media on the PC , etc ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The difference between the PS3's Blu-ray capability and the Xbox 360's HD DVD drive is that the PS3 is a game machine that has a built-in Blu-ray capability, like the PS2 had built in DVD capability.
The 360 only has DVD built in.
If you wanted HD-DVD, you had to buy an HD-DVD drive.
So, everyone who bought the 360's HD-DVD drive bought it to play movies.
Not every who bought a PS3 bought it to play movies.
My few friends that own a PS3 don't really use it for movies (honestly, they don't use the PS3 much, they all also have an Xbox 360 and a Wii and mainly use the 360 for games, streaming movies, connecting to their media on the PC, etc).</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1339213.28423679</id>
	<title>Re:I work in he rental industry</title>
	<author>parlancex</author>
	<datestamp>1245690600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Just wanted to quickly point out that the Xbox 360 doesn't actually do any DVD upscaling (or maybe the elite does, but I don't own one of those). Check your LCD's input signal resolution when watching a DVD, it will drop from whatever you had it at to DVD-native 480p.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Just wanted to quickly point out that the Xbox 360 does n't actually do any DVD upscaling ( or maybe the elite does , but I do n't own one of those ) .
Check your LCD 's input signal resolution when watching a DVD , it will drop from whatever you had it at to DVD-native 480p .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Just wanted to quickly point out that the Xbox 360 doesn't actually do any DVD upscaling (or maybe the elite does, but I don't own one of those).
Check your LCD's input signal resolution when watching a DVD, it will drop from whatever you had it at to DVD-native 480p.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1339213.28421501</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1339213.28428157</id>
	<title>Blu-Ray Won Because Publishers Chose It.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245662700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Blu-Ray didn't win because consumers chose it, but instead it won because movie publishers chose it.  With HDCP (DRM) built-in, publishers favor it.  It's harder for consumers to adopt because older or cheaper home theater equipment doesn't support HDCP.  Price of disks is probably the biggest factor for low adoption though.  Nobody wants to buy a machine just to be able to play overpriced disks of the same movie just because they are slightly sharper.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Blu-Ray did n't win because consumers chose it , but instead it won because movie publishers chose it .
With HDCP ( DRM ) built-in , publishers favor it .
It 's harder for consumers to adopt because older or cheaper home theater equipment does n't support HDCP .
Price of disks is probably the biggest factor for low adoption though .
Nobody wants to buy a machine just to be able to play overpriced disks of the same movie just because they are slightly sharper .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Blu-Ray didn't win because consumers chose it, but instead it won because movie publishers chose it.
With HDCP (DRM) built-in, publishers favor it.
It's harder for consumers to adopt because older or cheaper home theater equipment doesn't support HDCP.
Price of disks is probably the biggest factor for low adoption though.
Nobody wants to buy a machine just to be able to play overpriced disks of the same movie just because they are slightly sharper.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1339213.28439339</id>
	<title>This is ecasue</title>
	<author>geekoid</author>
	<datestamp>1245773700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Blu-Ray player prices aren't dropping fast enough.</p><p>Get Players down to 99 bucks that have BD2, min.</p><p>OTOH, I dislike Blu-Ray, and would love to see the very unlikely resurgence of HD-DVD.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Blu-Ray player prices are n't dropping fast enough.Get Players down to 99 bucks that have BD2 , min.OTOH , I dislike Blu-Ray , and would love to see the very unlikely resurgence of HD-DVD .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Blu-Ray player prices aren't dropping fast enough.Get Players down to 99 bucks that have BD2, min.OTOH, I dislike Blu-Ray, and would love to see the very unlikely resurgence of HD-DVD.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1339213.28427885</id>
	<title>I wish I could mod this headline Troll</title>
	<author>dank zappingly</author>
	<datestamp>1245661680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>If you RTFA, it turns out that HD-DVD is only still in the lead if you don't consider the PS3 to be a Blu-Ray player.  A more accurate headline would have included the word "stand-alone" in it somewhere.</htmltext>
<tokenext>If you RTFA , it turns out that HD-DVD is only still in the lead if you do n't consider the PS3 to be a Blu-Ray player .
A more accurate headline would have included the word " stand-alone " in it somewhere .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you RTFA, it turns out that HD-DVD is only still in the lead if you don't consider the PS3 to be a Blu-Ray player.
A more accurate headline would have included the word "stand-alone" in it somewhere.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1339213.28422127</id>
	<title>Re:Flawed interpretation of the study</title>
	<author>91degrees</author>
	<datestamp>1245685440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>Even the CEO of Toshiba conceded the loss of the HD-DVD / Blu Ray "wars". So for all of you who own an HD DVD player... enjoy the fact very few movies are coming out for you.</i> <br> <br>
I think most of us have the same attitude as I do here.  We're enjoying the fact that we can get the back catalogue (some of which may never come out on blu-ray for contractual reasons) pretty cheaply.  Personally I plan to buy a Blu-ray player in addition, when prices fall and multi-region versions are available.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Even the CEO of Toshiba conceded the loss of the HD-DVD / Blu Ray " wars " .
So for all of you who own an HD DVD player... enjoy the fact very few movies are coming out for you .
I think most of us have the same attitude as I do here .
We 're enjoying the fact that we can get the back catalogue ( some of which may never come out on blu-ray for contractual reasons ) pretty cheaply .
Personally I plan to buy a Blu-ray player in addition , when prices fall and multi-region versions are available .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Even the CEO of Toshiba conceded the loss of the HD-DVD / Blu Ray "wars".
So for all of you who own an HD DVD player... enjoy the fact very few movies are coming out for you.
I think most of us have the same attitude as I do here.
We're enjoying the fact that we can get the back catalogue (some of which may never come out on blu-ray for contractual reasons) pretty cheaply.
Personally I plan to buy a Blu-ray player in addition, when prices fall and multi-region versions are available.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1339213.28421663</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1339213.28421489</id>
	<title>Never FORGET The Real Reason They Gave In!!!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245683400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Most people don't remember that Sony paid off Toshiba with a big sum of money to exit the market. And, in return for letting Blu-ray win, Toshiba was granted the right exclusive right to embed a Blu-ray player in their laptops. That is the only reason that Sony won the format wars, their format was actually a lot less successful than Toshiba's HD-DVD.</p><p>I bought one, my parents bought one, my brothers all bought one (3 brothers), my newphew and uncles all bought one (4) and my best friend from college bought one. Essentially, everyone I knew was ticked off that they spent several hundred dollars on a player that was now obsolete almost instantly. On the bright side, all the HD discs went on sale fast.</p><p>I'm pretty offended that Toshiba gave in, and that Sony forced them to. Neither had the customer's interests in mind when they made that deal. They screwed us out of quite a bit of money. So, will my family or myself buy a bluray? No, because it still stings. They lost a lot of hearts and minds. And, our wallets still feel a bit empty.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Most people do n't remember that Sony paid off Toshiba with a big sum of money to exit the market .
And , in return for letting Blu-ray win , Toshiba was granted the right exclusive right to embed a Blu-ray player in their laptops .
That is the only reason that Sony won the format wars , their format was actually a lot less successful than Toshiba 's HD-DVD.I bought one , my parents bought one , my brothers all bought one ( 3 brothers ) , my newphew and uncles all bought one ( 4 ) and my best friend from college bought one .
Essentially , everyone I knew was ticked off that they spent several hundred dollars on a player that was now obsolete almost instantly .
On the bright side , all the HD discs went on sale fast.I 'm pretty offended that Toshiba gave in , and that Sony forced them to .
Neither had the customer 's interests in mind when they made that deal .
They screwed us out of quite a bit of money .
So , will my family or myself buy a bluray ?
No , because it still stings .
They lost a lot of hearts and minds .
And , our wallets still feel a bit empty .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Most people don't remember that Sony paid off Toshiba with a big sum of money to exit the market.
And, in return for letting Blu-ray win, Toshiba was granted the right exclusive right to embed a Blu-ray player in their laptops.
That is the only reason that Sony won the format wars, their format was actually a lot less successful than Toshiba's HD-DVD.I bought one, my parents bought one, my brothers all bought one (3 brothers), my newphew and uncles all bought one (4) and my best friend from college bought one.
Essentially, everyone I knew was ticked off that they spent several hundred dollars on a player that was now obsolete almost instantly.
On the bright side, all the HD discs went on sale fast.I'm pretty offended that Toshiba gave in, and that Sony forced them to.
Neither had the customer's interests in mind when they made that deal.
They screwed us out of quite a bit of money.
So, will my family or myself buy a bluray?
No, because it still stings.
They lost a lot of hearts and minds.
And, our wallets still feel a bit empty.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1339213.28423709</id>
	<title>Re:really?</title>
	<author>jellomizer</author>
	<datestamp>1245690660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There is the main question of HD DVD in terms of branding.<br>The rise of DVD and High Def TV, were in general one of the same.</p><p>Most people think High Def with wide screen. And for most people just as long as it is wide screen they woudln't know the difference. (unless they are back to back). So for the standard population do you own HD DVD. Do they have a High Def TV and a DVD player... Sure.</p><p>Blueray on the other hand you have to know what you are buying, and some don't know the PS3 has that ability. So they say no they don't.</p><p>So you have people sayign yes to HD-DVD while they don't and people saying No to blueray when they do.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There is the main question of HD DVD in terms of branding.The rise of DVD and High Def TV , were in general one of the same.Most people think High Def with wide screen .
And for most people just as long as it is wide screen they woudl n't know the difference .
( unless they are back to back ) .
So for the standard population do you own HD DVD .
Do they have a High Def TV and a DVD player... Sure.Blueray on the other hand you have to know what you are buying , and some do n't know the PS3 has that ability .
So they say no they do n't.So you have people sayign yes to HD-DVD while they do n't and people saying No to blueray when they do .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There is the main question of HD DVD in terms of branding.The rise of DVD and High Def TV, were in general one of the same.Most people think High Def with wide screen.
And for most people just as long as it is wide screen they woudln't know the difference.
(unless they are back to back).
So for the standard population do you own HD DVD.
Do they have a High Def TV and a DVD player... Sure.Blueray on the other hand you have to know what you are buying, and some don't know the PS3 has that ability.
So they say no they don't.So you have people sayign yes to HD-DVD while they don't and people saying No to blueray when they do.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1339213.28421167</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1339213.28421551</id>
	<title>No One Cares</title>
	<author>segedunum</author>
	<datestamp>1245683640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>That's because no one cares about HD formats. I actually know what the formats mean, unlike most people, and I am interested in better picture and sound quality but I simply have no desire whatsoever or the budget to replace my huge collection of DVDs and buy a newer, more expensive player to go with my HDTV. DVDs are really cheap now so why bother? Given the fact that most people have no clue at all how to set up surround sound, and it takes a while for most of us techies to get right, then I fail to see how on Earth a better sounding audio format is going to help BluRay over DVDs, Dolby Digital and DTS (which virtually no one uses for the same reasons) either. Most surround sound is downmixed to two channels. As an interesting aside, I wonder how many have just thought that BluRay was compatible with their existing DVD player, put it in, discovered it wouldn't play and then returned it?<br> <br>

Even HD generally is DoA for me. BluRay was completely stillborne. The only thing I bought a HDTV for was to get a bigger screen. I wasn't interested in its resolution. Seriously, save your money on extra money for HD broadcasts and just spend the money you save on a Pioneer that has an excellent SD picture or a new tuner box that has the best deinterlacer money can buy. I got a far better picture than my TV alone simply by using a MythTV box and using the Yadif (2x) deinterlacer. There'll be lots of commercially available stuff you can buy that will do the job and save you money.<br> <br>

Yes, I know HD looks better and its been really impressive on the systems I've seen, but like most I suspect, when push comes to shove I just cannot be bothered to pay for the privilege or jump through all of the pointlessly annoying technical hoops. I did it once. I tried to get a BluRay player connected to a TV through a receiver and HDCP refused to play ball at all. Now I just use HDMI where I know HDCP won't be involved, and that means no BluRay. Hey, at least I get a picture on the screen.</htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's because no one cares about HD formats .
I actually know what the formats mean , unlike most people , and I am interested in better picture and sound quality but I simply have no desire whatsoever or the budget to replace my huge collection of DVDs and buy a newer , more expensive player to go with my HDTV .
DVDs are really cheap now so why bother ?
Given the fact that most people have no clue at all how to set up surround sound , and it takes a while for most of us techies to get right , then I fail to see how on Earth a better sounding audio format is going to help BluRay over DVDs , Dolby Digital and DTS ( which virtually no one uses for the same reasons ) either .
Most surround sound is downmixed to two channels .
As an interesting aside , I wonder how many have just thought that BluRay was compatible with their existing DVD player , put it in , discovered it would n't play and then returned it ?
Even HD generally is DoA for me .
BluRay was completely stillborne .
The only thing I bought a HDTV for was to get a bigger screen .
I was n't interested in its resolution .
Seriously , save your money on extra money for HD broadcasts and just spend the money you save on a Pioneer that has an excellent SD picture or a new tuner box that has the best deinterlacer money can buy .
I got a far better picture than my TV alone simply by using a MythTV box and using the Yadif ( 2x ) deinterlacer .
There 'll be lots of commercially available stuff you can buy that will do the job and save you money .
Yes , I know HD looks better and its been really impressive on the systems I 've seen , but like most I suspect , when push comes to shove I just can not be bothered to pay for the privilege or jump through all of the pointlessly annoying technical hoops .
I did it once .
I tried to get a BluRay player connected to a TV through a receiver and HDCP refused to play ball at all .
Now I just use HDMI where I know HDCP wo n't be involved , and that means no BluRay .
Hey , at least I get a picture on the screen .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That's because no one cares about HD formats.
I actually know what the formats mean, unlike most people, and I am interested in better picture and sound quality but I simply have no desire whatsoever or the budget to replace my huge collection of DVDs and buy a newer, more expensive player to go with my HDTV.
DVDs are really cheap now so why bother?
Given the fact that most people have no clue at all how to set up surround sound, and it takes a while for most of us techies to get right, then I fail to see how on Earth a better sounding audio format is going to help BluRay over DVDs, Dolby Digital and DTS (which virtually no one uses for the same reasons) either.
Most surround sound is downmixed to two channels.
As an interesting aside, I wonder how many have just thought that BluRay was compatible with their existing DVD player, put it in, discovered it wouldn't play and then returned it?
Even HD generally is DoA for me.
BluRay was completely stillborne.
The only thing I bought a HDTV for was to get a bigger screen.
I wasn't interested in its resolution.
Seriously, save your money on extra money for HD broadcasts and just spend the money you save on a Pioneer that has an excellent SD picture or a new tuner box that has the best deinterlacer money can buy.
I got a far better picture than my TV alone simply by using a MythTV box and using the Yadif (2x) deinterlacer.
There'll be lots of commercially available stuff you can buy that will do the job and save you money.
Yes, I know HD looks better and its been really impressive on the systems I've seen, but like most I suspect, when push comes to shove I just cannot be bothered to pay for the privilege or jump through all of the pointlessly annoying technical hoops.
I did it once.
I tried to get a BluRay player connected to a TV through a receiver and HDCP refused to play ball at all.
Now I just use HDMI where I know HDCP won't be involved, and that means no BluRay.
Hey, at least I get a picture on the screen.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1339213.28422183</id>
	<title>re: diminishing returns</title>
	<author>King\_TJ</author>
	<datestamp>1245685680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I wouldn't quite say "no-one cares".  If that were true, you wouldn't see retail stores like Best Buy devoting entire shelving units to Blu-Ray disc releases like they do. *Some* people are buying them.</p><p>But by and large, you're correct.  These high-def movie formats simply don't make economic sense to most people.  When people migrated away from VHS tape to DVD, they felt the value proposition was there.  They got a new format that took up less physical space, didn't have problems with the quality degrading over time as it was played repeatedly and "wore out", didn't require lengthy rewinding to the beginning after each viewing, looked noticeably better even on inexpensive 19" TV sets, didn't suffer from random audio or video "drop outs" and tracking issues, and even came with "bonus" material on most discs.  And the price?  Typically very similar to what the movies used to cost on videotape.</p><p>Formats like blu-ray are evolutionary, not revolutionary.  Given enough time, prices for both the media and players will surely drop to a point where people figure "why not?" and start moving to it with most or all of their new purchases.  But right now, I own a PS3 that can play Blu-Ray discs, and I own a grand total of ONE movie in that format.  I can think of a few DVD movies I want to buy, but none are even available in Blu-Ray at this time<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... so chances are my NEXT few movie purchases won't be high-def ones either.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I would n't quite say " no-one cares " .
If that were true , you would n't see retail stores like Best Buy devoting entire shelving units to Blu-Ray disc releases like they do .
* Some * people are buying them.But by and large , you 're correct .
These high-def movie formats simply do n't make economic sense to most people .
When people migrated away from VHS tape to DVD , they felt the value proposition was there .
They got a new format that took up less physical space , did n't have problems with the quality degrading over time as it was played repeatedly and " wore out " , did n't require lengthy rewinding to the beginning after each viewing , looked noticeably better even on inexpensive 19 " TV sets , did n't suffer from random audio or video " drop outs " and tracking issues , and even came with " bonus " material on most discs .
And the price ?
Typically very similar to what the movies used to cost on videotape.Formats like blu-ray are evolutionary , not revolutionary .
Given enough time , prices for both the media and players will surely drop to a point where people figure " why not ?
" and start moving to it with most or all of their new purchases .
But right now , I own a PS3 that can play Blu-Ray discs , and I own a grand total of ONE movie in that format .
I can think of a few DVD movies I want to buy , but none are even available in Blu-Ray at this time ... so chances are my NEXT few movie purchases wo n't be high-def ones either .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I wouldn't quite say "no-one cares".
If that were true, you wouldn't see retail stores like Best Buy devoting entire shelving units to Blu-Ray disc releases like they do.
*Some* people are buying them.But by and large, you're correct.
These high-def movie formats simply don't make economic sense to most people.
When people migrated away from VHS tape to DVD, they felt the value proposition was there.
They got a new format that took up less physical space, didn't have problems with the quality degrading over time as it was played repeatedly and "wore out", didn't require lengthy rewinding to the beginning after each viewing, looked noticeably better even on inexpensive 19" TV sets, didn't suffer from random audio or video "drop outs" and tracking issues, and even came with "bonus" material on most discs.
And the price?
Typically very similar to what the movies used to cost on videotape.Formats like blu-ray are evolutionary, not revolutionary.
Given enough time, prices for both the media and players will surely drop to a point where people figure "why not?
" and start moving to it with most or all of their new purchases.
But right now, I own a PS3 that can play Blu-Ray discs, and I own a grand total of ONE movie in that format.
I can think of a few DVD movies I want to buy, but none are even available in Blu-Ray at this time ... so chances are my NEXT few movie purchases won't be high-def ones either.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1339213.28421551</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1339213.28441101</id>
	<title>Re:Let's get this straight:</title>
	<author>hazydave</author>
	<datestamp>1245780360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>People are generally happy with what they're used to, but this will change as they get used to other media.</p><p>Funny thing is, it works both ways. I was working in video in the days of early digital, and no one would confuse some of the early digital for video... analog, even VHS was superior. MPEG-1 came out, and it was soundly rejected in the American market (though VideoCD's failure had as much to do with the disc change needed for most films.. same basic factor that killed analog Video Disc).</p><p>Then, a funny thing happened on the way to HD... my brain started compensating. As I started watching VCD and satellite MPEG-1, I started hating it less. Sure, I could still see all the macroblocks that pop out due to too much filtering of the DCT, but hey, it wasn't so bad, was it. And over time, I started re-noticing all the evils of analog video.</p><p>Nowadays, after 10+ years of HD, I can probably still watch analog NTSC OTA/VHS class video, but not without cringing... this is the same stuff that was "the best" back in 1990. DVD's even questionable... it depends on the quality of the compression and the content... I can't possible imagine watching football (either sort) in SD ever again... it just wouldn't be worth it.</p><p>The same thing is starting to happen to the American consumer. HD used to be rare, now it's the default. Even if you don't have an HDTV, you're going to be watching downscaled HD if you watch OTA, which is routinely going to be better than DVD quality (they could make it considerably better, but I doubt anyone's doing intelligent hi-res downscaling, there's just not much point). Watch enough of something better, and you WILL gradually erase that filter in your brain that let you like VHS so much.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>People are generally happy with what they 're used to , but this will change as they get used to other media.Funny thing is , it works both ways .
I was working in video in the days of early digital , and no one would confuse some of the early digital for video... analog , even VHS was superior .
MPEG-1 came out , and it was soundly rejected in the American market ( though VideoCD 's failure had as much to do with the disc change needed for most films.. same basic factor that killed analog Video Disc ) .Then , a funny thing happened on the way to HD... my brain started compensating .
As I started watching VCD and satellite MPEG-1 , I started hating it less .
Sure , I could still see all the macroblocks that pop out due to too much filtering of the DCT , but hey , it was n't so bad , was it .
And over time , I started re-noticing all the evils of analog video.Nowadays , after 10 + years of HD , I can probably still watch analog NTSC OTA/VHS class video , but not without cringing... this is the same stuff that was " the best " back in 1990 .
DVD 's even questionable... it depends on the quality of the compression and the content... I ca n't possible imagine watching football ( either sort ) in SD ever again... it just would n't be worth it.The same thing is starting to happen to the American consumer .
HD used to be rare , now it 's the default .
Even if you do n't have an HDTV , you 're going to be watching downscaled HD if you watch OTA , which is routinely going to be better than DVD quality ( they could make it considerably better , but I doubt anyone 's doing intelligent hi-res downscaling , there 's just not much point ) .
Watch enough of something better , and you WILL gradually erase that filter in your brain that let you like VHS so much .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>People are generally happy with what they're used to, but this will change as they get used to other media.Funny thing is, it works both ways.
I was working in video in the days of early digital, and no one would confuse some of the early digital for video... analog, even VHS was superior.
MPEG-1 came out, and it was soundly rejected in the American market (though VideoCD's failure had as much to do with the disc change needed for most films.. same basic factor that killed analog Video Disc).Then, a funny thing happened on the way to HD... my brain started compensating.
As I started watching VCD and satellite MPEG-1, I started hating it less.
Sure, I could still see all the macroblocks that pop out due to too much filtering of the DCT, but hey, it wasn't so bad, was it.
And over time, I started re-noticing all the evils of analog video.Nowadays, after 10+ years of HD, I can probably still watch analog NTSC OTA/VHS class video, but not without cringing... this is the same stuff that was "the best" back in 1990.
DVD's even questionable... it depends on the quality of the compression and the content... I can't possible imagine watching football (either sort) in SD ever again... it just wouldn't be worth it.The same thing is starting to happen to the American consumer.
HD used to be rare, now it's the default.
Even if you don't have an HDTV, you're going to be watching downscaled HD if you watch OTA, which is routinely going to be better than DVD quality (they could make it considerably better, but I doubt anyone's doing intelligent hi-res downscaling, there's just not much point).
Watch enough of something better, and you WILL gradually erase that filter in your brain that let you like VHS so much.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1339213.28421243</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1339213.28425699</id>
	<title>Anonymous Coward</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245697560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The "more HD DVD players than Blu-ray players in U.S. homes" thing is bunk. I have a feeling people were confusing their upscaling DVD players with actual HD DVD players.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The " more HD DVD players than Blu-ray players in U.S. homes " thing is bunk .
I have a feeling people were confusing their upscaling DVD players with actual HD DVD players .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The "more HD DVD players than Blu-ray players in U.S. homes" thing is bunk.
I have a feeling people were confusing their upscaling DVD players with actual HD DVD players.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1339213.28422631</id>
	<title>Re:Don't buy into that lie</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245687060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I have no opinion on HD-DVD vs. Blu-Ray, but your analogy with Apple is ridiculous. The PS3 is a full-featured Blu-Ray player. Thus, it should be counted as one. The iPhone does not run OS X. Thus, Apple should not count iPhone sales in its OS X market share stats. There's really no logical basis for your analogy.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I have no opinion on HD-DVD vs. Blu-Ray , but your analogy with Apple is ridiculous .
The PS3 is a full-featured Blu-Ray player .
Thus , it should be counted as one .
The iPhone does not run OS X. Thus , Apple should not count iPhone sales in its OS X market share stats .
There 's really no logical basis for your analogy .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I have no opinion on HD-DVD vs. Blu-Ray, but your analogy with Apple is ridiculous.
The PS3 is a full-featured Blu-Ray player.
Thus, it should be counted as one.
The iPhone does not run OS X. Thus, Apple should not count iPhone sales in its OS X market share stats.
There's really no logical basis for your analogy.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1339213.28421839</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1339213.28421243</id>
	<title>Let's get this straight:</title>
	<author>Max Romantschuk</author>
	<datestamp>1245682560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Most average consumers either don't see the difference between HD and SD, or just don't care. They want the movie, and if VHS was good enough so is DVD.</p><p>HD isn't a bad thing, but the difference between VHS and DVD is much more dramatical than DVD and another HD-capable disk format.</p><p>Why publishers don't use the extra capacity to sell more episodes of $favorite\_sitcom on fewer disks is beyond me. I could use the shelf space.</p><p>(Yes, most people are able to perceive the difference between SD and HD, but I mean seeing the difference in a psychologically meaningful sense.)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Most average consumers either do n't see the difference between HD and SD , or just do n't care .
They want the movie , and if VHS was good enough so is DVD.HD is n't a bad thing , but the difference between VHS and DVD is much more dramatical than DVD and another HD-capable disk format.Why publishers do n't use the extra capacity to sell more episodes of $ favorite \ _sitcom on fewer disks is beyond me .
I could use the shelf space .
( Yes , most people are able to perceive the difference between SD and HD , but I mean seeing the difference in a psychologically meaningful sense .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Most average consumers either don't see the difference between HD and SD, or just don't care.
They want the movie, and if VHS was good enough so is DVD.HD isn't a bad thing, but the difference between VHS and DVD is much more dramatical than DVD and another HD-capable disk format.Why publishers don't use the extra capacity to sell more episodes of $favorite\_sitcom on fewer disks is beyond me.
I could use the shelf space.
(Yes, most people are able to perceive the difference between SD and HD, but I mean seeing the difference in a psychologically meaningful sense.
)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1339213.28423445</id>
	<title>it's simple really</title>
	<author>yodleboy</author>
	<datestamp>1245689820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>crappy movies are still crappy in hi-def.  good movies are still good in standard def.  after spending thousands on my home theater, it's amazing how little hi-def brings to most MOVIES.  10 minutes in and the WOW factor has usually worn off.  <br>
that said, hi-def is a godsend for TV.  i rarely bother with the non hi-def channels because the quality is SO much worse, far greater than the difference between BR and DVD.</htmltext>
<tokenext>crappy movies are still crappy in hi-def .
good movies are still good in standard def .
after spending thousands on my home theater , it 's amazing how little hi-def brings to most MOVIES .
10 minutes in and the WOW factor has usually worn off .
that said , hi-def is a godsend for TV .
i rarely bother with the non hi-def channels because the quality is SO much worse , far greater than the difference between BR and DVD .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>crappy movies are still crappy in hi-def.
good movies are still good in standard def.
after spending thousands on my home theater, it's amazing how little hi-def brings to most MOVIES.
10 minutes in and the WOW factor has usually worn off.
that said, hi-def is a godsend for TV.
i rarely bother with the non hi-def channels because the quality is SO much worse, far greater than the difference between BR and DVD.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1339213.28422659</id>
	<title>Re:Flawed interpretation of the study</title>
	<author>Xest</author>
	<datestamp>1245687120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>To be fair the XBox 360 HD-DVD player count might not be that low.</p><p>When news came through HD-DVD was being ditched, they first started selling them off for &pound;30, and then eventually &pound;7 here in the UK.</p><p>That's so rediculously cheap I'd imagine they sold off the entire stockpile - how big that is, who knows, but it wont have been too small.</p><p>Still it's not really worth caring about, as no more discs will come out HD-DVD is dead in the water regardless.</p><p>As an aside some of the best internal Bluray drives for the PC also support HD-DVD - Of course this wouldn't change the balance as they include both but I found it interesting that they even bothered to include HD-DVD by that stage.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>To be fair the XBox 360 HD-DVD player count might not be that low.When news came through HD-DVD was being ditched , they first started selling them off for   30 , and then eventually   7 here in the UK.That 's so rediculously cheap I 'd imagine they sold off the entire stockpile - how big that is , who knows , but it wont have been too small.Still it 's not really worth caring about , as no more discs will come out HD-DVD is dead in the water regardless.As an aside some of the best internal Bluray drives for the PC also support HD-DVD - Of course this would n't change the balance as they include both but I found it interesting that they even bothered to include HD-DVD by that stage .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>To be fair the XBox 360 HD-DVD player count might not be that low.When news came through HD-DVD was being ditched, they first started selling them off for £30, and then eventually £7 here in the UK.That's so rediculously cheap I'd imagine they sold off the entire stockpile - how big that is, who knows, but it wont have been too small.Still it's not really worth caring about, as no more discs will come out HD-DVD is dead in the water regardless.As an aside some of the best internal Bluray drives for the PC also support HD-DVD - Of course this wouldn't change the balance as they include both but I found it interesting that they even bothered to include HD-DVD by that stage.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1339213.28421187</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1339213.28552011</id>
	<title>Re:Flawed interpretation of the study</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246453260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p> <i>The PS3 is, first and foremost, a Blu-Ray player. That's how it was designed, that's how it was marketed</i> </p><p>Buh??  I call bullshit.  The PS3 is a gaming platform that happens to double as a Blu-Ray player, just as the PS2 was a gaming platform that doubled as a DVD player.  I've never seen any evidence that it was ever marketed as anything else, and I'd love to see support for such an outlandish claim.</p></div><p>That's why my Dad bought a PS3, that's why my Uncle bought a PS3, that's why my college friend bought a PS3.  For a cheap blue ray player.  How many games do they own?  NONE, with exception of 1 from my friend.  Most of my friends buy their games for the 360.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The PS3 is , first and foremost , a Blu-Ray player .
That 's how it was designed , that 's how it was marketed Buh ? ?
I call bullshit .
The PS3 is a gaming platform that happens to double as a Blu-Ray player , just as the PS2 was a gaming platform that doubled as a DVD player .
I 've never seen any evidence that it was ever marketed as anything else , and I 'd love to see support for such an outlandish claim.That 's why my Dad bought a PS3 , that 's why my Uncle bought a PS3 , that 's why my college friend bought a PS3 .
For a cheap blue ray player .
How many games do they own ?
NONE , with exception of 1 from my friend .
Most of my friends buy their games for the 360 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> The PS3 is, first and foremost, a Blu-Ray player.
That's how it was designed, that's how it was marketed Buh??
I call bullshit.
The PS3 is a gaming platform that happens to double as a Blu-Ray player, just as the PS2 was a gaming platform that doubled as a DVD player.
I've never seen any evidence that it was ever marketed as anything else, and I'd love to see support for such an outlandish claim.That's why my Dad bought a PS3, that's why my Uncle bought a PS3, that's why my college friend bought a PS3.
For a cheap blue ray player.
How many games do they own?
NONE, with exception of 1 from my friend.
Most of my friends buy their games for the 360.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1339213.28424571</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1339213.28432209</id>
	<title>Re:Too Expensive</title>
	<author>penguinchris</author>
	<datestamp>1245677580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Amazon.co.uk has The Dark Knight for ~&#194;&pound;15. I've only been to an HMV in Toronto, not in the UK where I presume you're from, but I could tell right away it was one of those mall/high-street stores that charge $10 more than if you go to any other store. I imagine there are other places that you could buy stuff from, and honestly I'm not sure who actually buys stuff from stores like HMV (US equivalent is FYE) - they do tend to occasionally have harder to find titles, that's true, but when you can get them on Amazon for half the cost and with minimal or free shipping, it still doesn't make sense to ever shop there.</p><p>That said - even in "regular" stores, Blu-Rays are overpriced. There's no denying that. However, if you only buy when they've got a discount sale, you can easily get your &#194;&pound;12 price for new releases (often the first week they're out they'll be discounted) and even less for catalog titles or movies older than 1-2 years.</p><p>It's stupid that they're trying to keep the price so high, but it's not impossible to buy Blu-Ray, if you're so inclined, without paying the official asking price. Amazon (and probably other online retailers) are currently the best place. Retail stores hopefully will catch up, as buying online doesn't replace impulse purchases for things you want to watch that same night, but for now it's the only reasonable option.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Amazon.co.uk has The Dark Knight for ~     15 .
I 've only been to an HMV in Toronto , not in the UK where I presume you 're from , but I could tell right away it was one of those mall/high-street stores that charge $ 10 more than if you go to any other store .
I imagine there are other places that you could buy stuff from , and honestly I 'm not sure who actually buys stuff from stores like HMV ( US equivalent is FYE ) - they do tend to occasionally have harder to find titles , that 's true , but when you can get them on Amazon for half the cost and with minimal or free shipping , it still does n't make sense to ever shop there.That said - even in " regular " stores , Blu-Rays are overpriced .
There 's no denying that .
However , if you only buy when they 've got a discount sale , you can easily get your     12 price for new releases ( often the first week they 're out they 'll be discounted ) and even less for catalog titles or movies older than 1-2 years.It 's stupid that they 're trying to keep the price so high , but it 's not impossible to buy Blu-Ray , if you 're so inclined , without paying the official asking price .
Amazon ( and probably other online retailers ) are currently the best place .
Retail stores hopefully will catch up , as buying online does n't replace impulse purchases for things you want to watch that same night , but for now it 's the only reasonable option .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Amazon.co.uk has The Dark Knight for ~Â£15.
I've only been to an HMV in Toronto, not in the UK where I presume you're from, but I could tell right away it was one of those mall/high-street stores that charge $10 more than if you go to any other store.
I imagine there are other places that you could buy stuff from, and honestly I'm not sure who actually buys stuff from stores like HMV (US equivalent is FYE) - they do tend to occasionally have harder to find titles, that's true, but when you can get them on Amazon for half the cost and with minimal or free shipping, it still doesn't make sense to ever shop there.That said - even in "regular" stores, Blu-Rays are overpriced.
There's no denying that.
However, if you only buy when they've got a discount sale, you can easily get your Â£12 price for new releases (often the first week they're out they'll be discounted) and even less for catalog titles or movies older than 1-2 years.It's stupid that they're trying to keep the price so high, but it's not impossible to buy Blu-Ray, if you're so inclined, without paying the official asking price.
Amazon (and probably other online retailers) are currently the best place.
Retail stores hopefully will catch up, as buying online doesn't replace impulse purchases for things you want to watch that same night, but for now it's the only reasonable option.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1339213.28421719</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1339213.28421267</id>
	<title>Re:But...</title>
	<author>agentgonzo</author>
	<datestamp>1245682620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><nobr> <wbr></nobr></p><div class="quote"><p>...does this statistic take into account PlayStations,  laptops,  and other electronics which include Blu-ray players?</p></div><p>Did you even RTFA?
<a href="http://hothardware.com/newsimages/Item10047/blu-ray-adoption.png" title="hothardware.com" rel="nofollow">http://hothardware.com/newsimages/Item10047/blu-ray-adoption.png</a> [hothardware.com]</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>...does this statistic take into account PlayStations , laptops , and other electronics which include Blu-ray players ? Did you even RTFA ?
http : //hothardware.com/newsimages/Item10047/blu-ray-adoption.png [ hothardware.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext> ...does this statistic take into account PlayStations,  laptops,  and other electronics which include Blu-ray players?Did you even RTFA?
http://hothardware.com/newsimages/Item10047/blu-ray-adoption.png [hothardware.com]
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1339213.28421201</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1339213.28424235</id>
	<title>Does PS3 count?  Count for what?</title>
	<author>Geoff-with-a-G</author>
	<datestamp>1245692520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If your goal is to determine "How big is the market out there which can play my discs?" then PS3 has to count towards that number.  Even if a PS3-owner hasn't purchased a Blu-ray movie today, they're a potential buyer.  When a particular movie comes out, or they upgrade their sound system, or they talk with a buddy at work, and now they suddenly want to watch Transformers 5 in HD, their barrier to entry is the cost of the disc, not a player.</p><p>If your goal instead is to determine the size of the active, disc-purchasing market (let's call it "likely customers" rather than "potential customers") then you're wasting your time measuring player stats.  Look at the disc stats.  Look at total number of BD vs HD-DVD movies sold, or compare a recent hit title on both formats, or something like that.  If this is what you're trying to measure, then player counts are a bad way to measure it.  If the guys who love HD-DVD are the type of guys who have money to burn and want to replace their entire movie collection with new discs pronto, while your Blu-ray customers shrug and only buy a new movie or two, then it doesn't matter what the install base number is.</p><p>Either way, clearly HD discs of both formats are still a newer, more expensive technology experiencing slow adoption.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If your goal is to determine " How big is the market out there which can play my discs ?
" then PS3 has to count towards that number .
Even if a PS3-owner has n't purchased a Blu-ray movie today , they 're a potential buyer .
When a particular movie comes out , or they upgrade their sound system , or they talk with a buddy at work , and now they suddenly want to watch Transformers 5 in HD , their barrier to entry is the cost of the disc , not a player.If your goal instead is to determine the size of the active , disc-purchasing market ( let 's call it " likely customers " rather than " potential customers " ) then you 're wasting your time measuring player stats .
Look at the disc stats .
Look at total number of BD vs HD-DVD movies sold , or compare a recent hit title on both formats , or something like that .
If this is what you 're trying to measure , then player counts are a bad way to measure it .
If the guys who love HD-DVD are the type of guys who have money to burn and want to replace their entire movie collection with new discs pronto , while your Blu-ray customers shrug and only buy a new movie or two , then it does n't matter what the install base number is.Either way , clearly HD discs of both formats are still a newer , more expensive technology experiencing slow adoption .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If your goal is to determine "How big is the market out there which can play my discs?
" then PS3 has to count towards that number.
Even if a PS3-owner hasn't purchased a Blu-ray movie today, they're a potential buyer.
When a particular movie comes out, or they upgrade their sound system, or they talk with a buddy at work, and now they suddenly want to watch Transformers 5 in HD, their barrier to entry is the cost of the disc, not a player.If your goal instead is to determine the size of the active, disc-purchasing market (let's call it "likely customers" rather than "potential customers") then you're wasting your time measuring player stats.
Look at the disc stats.
Look at total number of BD vs HD-DVD movies sold, or compare a recent hit title on both formats, or something like that.
If this is what you're trying to measure, then player counts are a bad way to measure it.
If the guys who love HD-DVD are the type of guys who have money to burn and want to replace their entire movie collection with new discs pronto, while your Blu-ray customers shrug and only buy a new movie or two, then it doesn't matter what the install base number is.Either way, clearly HD discs of both formats are still a newer, more expensive technology experiencing slow adoption.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1339213.28421619</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1339213.28424131</id>
	<title>Re:I wonder</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245692160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>My inlaws bought a HDTV about a week ago, didn't upgrade their cable box and complained that HD tv doesn't look very different than regular TV.</p><p>Convinced them to go to Time Warner and get the HD box, and they again had the same complaint. took them up to channel 504, and THEN they were watching HD on their HD tv, but still confused and called everything HD.</p><p>Digital cable != HD</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>My inlaws bought a HDTV about a week ago , did n't upgrade their cable box and complained that HD tv does n't look very different than regular TV.Convinced them to go to Time Warner and get the HD box , and they again had the same complaint .
took them up to channel 504 , and THEN they were watching HD on their HD tv , but still confused and called everything HD.Digital cable ! = HD</tokentext>
<sentencetext>My inlaws bought a HDTV about a week ago, didn't upgrade their cable box and complained that HD tv doesn't look very different than regular TV.Convinced them to go to Time Warner and get the HD box, and they again had the same complaint.
took them up to channel 504, and THEN they were watching HD on their HD tv, but still confused and called everything HD.Digital cable != HD</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1339213.28421195</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1339213.28423315</id>
	<title>Re:I work in he rental industry</title>
	<author>Kaptain Kruton</author>
	<datestamp>1245689460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>What you guys can do to help increase your rentals of Blu ray? Put up two tv's that are the exact same tvs. Put up a blu ray player. Put up a regular dvd palyer. Play the same movie (different formats appropriately) and have them play at the same exact time. Now that you convinced your customers which is better (and it is fairly dramatic) enjoy your rentals.</p></div></blockquote><p>

If you do this, do not use a dvd player that "up-scales" the the resolution of the standard DVD.... many new DVD players do that automatically and it does, to some extent, improve the image quality of the DVD on an HDTV. However, not everyone owns an up-scaling DVD player and and showing the DVD video "as is" without enhancements by the DVD player is the best way to allow people to see the difference.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>What you guys can do to help increase your rentals of Blu ray ?
Put up two tv 's that are the exact same tvs .
Put up a blu ray player .
Put up a regular dvd palyer .
Play the same movie ( different formats appropriately ) and have them play at the same exact time .
Now that you convinced your customers which is better ( and it is fairly dramatic ) enjoy your rentals .
If you do this , do not use a dvd player that " up-scales " the the resolution of the standard DVD.... many new DVD players do that automatically and it does , to some extent , improve the image quality of the DVD on an HDTV .
However , not everyone owns an up-scaling DVD player and and showing the DVD video " as is " without enhancements by the DVD player is the best way to allow people to see the difference .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What you guys can do to help increase your rentals of Blu ray?
Put up two tv's that are the exact same tvs.
Put up a blu ray player.
Put up a regular dvd palyer.
Play the same movie (different formats appropriately) and have them play at the same exact time.
Now that you convinced your customers which is better (and it is fairly dramatic) enjoy your rentals.
If you do this, do not use a dvd player that "up-scales" the the resolution of the standard DVD.... many new DVD players do that automatically and it does, to some extent, improve the image quality of the DVD on an HDTV.
However, not everyone owns an up-scaling DVD player and and showing the DVD video "as is" without enhancements by the DVD player is the best way to allow people to see the difference.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1339213.28421765</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1339213.28428919</id>
	<title>Hardware not expensive, the disks are</title>
	<author>DaveGod</author>
	<datestamp>1245665100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The hardware isn't expensive if you already have a HD TV, and here in the UK the TV's seem to be doing well enough even though the only widespread HD content is from a games console. Compared to the TV the BR drives are cheap - decent units can be bought for cheaper than when DVD got popular. But people still aren't buying them because the movies are still very expensive. I can go to my local store and walk out with 6 good DVD's for the price of a single Bluray (plus the choice of titles on the shelves is about 40x wider, and the difference gets much bigger using online stores). </p><p>The only thing IMHO holding Bluray back is that the disks themselves are far too expensive relative to what people are used to paying, given the real-world benefits are not perceived as being that great. Sure, BR <i>is</i> technologically vastly better, but people are still quite happy with DVD and for most movies the higher resolution is just not important - and as for audio, most people use the TV speakers anyway. I have a BR player and use a a subscription rental where a BR is the same as a DVD - for blockbusters I go for BR, but for the vast majority I really don't care. </p><p>Sometimes I actually go for the DVD version. The "don't pirate me" messages at the start of DVDs are bad enough but with every BR they are infuriating, can't I just tick some "I acknowledge piracy is illegal" box once and have the other disks see that I've already sat through this crap? I just got Band of Brothers on BR and since I watched an episode a night I sat though 90 seconds of crap for 10 nights - 15 minutes in total. There's something wrong when I'm making a habit of loading the BR then switching back to the web browser while it gets to the menu. All I am going to say about the required firmware upgrades is that an unexpected 40 minute routine (OK, counting the PowerDVD patch) is not welcome when I have deliberately left myself just enough time to watch the movie to finish off the night. </p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The hardware is n't expensive if you already have a HD TV , and here in the UK the TV 's seem to be doing well enough even though the only widespread HD content is from a games console .
Compared to the TV the BR drives are cheap - decent units can be bought for cheaper than when DVD got popular .
But people still are n't buying them because the movies are still very expensive .
I can go to my local store and walk out with 6 good DVD 's for the price of a single Bluray ( plus the choice of titles on the shelves is about 40x wider , and the difference gets much bigger using online stores ) .
The only thing IMHO holding Bluray back is that the disks themselves are far too expensive relative to what people are used to paying , given the real-world benefits are not perceived as being that great .
Sure , BR is technologically vastly better , but people are still quite happy with DVD and for most movies the higher resolution is just not important - and as for audio , most people use the TV speakers anyway .
I have a BR player and use a a subscription rental where a BR is the same as a DVD - for blockbusters I go for BR , but for the vast majority I really do n't care .
Sometimes I actually go for the DVD version .
The " do n't pirate me " messages at the start of DVDs are bad enough but with every BR they are infuriating , ca n't I just tick some " I acknowledge piracy is illegal " box once and have the other disks see that I 've already sat through this crap ?
I just got Band of Brothers on BR and since I watched an episode a night I sat though 90 seconds of crap for 10 nights - 15 minutes in total .
There 's something wrong when I 'm making a habit of loading the BR then switching back to the web browser while it gets to the menu .
All I am going to say about the required firmware upgrades is that an unexpected 40 minute routine ( OK , counting the PowerDVD patch ) is not welcome when I have deliberately left myself just enough time to watch the movie to finish off the night .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The hardware isn't expensive if you already have a HD TV, and here in the UK the TV's seem to be doing well enough even though the only widespread HD content is from a games console.
Compared to the TV the BR drives are cheap - decent units can be bought for cheaper than when DVD got popular.
But people still aren't buying them because the movies are still very expensive.
I can go to my local store and walk out with 6 good DVD's for the price of a single Bluray (plus the choice of titles on the shelves is about 40x wider, and the difference gets much bigger using online stores).
The only thing IMHO holding Bluray back is that the disks themselves are far too expensive relative to what people are used to paying, given the real-world benefits are not perceived as being that great.
Sure, BR is technologically vastly better, but people are still quite happy with DVD and for most movies the higher resolution is just not important - and as for audio, most people use the TV speakers anyway.
I have a BR player and use a a subscription rental where a BR is the same as a DVD - for blockbusters I go for BR, but for the vast majority I really don't care.
Sometimes I actually go for the DVD version.
The "don't pirate me" messages at the start of DVDs are bad enough but with every BR they are infuriating, can't I just tick some "I acknowledge piracy is illegal" box once and have the other disks see that I've already sat through this crap?
I just got Band of Brothers on BR and since I watched an episode a night I sat though 90 seconds of crap for 10 nights - 15 minutes in total.
There's something wrong when I'm making a habit of loading the BR then switching back to the web browser while it gets to the menu.
All I am going to say about the required firmware upgrades is that an unexpected 40 minute routine (OK, counting the PowerDVD patch) is not welcome when I have deliberately left myself just enough time to watch the movie to finish off the night. </sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1339213.28425041</id>
	<title>Re:Clarification?</title>
	<author>anthonyfk</author>
	<datestamp>1245695340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Yes, but, how many people that bought a PS3 only for games would rush out and buy an HD DVD player once they are looking for hi-def movies?  While PS3 purchases don't account for current Blu Ray purchases, they certainly count for future ones.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Yes , but , how many people that bought a PS3 only for games would rush out and buy an HD DVD player once they are looking for hi-def movies ?
While PS3 purchases do n't account for current Blu Ray purchases , they certainly count for future ones .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yes, but, how many people that bought a PS3 only for games would rush out and buy an HD DVD player once they are looking for hi-def movies?
While PS3 purchases don't account for current Blu Ray purchases, they certainly count for future ones.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1339213.28421619</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1339213.28423531</id>
	<title>Re:Clarification?</title>
	<author>gravis777</author>
	<datestamp>1245690060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>BS. One of the main driving forces of the PS3 is its Blu-Ray drive. While it does have better processing power than the XBox 360, there are not enough exclusive titles to say that someone is paying twice the price of an XBox to just play games. In fact - EVERYONE I know who has a PS3 (I can think of half a dozen people who have them off of the top of my head - most likely many more) bought them mainly for the Blu-Ray aspect. In fact, I did. And even those who did buy them primaraly for the games still play Blu-Rays.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>BS .
One of the main driving forces of the PS3 is its Blu-Ray drive .
While it does have better processing power than the XBox 360 , there are not enough exclusive titles to say that someone is paying twice the price of an XBox to just play games .
In fact - EVERYONE I know who has a PS3 ( I can think of half a dozen people who have them off of the top of my head - most likely many more ) bought them mainly for the Blu-Ray aspect .
In fact , I did .
And even those who did buy them primaraly for the games still play Blu-Rays .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>BS.
One of the main driving forces of the PS3 is its Blu-Ray drive.
While it does have better processing power than the XBox 360, there are not enough exclusive titles to say that someone is paying twice the price of an XBox to just play games.
In fact - EVERYONE I know who has a PS3 (I can think of half a dozen people who have them off of the top of my head - most likely many more) bought them mainly for the Blu-Ray aspect.
In fact, I did.
And even those who did buy them primaraly for the games still play Blu-Rays.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1339213.28421619</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1339213.28421965</id>
	<title>Even now..</title>
	<author>Bert64</author>
	<datestamp>1245684960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Today, you can get an HD-DVD player and a whole bunch of movies for virtually nothing, although no new movies are going to be coming out for it the existing ones are dirt cheap as are the players.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Today , you can get an HD-DVD player and a whole bunch of movies for virtually nothing , although no new movies are going to be coming out for it the existing ones are dirt cheap as are the players .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Today, you can get an HD-DVD player and a whole bunch of movies for virtually nothing, although no new movies are going to be coming out for it the existing ones are dirt cheap as are the players.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1339213.28422157</id>
	<title>Re:I work in he rental industry</title>
	<author>Rogerborg</author>
	<datestamp>1245685560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Since you're crippling the DVD by not using an upscaling player, why bother using identical TVs?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Since you 're crippling the DVD by not using an upscaling player , why bother using identical TVs ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Since you're crippling the DVD by not using an upscaling player, why bother using identical TVs?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1339213.28421765</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1339213.28421675</id>
	<title>Re:Let's get this straight:</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245683940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yeah, I can *see* the difference; its just not worth $20-30 per movie to me, never mind the cost of a player.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yeah , I can * see * the difference ; its just not worth $ 20-30 per movie to me , never mind the cost of a player .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yeah, I can *see* the difference; its just not worth $20-30 per movie to me, never mind the cost of a player.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1339213.28421243</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1339213.28423157</id>
	<title>Re:really?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245688920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>HD-DVD players were selling for about $99 right when it was decided that Blu-Ray won the format war.  I was very tempted to pick one up for upscaling regular DVD's, but when I went to the local store they were all sold out.</p><p>I actually know more people with HD-DVD players that were picked up on the cheap than I know people with a Blu-Ray player even including PS3's.   Keep in mind that it's a sample population that's comprised of many cheap bastards, but that's where HD-DVD was targeted anyways.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>HD-DVD players were selling for about $ 99 right when it was decided that Blu-Ray won the format war .
I was very tempted to pick one up for upscaling regular DVD 's , but when I went to the local store they were all sold out.I actually know more people with HD-DVD players that were picked up on the cheap than I know people with a Blu-Ray player even including PS3 's .
Keep in mind that it 's a sample population that 's comprised of many cheap bastards , but that 's where HD-DVD was targeted anyways .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>HD-DVD players were selling for about $99 right when it was decided that Blu-Ray won the format war.
I was very tempted to pick one up for upscaling regular DVD's, but when I went to the local store they were all sold out.I actually know more people with HD-DVD players that were picked up on the cheap than I know people with a Blu-Ray player even including PS3's.
Keep in mind that it's a sample population that's comprised of many cheap bastards, but that's where HD-DVD was targeted anyways.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1339213.28421643</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1339213.28422429</id>
	<title>It's the name....</title>
	<author>nam37</author>
	<datestamp>1245686400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>I truly think a large part of the issue here is that "Blu-Ray" is a horrible HORRIBLE name.  The name HD-DVD is alliterative and logical.

HD-DVD "sounds" like the logical upgrade to the DVD, while "Blu-Ray" sounds like a Star Wars weapon.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I truly think a large part of the issue here is that " Blu-Ray " is a horrible HORRIBLE name .
The name HD-DVD is alliterative and logical .
HD-DVD " sounds " like the logical upgrade to the DVD , while " Blu-Ray " sounds like a Star Wars weapon .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I truly think a large part of the issue here is that "Blu-Ray" is a horrible HORRIBLE name.
The name HD-DVD is alliterative and logical.
HD-DVD "sounds" like the logical upgrade to the DVD, while "Blu-Ray" sounds like a Star Wars weapon.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1339213.28424611</id>
	<title>Re:early adopters VSs the luddites</title>
	<author>MHolmesIV</author>
	<datestamp>1245693780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>No actually. DVD won last year, and is still winning handily. It remains to be seen if Blu-ray will ever be a success.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>No actually .
DVD won last year , and is still winning handily .
It remains to be seen if Blu-ray will ever be a success .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No actually.
DVD won last year, and is still winning handily.
It remains to be seen if Blu-ray will ever be a success.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1339213.28421669</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1339213.28421765</id>
	<title>Re:I work in he rental industry</title>
	<author>furby076</author>
	<datestamp>1245684240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>Quick Google search for "blu ray player" on google shopping turns up a Blu-ray Disc&#174; Player BDP-S300 for 150. This is refurb.<br> <br>

What you guys can do to help increase your rentals of Blu ray?  Put up two tv's that are the exact same tvs.  Put up a blu ray player. Put up a regular dvd palyer. Play the same movie (different formats appropriately) and have them play at the same exact time.  Now that you convinced your customers which is better (and it is fairly dramatic) enjoy your rentals.<br> <br>

Also - don't be afraid to put up old movies.  Top Gun looks great in blu ray.<br> <br>
For added fun sell blu ray players on the cheap or help customers find great deals online  "Want to rent blu ray? Not sure what to look for? Let us help you."<br> <br>

Bring this suggestion to your boss and if your boss is smart your boss will use this idea.  Considering video rental stores are lagging in sales this is a cheap way to increase them.  This will also make the boss happy with you. Do it a couple of months before your annual review and get a better raise?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Quick Google search for " blu ray player " on google shopping turns up a Blu-ray Disc   Player BDP-S300 for 150 .
This is refurb .
What you guys can do to help increase your rentals of Blu ray ?
Put up two tv 's that are the exact same tvs .
Put up a blu ray player .
Put up a regular dvd palyer .
Play the same movie ( different formats appropriately ) and have them play at the same exact time .
Now that you convinced your customers which is better ( and it is fairly dramatic ) enjoy your rentals .
Also - do n't be afraid to put up old movies .
Top Gun looks great in blu ray .
For added fun sell blu ray players on the cheap or help customers find great deals online " Want to rent blu ray ?
Not sure what to look for ?
Let us help you .
" Bring this suggestion to your boss and if your boss is smart your boss will use this idea .
Considering video rental stores are lagging in sales this is a cheap way to increase them .
This will also make the boss happy with you .
Do it a couple of months before your annual review and get a better raise ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Quick Google search for "blu ray player" on google shopping turns up a Blu-ray Disc® Player BDP-S300 for 150.
This is refurb.
What you guys can do to help increase your rentals of Blu ray?
Put up two tv's that are the exact same tvs.
Put up a blu ray player.
Put up a regular dvd palyer.
Play the same movie (different formats appropriately) and have them play at the same exact time.
Now that you convinced your customers which is better (and it is fairly dramatic) enjoy your rentals.
Also - don't be afraid to put up old movies.
Top Gun looks great in blu ray.
For added fun sell blu ray players on the cheap or help customers find great deals online  "Want to rent blu ray?
Not sure what to look for?
Let us help you.
" 

Bring this suggestion to your boss and if your boss is smart your boss will use this idea.
Considering video rental stores are lagging in sales this is a cheap way to increase them.
This will also make the boss happy with you.
Do it a couple of months before your annual review and get a better raise?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1339213.28421193</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1339213.28432627</id>
	<title>Re:I work in he rental industry</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245679620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>that is funny. video rental industry. He is a fucking drone. No one cares what his stupid ideas are. He puts tapes back on the shelf for 7 dollars and hour and steals on average 4 dvds per month.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>that is funny .
video rental industry .
He is a fucking drone .
No one cares what his stupid ideas are .
He puts tapes back on the shelf for 7 dollars and hour and steals on average 4 dvds per month .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>that is funny.
video rental industry.
He is a fucking drone.
No one cares what his stupid ideas are.
He puts tapes back on the shelf for 7 dollars and hour and steals on average 4 dvds per month.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1339213.28421765</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1339213.28421377</id>
	<title>Re:Flawed interpretation of the study</title>
	<author>Millennium</author>
	<datestamp>1245682980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The PS3 is, first and foremost, a Blu-Ray player. That's how it was designed, that's how it was marketed, and that's what it still is to many people. It should be counted among Blu-Ray players for that reason. Likewise with XBox 360 HD-DVD drives, though I agree with you that the numbers on those are probably low.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The PS3 is , first and foremost , a Blu-Ray player .
That 's how it was designed , that 's how it was marketed , and that 's what it still is to many people .
It should be counted among Blu-Ray players for that reason .
Likewise with XBox 360 HD-DVD drives , though I agree with you that the numbers on those are probably low .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The PS3 is, first and foremost, a Blu-Ray player.
That's how it was designed, that's how it was marketed, and that's what it still is to many people.
It should be counted among Blu-Ray players for that reason.
Likewise with XBox 360 HD-DVD drives, though I agree with you that the numbers on those are probably low.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1339213.28421187</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1339213.28427185</id>
	<title>Re:Never FORGET The Real Reason They Gave In!!!</title>
	<author>RoverDaddy</author>
	<datestamp>1245702900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I think you're also forgetting that HD-DVD was losing support from the US movie studios (a quick search shows Warner, Paramount and then Universal dropping HD-DVD in quick succession early last year - and somewhere in the middle of all that Toshiba announced they were ending production of HD-DVD products).  I think by the time Toshiba gave in, their backs were against the wall and there really wasn't much else they could do.  I'm not saying Sony didn't influence the defections, just that the 'payoff' isn't the whole story.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I think you 're also forgetting that HD-DVD was losing support from the US movie studios ( a quick search shows Warner , Paramount and then Universal dropping HD-DVD in quick succession early last year - and somewhere in the middle of all that Toshiba announced they were ending production of HD-DVD products ) .
I think by the time Toshiba gave in , their backs were against the wall and there really was n't much else they could do .
I 'm not saying Sony did n't influence the defections , just that the 'payoff ' is n't the whole story .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think you're also forgetting that HD-DVD was losing support from the US movie studios (a quick search shows Warner, Paramount and then Universal dropping HD-DVD in quick succession early last year - and somewhere in the middle of all that Toshiba announced they were ending production of HD-DVD products).
I think by the time Toshiba gave in, their backs were against the wall and there really wasn't much else they could do.
I'm not saying Sony didn't influence the defections, just that the 'payoff' isn't the whole story.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1339213.28421489</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1339213.28422063</id>
	<title>Blu-Ray losing proposition</title>
	<author>javacowboy</author>
	<datestamp>1245685260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Why should I invest in Blu-Ray?</p><p>1) Once bandwidth and/or video compression issues are resolved, the preferred medium for HD video will be video downloads, probably (but not limited to) iTunes since it's the only cross-platform DRM'd content provider.<br>2) Can't rip or make backup copies the way it's possible to with DVDs (legality notwithstanding).<br>3) Ubiquity of DVD readers.  I have four devices that can read DVDs, including my MacBook Pro, XBox 360, $50 upscaling DVD player, and my OpenSolaris box (once I install the drivers from Fluendo).   Since I don't have a PS3 (don't plan on getting one) or a $350 Blu-Ray player (don't plan on getting one) I need to go out of my way to get one.<br>4) My existing movie collection is all DVD.  I have no desire to start replacing it, as I finally caved in recently and starting replacing 3 of my VHS tapes with DVDs.<br>5) Upscaling DVD player makes my DVDs look great on my 46 inch HDTV.  Granted, it's not as good a Blu-Ray, but I'm not a videophile, so I probably won't see a significant difference.</p><p>The movie studios will have to address all of the above if they hope to convert me to Blu-Ray.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Why should I invest in Blu-Ray ? 1 ) Once bandwidth and/or video compression issues are resolved , the preferred medium for HD video will be video downloads , probably ( but not limited to ) iTunes since it 's the only cross-platform DRM 'd content provider.2 ) Ca n't rip or make backup copies the way it 's possible to with DVDs ( legality notwithstanding ) .3 ) Ubiquity of DVD readers .
I have four devices that can read DVDs , including my MacBook Pro , XBox 360 , $ 50 upscaling DVD player , and my OpenSolaris box ( once I install the drivers from Fluendo ) .
Since I do n't have a PS3 ( do n't plan on getting one ) or a $ 350 Blu-Ray player ( do n't plan on getting one ) I need to go out of my way to get one.4 ) My existing movie collection is all DVD .
I have no desire to start replacing it , as I finally caved in recently and starting replacing 3 of my VHS tapes with DVDs.5 ) Upscaling DVD player makes my DVDs look great on my 46 inch HDTV .
Granted , it 's not as good a Blu-Ray , but I 'm not a videophile , so I probably wo n't see a significant difference.The movie studios will have to address all of the above if they hope to convert me to Blu-Ray .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why should I invest in Blu-Ray?1) Once bandwidth and/or video compression issues are resolved, the preferred medium for HD video will be video downloads, probably (but not limited to) iTunes since it's the only cross-platform DRM'd content provider.2) Can't rip or make backup copies the way it's possible to with DVDs (legality notwithstanding).3) Ubiquity of DVD readers.
I have four devices that can read DVDs, including my MacBook Pro, XBox 360, $50 upscaling DVD player, and my OpenSolaris box (once I install the drivers from Fluendo).
Since I don't have a PS3 (don't plan on getting one) or a $350 Blu-Ray player (don't plan on getting one) I need to go out of my way to get one.4) My existing movie collection is all DVD.
I have no desire to start replacing it, as I finally caved in recently and starting replacing 3 of my VHS tapes with DVDs.5) Upscaling DVD player makes my DVDs look great on my 46 inch HDTV.
Granted, it's not as good a Blu-Ray, but I'm not a videophile, so I probably won't see a significant difference.The movie studios will have to address all of the above if they hope to convert me to Blu-Ray.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1339213.28429289</id>
	<title>Re:early adopters VSs the luddites</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245666480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>If your only concern, however, is which of the formats will win, then there's no reason to continue waiting.  Blu-Ray won last year.</p></div><p>And now that their tiara has lost its sparkle, and their sash got lost at the cleaners; they're wondering if anyone else ever really cared who won.</p><p>The answer is "No, no we did not."   <br>
&nbsp; <br>We just like to speculate, hype, and argue.  Toshiba and Sony just gave us a great argument.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>If your only concern , however , is which of the formats will win , then there 's no reason to continue waiting .
Blu-Ray won last year.And now that their tiara has lost its sparkle , and their sash got lost at the cleaners ; they 're wondering if anyone else ever really cared who won.The answer is " No , no we did not .
"   We just like to speculate , hype , and argue .
Toshiba and Sony just gave us a great argument .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If your only concern, however, is which of the formats will win, then there's no reason to continue waiting.
Blu-Ray won last year.And now that their tiara has lost its sparkle, and their sash got lost at the cleaners; they're wondering if anyone else ever really cared who won.The answer is "No, no we did not.
"   
  We just like to speculate, hype, and argue.
Toshiba and Sony just gave us a great argument.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1339213.28421669</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1339213.28426361</id>
	<title>Re:Clarification?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245700080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>During the format war this was games that was played by the HD-DVD side, they'd pick and choose when to call a PS3 a Blu-ray player if they wanted to say the attach rate was low they would include the PS3 sales and yikes HD-DVD would have better attach rates, but then they wanted to say HD-DVD was selling better, PS3 was no longer a Blu-ray player... it was an annoying game that was played. I remember arguing over this and similar topics like is the XBox 360 add-on a 'player'.</p><p>I say HD-DVD is dead get over it and move on articles like this won't bring it back.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>During the format war this was games that was played by the HD-DVD side , they 'd pick and choose when to call a PS3 a Blu-ray player if they wanted to say the attach rate was low they would include the PS3 sales and yikes HD-DVD would have better attach rates , but then they wanted to say HD-DVD was selling better , PS3 was no longer a Blu-ray player... it was an annoying game that was played .
I remember arguing over this and similar topics like is the XBox 360 add-on a 'player'.I say HD-DVD is dead get over it and move on articles like this wo n't bring it back .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>During the format war this was games that was played by the HD-DVD side, they'd pick and choose when to call a PS3 a Blu-ray player if they wanted to say the attach rate was low they would include the PS3 sales and yikes HD-DVD would have better attach rates, but then they wanted to say HD-DVD was selling better, PS3 was no longer a Blu-ray player... it was an annoying game that was played.
I remember arguing over this and similar topics like is the XBox 360 add-on a 'player'.I say HD-DVD is dead get over it and move on articles like this won't bring it back.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1339213.28421217</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1339213.28436059</id>
	<title>Re:early adopters VSs the luddites</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245748500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yes, the war is over after a lot of blood was shed - hopefully, Blu-Ray shed enough to die as well!<br>Who cares abt the format wars? I'm happy with DVD</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yes , the war is over after a lot of blood was shed - hopefully , Blu-Ray shed enough to die as well ! Who cares abt the format wars ?
I 'm happy with DVD</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yes, the war is over after a lot of blood was shed - hopefully, Blu-Ray shed enough to die as well!Who cares abt the format wars?
I'm happy with DVD</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1339213.28421669</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1339213.28422501</id>
	<title>Re:early adopters VSs the luddites</title>
	<author>mcgrew</author>
	<datestamp>1245686640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If you play with cutting edge technology, your wallet will bleed. IMO cutting edge tech is for those with more dollars than sense.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If you play with cutting edge technology , your wallet will bleed .
IMO cutting edge tech is for those with more dollars than sense .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you play with cutting edge technology, your wallet will bleed.
IMO cutting edge tech is for those with more dollars than sense.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1339213.28421309</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1339213.28423141</id>
	<title>I'm actually still thinking of picking up HD-DVD.</title>
	<author>DdJ</author>
	<datestamp>1245688920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm not considering a BluRay player, but <em>am</em> still considering buying a HD-DVD player.</p><p>Why?</p><p>I'm not going to buy high-def movies on optical media.  But if I can <em>burn my own</em> high-def movies to optical media, that's not useless to me, and it looks like HD-DVD might be a <em>very</em> inexpensive way to accommodate that, even today.</p><p>(But even for that, maybe I'll just stick with DivX on DVD-ROM.  But HD-DVD still tempts me more than BluRay does.)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm not considering a BluRay player , but am still considering buying a HD-DVD player.Why ? I 'm not going to buy high-def movies on optical media .
But if I can burn my own high-def movies to optical media , that 's not useless to me , and it looks like HD-DVD might be a very inexpensive way to accommodate that , even today .
( But even for that , maybe I 'll just stick with DivX on DVD-ROM .
But HD-DVD still tempts me more than BluRay does .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm not considering a BluRay player, but am still considering buying a HD-DVD player.Why?I'm not going to buy high-def movies on optical media.
But if I can burn my own high-def movies to optical media, that's not useless to me, and it looks like HD-DVD might be a very inexpensive way to accommodate that, even today.
(But even for that, maybe I'll just stick with DivX on DVD-ROM.
But HD-DVD still tempts me more than BluRay does.
)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1339213.28422617</id>
	<title>Re:I work in he rental industry</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245687000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Players are now under $100.</p><p>$99:<br>http://www.slashgear.com/curtis-mathes-cmmbx130-first-99-blu-ray-player-1947529/</p><p>$129:<br>http://news.cnet.com/8301-13845\_3-10265385-58.html</p><p>Definitely a faulty study.  I have a PS3, I own about 10 bluray movies, rent as many as I can.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Players are now under $ 100. $ 99 : http : //www.slashgear.com/curtis-mathes-cmmbx130-first-99-blu-ray-player-1947529/ $ 129 : http : //news.cnet.com/8301-13845 \ _3-10265385-58.htmlDefinitely a faulty study .
I have a PS3 , I own about 10 bluray movies , rent as many as I can .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Players are now under $100.$99:http://www.slashgear.com/curtis-mathes-cmmbx130-first-99-blu-ray-player-1947529/$129:http://news.cnet.com/8301-13845\_3-10265385-58.htmlDefinitely a faulty study.
I have a PS3, I own about 10 bluray movies, rent as many as I can.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1339213.28421765</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1339213.28435621</id>
	<title>Re:Don't buy into that lie</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245700680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>That was how Sony convinced the producers that they had won, by counting PS3's instead of stand alone players.  This is no different than some of the Apple people claiming 10\% market share but failing to state that it included phones!</p><p>Personal account, only one of the circle of friends who has a PS3 have more than two blu ray movies.  Most don't even use it to play regular DVDs, it is the "KIDS MACHINE".</p><p>HD-DVD loaded faster, have less expensive players, and less expensive movies.  It also had some great shows/movies out early that Blu Ray did not.  I have both players now, I would have loved HD-DVD to have won.  Why?  Because of the G-D ads that too many Blu-Ray movies force you to sit through.  See, that AD thing is probably another reason movie producers would favor Sony over HD.  They could force you to watch their ads for other products because HD stated that that feature was not allowed - not so in Blu-Ray</p><p>Well with <a href="http://red2blu.com/" title="red2blu.com" rel="nofollow">http://red2blu.com/</a> [red2blu.com] I could get the blu-ray versions fairly cheap, but my HD-DVD player is again, faster and less prone to abuse by the dvd creator.</p><p>Sony screwed the consumer over by lies and buying off the movie producers.  They are getting exactly what they deserve, flat to falling sales.  The players are overpriced and worse the movies border on extortionist in pricing.  I do not buy new Blu-Ray movies, I rent them on occasion, but if they are higher than standard DVD I will just wait till the price goes down.  This has two effects, by the time the price comes down the movie may no longer be interesting to me meaning I didn't need it anyway, the second being that perhaps one day they will get the hint.</p></div><p>This is the worse contrived baseless comment I have ever heard.  Clearly you are blinded by some bias and have decided that be your crux for hate.   The players are hardly overpriced as there are 100$ blu-ray players out there and I hardly believe that 24$ for a Blu-Ray disc is extortionist as it is actually appropriate considering that was the average price of new DVDs that came out in 2004.</p><p>Anecdotal evidence is not evidence.  I suggest you read the research the article actually refers too.  Perhaps it will alleviate some of your ignorance, as it sounds like you simply glanced at the title and the article and jumped to fantastical conclusions.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>That was how Sony convinced the producers that they had won , by counting PS3 's instead of stand alone players .
This is no different than some of the Apple people claiming 10 \ % market share but failing to state that it included phones ! Personal account , only one of the circle of friends who has a PS3 have more than two blu ray movies .
Most do n't even use it to play regular DVDs , it is the " KIDS MACHINE " .HD-DVD loaded faster , have less expensive players , and less expensive movies .
It also had some great shows/movies out early that Blu Ray did not .
I have both players now , I would have loved HD-DVD to have won .
Why ? Because of the G-D ads that too many Blu-Ray movies force you to sit through .
See , that AD thing is probably another reason movie producers would favor Sony over HD .
They could force you to watch their ads for other products because HD stated that that feature was not allowed - not so in Blu-RayWell with http : //red2blu.com/ [ red2blu.com ] I could get the blu-ray versions fairly cheap , but my HD-DVD player is again , faster and less prone to abuse by the dvd creator.Sony screwed the consumer over by lies and buying off the movie producers .
They are getting exactly what they deserve , flat to falling sales .
The players are overpriced and worse the movies border on extortionist in pricing .
I do not buy new Blu-Ray movies , I rent them on occasion , but if they are higher than standard DVD I will just wait till the price goes down .
This has two effects , by the time the price comes down the movie may no longer be interesting to me meaning I did n't need it anyway , the second being that perhaps one day they will get the hint.This is the worse contrived baseless comment I have ever heard .
Clearly you are blinded by some bias and have decided that be your crux for hate .
The players are hardly overpriced as there are 100 $ blu-ray players out there and I hardly believe that 24 $ for a Blu-Ray disc is extortionist as it is actually appropriate considering that was the average price of new DVDs that came out in 2004.Anecdotal evidence is not evidence .
I suggest you read the research the article actually refers too .
Perhaps it will alleviate some of your ignorance , as it sounds like you simply glanced at the title and the article and jumped to fantastical conclusions .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That was how Sony convinced the producers that they had won, by counting PS3's instead of stand alone players.
This is no different than some of the Apple people claiming 10\% market share but failing to state that it included phones!Personal account, only one of the circle of friends who has a PS3 have more than two blu ray movies.
Most don't even use it to play regular DVDs, it is the "KIDS MACHINE".HD-DVD loaded faster, have less expensive players, and less expensive movies.
It also had some great shows/movies out early that Blu Ray did not.
I have both players now, I would have loved HD-DVD to have won.
Why?  Because of the G-D ads that too many Blu-Ray movies force you to sit through.
See, that AD thing is probably another reason movie producers would favor Sony over HD.
They could force you to watch their ads for other products because HD stated that that feature was not allowed - not so in Blu-RayWell with http://red2blu.com/ [red2blu.com] I could get the blu-ray versions fairly cheap, but my HD-DVD player is again, faster and less prone to abuse by the dvd creator.Sony screwed the consumer over by lies and buying off the movie producers.
They are getting exactly what they deserve, flat to falling sales.
The players are overpriced and worse the movies border on extortionist in pricing.
I do not buy new Blu-Ray movies, I rent them on occasion, but if they are higher than standard DVD I will just wait till the price goes down.
This has two effects, by the time the price comes down the movie may no longer be interesting to me meaning I didn't need it anyway, the second being that perhaps one day they will get the hint.This is the worse contrived baseless comment I have ever heard.
Clearly you are blinded by some bias and have decided that be your crux for hate.
The players are hardly overpriced as there are 100$ blu-ray players out there and I hardly believe that 24$ for a Blu-Ray disc is extortionist as it is actually appropriate considering that was the average price of new DVDs that came out in 2004.Anecdotal evidence is not evidence.
I suggest you read the research the article actually refers too.
Perhaps it will alleviate some of your ignorance, as it sounds like you simply glanced at the title and the article and jumped to fantastical conclusions.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1339213.28421839</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1339213.28421147</id>
	<title>I always maintained blue ray was moot</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245682260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>People can just download stuff in any format. The industry is confused about this issue. My computer can play just about anything, so screw them.</htmltext>
<tokenext>People can just download stuff in any format .
The industry is confused about this issue .
My computer can play just about anything , so screw them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>People can just download stuff in any format.
The industry is confused about this issue.
My computer can play just about anything, so screw them.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1339213.28436573</id>
	<title>Re:Don't buy into that lie</title>
	<author>Lije Baley</author>
	<datestamp>1245755100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The PS3 is an excellent blu-ray and upscaling DVD-player.  It is very reasonably priced for its capability.  I bought mine solely to use for blu-ray and streaming and I *love* it. It replaced my high-maintenance HTPC.  I even ended up playing a few games on it.  My blu-rays come from Netflix and completely outclass downloads and streaming on my 52" screen.  Blu-ray's only real competition right now is DVD, but as screen sizes grow larger, DVD's will fade away, in the living room at least.  And barring some kind of broadband "miracle" from Obama, downloads will be hard-pressed to keep up.  100 million HD downloads every night in primetime sounds like a recipe for disaster anyway.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The PS3 is an excellent blu-ray and upscaling DVD-player .
It is very reasonably priced for its capability .
I bought mine solely to use for blu-ray and streaming and I * love * it .
It replaced my high-maintenance HTPC .
I even ended up playing a few games on it .
My blu-rays come from Netflix and completely outclass downloads and streaming on my 52 " screen .
Blu-ray 's only real competition right now is DVD , but as screen sizes grow larger , DVD 's will fade away , in the living room at least .
And barring some kind of broadband " miracle " from Obama , downloads will be hard-pressed to keep up .
100 million HD downloads every night in primetime sounds like a recipe for disaster anyway .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The PS3 is an excellent blu-ray and upscaling DVD-player.
It is very reasonably priced for its capability.
I bought mine solely to use for blu-ray and streaming and I *love* it.
It replaced my high-maintenance HTPC.
I even ended up playing a few games on it.
My blu-rays come from Netflix and completely outclass downloads and streaming on my 52" screen.
Blu-ray's only real competition right now is DVD, but as screen sizes grow larger, DVD's will fade away, in the living room at least.
And barring some kind of broadband "miracle" from Obama, downloads will be hard-pressed to keep up.
100 million HD downloads every night in primetime sounds like a recipe for disaster anyway.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1339213.28421839</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1339213.28426147</id>
	<title>Re:Don't buy into that lie</title>
	<author>Immerial</author>
	<datestamp>1245699240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><nobr> <wbr></nobr></p><div class="quote"><p>....This is no different than some of the Apple people claiming 10\% market share but failing to state that it included phones!....</p></div><p>The interesting thing about PC market share numbers is that it includes things like terminals, cash registers, print servers, etc.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>....This is no different than some of the Apple people claiming 10 \ % market share but failing to state that it included phones ! ....The interesting thing about PC market share numbers is that it includes things like terminals , cash registers , print servers , etc .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> ....This is no different than some of the Apple people claiming 10\% market share but failing to state that it included phones!....The interesting thing about PC market share numbers is that it includes things like terminals, cash registers, print servers, etc.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1339213.28421839</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1339213.28422443</id>
	<title>Re:I work in he rental industry</title>
	<author>Kirk1701B</author>
	<datestamp>1245686400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The difference between upscaled DVD and Blu Ray/HD-DVD are as different as night and day on any HD capable screen 32 inches and above. The HD formats offer levels of detail not possible with DVD. Sure an upscaled DVD may look sharp but even at a distance the difference in the details (crowd scenes in which individual faces are recognizable and cityscapes where it is easy to tell that part of the background is a matt painting) is easy to spot.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The difference between upscaled DVD and Blu Ray/HD-DVD are as different as night and day on any HD capable screen 32 inches and above .
The HD formats offer levels of detail not possible with DVD .
Sure an upscaled DVD may look sharp but even at a distance the difference in the details ( crowd scenes in which individual faces are recognizable and cityscapes where it is easy to tell that part of the background is a matt painting ) is easy to spot .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The difference between upscaled DVD and Blu Ray/HD-DVD are as different as night and day on any HD capable screen 32 inches and above.
The HD formats offer levels of detail not possible with DVD.
Sure an upscaled DVD may look sharp but even at a distance the difference in the details (crowd scenes in which individual faces are recognizable and cityscapes where it is easy to tell that part of the background is a matt painting) is easy to spot.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1339213.28421501</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1339213.28422545</id>
	<title>Re:I work in he rental industry</title>
	<author>nacturation</author>
	<datestamp>1245686820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's a great idea, but it depends on what the store charges for Blu-Ray rentals.  If it's like any of my local stores, they charge a dollar or two more than DVD and make it 1 day only (bastards!) which is why I don't rent locally anymore.  So it may be more profitable for them.  If, however, they charge identical prices for DVD and Blu-Ray then more people renting Blu-Ray will increase costs as they'll have to stock up on a more expensive format.  In that case, they'd want to delay Blu-Ray adoption to scale back costs.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's a great idea , but it depends on what the store charges for Blu-Ray rentals .
If it 's like any of my local stores , they charge a dollar or two more than DVD and make it 1 day only ( bastards !
) which is why I do n't rent locally anymore .
So it may be more profitable for them .
If , however , they charge identical prices for DVD and Blu-Ray then more people renting Blu-Ray will increase costs as they 'll have to stock up on a more expensive format .
In that case , they 'd want to delay Blu-Ray adoption to scale back costs .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's a great idea, but it depends on what the store charges for Blu-Ray rentals.
If it's like any of my local stores, they charge a dollar or two more than DVD and make it 1 day only (bastards!
) which is why I don't rent locally anymore.
So it may be more profitable for them.
If, however, they charge identical prices for DVD and Blu-Ray then more people renting Blu-Ray will increase costs as they'll have to stock up on a more expensive format.
In that case, they'd want to delay Blu-Ray adoption to scale back costs.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1339213.28421765</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1339213.28423933</id>
	<title>Re:Disingenous, at best</title>
	<author>YesIAmAScript</author>
	<datestamp>1245691560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Either the question was misunderstood or the households they surveyed do not represent a valid sample, because there weren't enough HD-DVD players sold for 11\% of US households to have an HD-DVD player. There simply were not 11M made (11\% of 100M households).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Either the question was misunderstood or the households they surveyed do not represent a valid sample , because there were n't enough HD-DVD players sold for 11 \ % of US households to have an HD-DVD player .
There simply were not 11M made ( 11 \ % of 100M households ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Either the question was misunderstood or the households they surveyed do not represent a valid sample, because there weren't enough HD-DVD players sold for 11\% of US households to have an HD-DVD player.
There simply were not 11M made (11\% of 100M households).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1339213.28421717</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1339213.28421923</id>
	<title>Fixed that for you...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245684780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Blu-ray was always viewed as a niche format for those absorbed in <b>Playstation 3 Game Systems</b>, not the common man's format</p></div><p>

Almost everyone I know that jumped on Blu Ray earlier did so because there was already on in their PS3. This, people, is exactly why one company shouldn't make across the board products. You can't make players, computers, game systems, and THEN create an industry standard. A proprietary standard maybe, but an industry standard hell no.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Blu-ray was always viewed as a niche format for those absorbed in Playstation 3 Game Systems , not the common man 's format Almost everyone I know that jumped on Blu Ray earlier did so because there was already on in their PS3 .
This , people , is exactly why one company should n't make across the board products .
You ca n't make players , computers , game systems , and THEN create an industry standard .
A proprietary standard maybe , but an industry standard hell no .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Blu-ray was always viewed as a niche format for those absorbed in Playstation 3 Game Systems, not the common man's format

Almost everyone I know that jumped on Blu Ray earlier did so because there was already on in their PS3.
This, people, is exactly why one company shouldn't make across the board products.
You can't make players, computers, game systems, and THEN create an industry standard.
A proprietary standard maybe, but an industry standard hell no.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1339213.28441197</id>
	<title>Better look at the study here:</title>
	<author>geekoid</author>
	<datestamp>1245780720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><a href="http://www.harrisinteractive.com/harris\_poll/pubs/Harris\_Poll\_2009\_06\_18.pdf" title="harrisinteractive.com">http://www.harrisinteractive.com/harris\_poll/pubs/Harris\_Poll\_2009\_06\_18.pdf</a> [harrisinteractive.com]</p><p>Seem like a reasonable study, and the results may seem shocking to some people here, they really aren't.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>http : //www.harrisinteractive.com/harris \ _poll/pubs/Harris \ _Poll \ _2009 \ _06 \ _18.pdf [ harrisinteractive.com ] Seem like a reasonable study , and the results may seem shocking to some people here , they really are n't .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>http://www.harrisinteractive.com/harris\_poll/pubs/Harris\_Poll\_2009\_06\_18.pdf [harrisinteractive.com]Seem like a reasonable study, and the results may seem shocking to some people here, they really aren't.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1339213.28433345</id>
	<title>Re:Don't buy into that lie</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245683280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Buying off the movie producers?! You know that the HD-DVD crew were the only ones confirmed to be doing that, right?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Buying off the movie producers ? !
You know that the HD-DVD crew were the only ones confirmed to be doing that , right ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Buying off the movie producers?!
You know that the HD-DVD crew were the only ones confirmed to be doing that, right?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1339213.28421839</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1339213.28421451</id>
	<title>No HD for me, thanks!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245683220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Due to the egregious DRM that encumbers HD players (esp. Blu-Ray) and the necessity to have these devices connected to the internet in order to keep their DRM updated, I will never purchase one of these pieces of s*!t. I have a firm policy of refusal to support any vendor who utilizes DRM in their products. If they want to treat me as a criminal, I won't support them.
<br> <br>
That said, I do purchase DVD's, but the first thing I do is to strip the CSS and region codes from them and back them up as ISO images on my NAS array. I also have a region-free DVD/VHS player. I don't give copies of my purchased DVD's to anybody, but I refuse to abrogate my right to make backup copies that I can use and/or re-burn as necessary, and can take with me on the road when I am traveling without endangering the original copy. I can drop a half-dozen movies on my laptop hard drive and play them when I am away on business travel.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Due to the egregious DRM that encumbers HD players ( esp .
Blu-Ray ) and the necessity to have these devices connected to the internet in order to keep their DRM updated , I will never purchase one of these pieces of s * ! t .
I have a firm policy of refusal to support any vendor who utilizes DRM in their products .
If they want to treat me as a criminal , I wo n't support them .
That said , I do purchase DVD 's , but the first thing I do is to strip the CSS and region codes from them and back them up as ISO images on my NAS array .
I also have a region-free DVD/VHS player .
I do n't give copies of my purchased DVD 's to anybody , but I refuse to abrogate my right to make backup copies that I can use and/or re-burn as necessary , and can take with me on the road when I am traveling without endangering the original copy .
I can drop a half-dozen movies on my laptop hard drive and play them when I am away on business travel .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Due to the egregious DRM that encumbers HD players (esp.
Blu-Ray) and the necessity to have these devices connected to the internet in order to keep their DRM updated, I will never purchase one of these pieces of s*!t.
I have a firm policy of refusal to support any vendor who utilizes DRM in their products.
If they want to treat me as a criminal, I won't support them.
That said, I do purchase DVD's, but the first thing I do is to strip the CSS and region codes from them and back them up as ISO images on my NAS array.
I also have a region-free DVD/VHS player.
I don't give copies of my purchased DVD's to anybody, but I refuse to abrogate my right to make backup copies that I can use and/or re-burn as necessary, and can take with me on the road when I am traveling without endangering the original copy.
I can drop a half-dozen movies on my laptop hard drive and play them when I am away on business travel.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1339213.28424665</id>
	<title>Re:Don't buy into that lie</title>
	<author>samkass</author>
	<datestamp>1245693960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The iPhone actually <i>does</i> run OS X, but doesn't provide the desktop UI that the Mac does, of course.  The flaw with "market share" numbers, of course, is how you define a "market".  Coming up with a definition that includes all desktops, laptops, and netbooks but no cellphones or small tablets seems a little arbitrary.  But if you include everything with a CPU, embedded linux and VxWorks are probably the top contenders for market share.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The iPhone actually does run OS X , but does n't provide the desktop UI that the Mac does , of course .
The flaw with " market share " numbers , of course , is how you define a " market " .
Coming up with a definition that includes all desktops , laptops , and netbooks but no cellphones or small tablets seems a little arbitrary .
But if you include everything with a CPU , embedded linux and VxWorks are probably the top contenders for market share .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The iPhone actually does run OS X, but doesn't provide the desktop UI that the Mac does, of course.
The flaw with "market share" numbers, of course, is how you define a "market".
Coming up with a definition that includes all desktops, laptops, and netbooks but no cellphones or small tablets seems a little arbitrary.
But if you include everything with a CPU, embedded linux and VxWorks are probably the top contenders for market share.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1339213.28422631</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1339213.28425539</id>
	<title>Re:I work in he rental industry</title>
	<author>jandrese</author>
	<datestamp>1245696960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Also, make sure they can get close enough to really see the difference.  If you're on smallish (25-30") TVs like people typically use for demos and they're more than a few feet away, many people may go 'Yeah, i can see that they're different, but the Blu-Ray one isn't "better" enough to be worth the difference.'  This has been a big problem with the demos I have seen.  Close up the Blu-Ray wins hands down, at normal viewing distance I can't justify spending the extra.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Also , make sure they can get close enough to really see the difference .
If you 're on smallish ( 25-30 " ) TVs like people typically use for demos and they 're more than a few feet away , many people may go 'Yeah , i can see that they 're different , but the Blu-Ray one is n't " better " enough to be worth the difference .
' This has been a big problem with the demos I have seen .
Close up the Blu-Ray wins hands down , at normal viewing distance I ca n't justify spending the extra .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Also, make sure they can get close enough to really see the difference.
If you're on smallish (25-30") TVs like people typically use for demos and they're more than a few feet away, many people may go 'Yeah, i can see that they're different, but the Blu-Ray one isn't "better" enough to be worth the difference.
'  This has been a big problem with the demos I have seen.
Close up the Blu-Ray wins hands down, at normal viewing distance I can't justify spending the extra.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1339213.28421765</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1339213.28423491</id>
	<title>Re:Death to physical media!</title>
	<author>Paralizer</author>
	<datestamp>1245689940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Streaming is neat and probably what everything will convert to eventually.  I just got a subscription for Netflix, and while being able to stream movies or tv shows on demand is <i>really</i> cool, they just don't have a big enough streaming library.  With these types of services I don't really see any one service becoming dominate anytime soon.  For example, Fox doesn't seem to stream anything on netflix (can't find king of the hill, simpsons, american dad, house, etc) but all their stuff is on Hulu.  Well that's fine, until Hulu starts charging access fees too; now you have to buy subscriptions to two different companies instead of just one.  Maybe that's not a huge deal, but it's annoying and will turn people off; I'd rather pay twice as much to access everything in one place than have to constantly guess which service I need to view X, Y, or Z.<br> <br>On top of this, you have ISPs who want to cap your bandwidth.  Comcast says 250GB/mo.  Sure that's plenty now, but in 2-3 years when highdef streaming becomes much more mainstream, 250GB might be nothing.  Now you've got an awesome (unlimited, for netflix anyway) service you can't use to its full potential because the company you pay to help deliver it from that other company you pay to your house doesn't want to (not unlimited).<br> <br>I think that the challenges in bringing streaming services to the web are great enough that physical media isn't really going to go away anytime soon.  Sad really, it's a damn cool idea and works pretty well.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Streaming is neat and probably what everything will convert to eventually .
I just got a subscription for Netflix , and while being able to stream movies or tv shows on demand is really cool , they just do n't have a big enough streaming library .
With these types of services I do n't really see any one service becoming dominate anytime soon .
For example , Fox does n't seem to stream anything on netflix ( ca n't find king of the hill , simpsons , american dad , house , etc ) but all their stuff is on Hulu .
Well that 's fine , until Hulu starts charging access fees too ; now you have to buy subscriptions to two different companies instead of just one .
Maybe that 's not a huge deal , but it 's annoying and will turn people off ; I 'd rather pay twice as much to access everything in one place than have to constantly guess which service I need to view X , Y , or Z. On top of this , you have ISPs who want to cap your bandwidth .
Comcast says 250GB/mo .
Sure that 's plenty now , but in 2-3 years when highdef streaming becomes much more mainstream , 250GB might be nothing .
Now you 've got an awesome ( unlimited , for netflix anyway ) service you ca n't use to its full potential because the company you pay to help deliver it from that other company you pay to your house does n't want to ( not unlimited ) .
I think that the challenges in bringing streaming services to the web are great enough that physical media is n't really going to go away anytime soon .
Sad really , it 's a damn cool idea and works pretty well .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Streaming is neat and probably what everything will convert to eventually.
I just got a subscription for Netflix, and while being able to stream movies or tv shows on demand is really cool, they just don't have a big enough streaming library.
With these types of services I don't really see any one service becoming dominate anytime soon.
For example, Fox doesn't seem to stream anything on netflix (can't find king of the hill, simpsons, american dad, house, etc) but all their stuff is on Hulu.
Well that's fine, until Hulu starts charging access fees too; now you have to buy subscriptions to two different companies instead of just one.
Maybe that's not a huge deal, but it's annoying and will turn people off; I'd rather pay twice as much to access everything in one place than have to constantly guess which service I need to view X, Y, or Z. On top of this, you have ISPs who want to cap your bandwidth.
Comcast says 250GB/mo.
Sure that's plenty now, but in 2-3 years when highdef streaming becomes much more mainstream, 250GB might be nothing.
Now you've got an awesome (unlimited, for netflix anyway) service you can't use to its full potential because the company you pay to help deliver it from that other company you pay to your house doesn't want to (not unlimited).
I think that the challenges in bringing streaming services to the web are great enough that physical media isn't really going to go away anytime soon.
Sad really, it's a damn cool idea and works pretty well.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1339213.28421679</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1339213.28421747</id>
	<title>Re:Let's get this straight:</title>
	<author>Darkness404</author>
	<datestamp>1245684240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Exactly. The main reasons people got DVDs is that they were more reliable, didn't have to rewind, you didn't have players that would "eat" the DVD as with tapes, they were smaller so you could store more and you could store more on it so a movie that took 2 tapes would take only 1 DVD.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Exactly .
The main reasons people got DVDs is that they were more reliable , did n't have to rewind , you did n't have players that would " eat " the DVD as with tapes , they were smaller so you could store more and you could store more on it so a movie that took 2 tapes would take only 1 DVD .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Exactly.
The main reasons people got DVDs is that they were more reliable, didn't have to rewind, you didn't have players that would "eat" the DVD as with tapes, they were smaller so you could store more and you could store more on it so a movie that took 2 tapes would take only 1 DVD.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1339213.28421243</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1339213.28423021</id>
	<title>Especially when you rip and re-encode.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245688440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt;At normal viewing distance I honestly can't tell the difference.</p><p>I rip the DVDs I buy using SlySofts AnyDVD, so that I can dump all the advertisements and FBI warnings and the like.  I've got my encoder settings to 3-pass and and a good quality so that most movies end up about 1.7 - 2GB in size.  This does produce some quality artifacts in the end product.</p><p>But in the end, in my opinion, it's the STORY that makes the movie, not the film quality, and the convenience of ripped movies far outweighs any quality degradation.</p><p>So if you're going to rip and re-encode your movies, blue-ray is a waste of time.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; At normal viewing distance I honestly ca n't tell the difference.I rip the DVDs I buy using SlySofts AnyDVD , so that I can dump all the advertisements and FBI warnings and the like .
I 've got my encoder settings to 3-pass and and a good quality so that most movies end up about 1.7 - 2GB in size .
This does produce some quality artifacts in the end product.But in the end , in my opinion , it 's the STORY that makes the movie , not the film quality , and the convenience of ripped movies far outweighs any quality degradation.So if you 're going to rip and re-encode your movies , blue-ray is a waste of time .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt;At normal viewing distance I honestly can't tell the difference.I rip the DVDs I buy using SlySofts AnyDVD, so that I can dump all the advertisements and FBI warnings and the like.
I've got my encoder settings to 3-pass and and a good quality so that most movies end up about 1.7 - 2GB in size.
This does produce some quality artifacts in the end product.But in the end, in my opinion, it's the STORY that makes the movie, not the film quality, and the convenience of ripped movies far outweighs any quality degradation.So if you're going to rip and re-encode your movies, blue-ray is a waste of time.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1339213.28421501</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1339213.28424571</id>
	<title>Re:Flawed interpretation of the study</title>
	<author>Abcd1234</author>
	<datestamp>1245693660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>The PS3 is, first and foremost, a Blu-Ray player. That's how it was designed, that's how it was marketed</i></p><p>Buh??  I call bullshit.  The PS3 is a gaming platform that happens to double as a Blu-Ray player, just as the PS2 was a gaming platform that doubled as a DVD player.  I've never seen any evidence that it was ever marketed as anything else, and I'd love to see support for such an outlandish claim.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The PS3 is , first and foremost , a Blu-Ray player .
That 's how it was designed , that 's how it was marketedBuh ? ?
I call bullshit .
The PS3 is a gaming platform that happens to double as a Blu-Ray player , just as the PS2 was a gaming platform that doubled as a DVD player .
I 've never seen any evidence that it was ever marketed as anything else , and I 'd love to see support for such an outlandish claim .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The PS3 is, first and foremost, a Blu-Ray player.
That's how it was designed, that's how it was marketedBuh??
I call bullshit.
The PS3 is a gaming platform that happens to double as a Blu-Ray player, just as the PS2 was a gaming platform that doubled as a DVD player.
I've never seen any evidence that it was ever marketed as anything else, and I'd love to see support for such an outlandish claim.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1339213.28421377</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1339213.28423887</id>
	<title>Re:Don't buy into that lie</title>
	<author>Sockatume</author>
	<datestamp>1245691440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>That was how Sony convinced the producers that they had won, by counting PS3's instead of stand alone players. This is no different than some of the Apple people claiming 10\% market share but failing to state that it included phones!</i> <br>
<br>
Actually it's very different. The PS3 is, technically, no different from any other standards-compliant Blu-Ray player. For the longest time it was one of the few that could be updated to keep up wtih Blu-Ray spec bumps and was frequently one of only a handful of players keeping up with those bumps. An iPhone is quite transparently very different from a personal computer.</htmltext>
<tokenext>That was how Sony convinced the producers that they had won , by counting PS3 's instead of stand alone players .
This is no different than some of the Apple people claiming 10 \ % market share but failing to state that it included phones !
Actually it 's very different .
The PS3 is , technically , no different from any other standards-compliant Blu-Ray player .
For the longest time it was one of the few that could be updated to keep up wtih Blu-Ray spec bumps and was frequently one of only a handful of players keeping up with those bumps .
An iPhone is quite transparently very different from a personal computer .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That was how Sony convinced the producers that they had won, by counting PS3's instead of stand alone players.
This is no different than some of the Apple people claiming 10\% market share but failing to state that it included phones!
Actually it's very different.
The PS3 is, technically, no different from any other standards-compliant Blu-Ray player.
For the longest time it was one of the few that could be updated to keep up wtih Blu-Ray spec bumps and was frequently one of only a handful of players keeping up with those bumps.
An iPhone is quite transparently very different from a personal computer.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1339213.28421839</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1339213.28427327</id>
	<title>Re:I wonder</title>
	<author>noidentity</author>
	<datestamp>1245703260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I imagine this is why many people have HD-DVD players, because they also have good DVD upscalers. I wish I had gotten an HD-DVD player when they were on clearance, even though I only watch DVDs...</htmltext>
<tokenext>I imagine this is why many people have HD-DVD players , because they also have good DVD upscalers .
I wish I had gotten an HD-DVD player when they were on clearance , even though I only watch DVDs.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I imagine this is why many people have HD-DVD players, because they also have good DVD upscalers.
I wish I had gotten an HD-DVD player when they were on clearance, even though I only watch DVDs...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1339213.28421195</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1339213.28427269</id>
	<title>Re:I work in he rental industry</title>
	<author>Gryll</author>
	<datestamp>1245703140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm not sure how large your 720p LCD screen is but I've done some A/B testing of the same movie between blu-ray and dvd on my 56" 1080p LCD at normal viewing distance and the improvement is quite noticeable. Even though there is noticeable improvement in picture sharpness I find the color depth to be the main thing I appreciate.</p><p>That said movie production quality is a big factor also.  For example on blu-ray you can clearly see how some of the non-cgi scenes in Transformers look grainy most likely do them trying to punch up the light of shots made in low light with lenses that were too slow.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm not sure how large your 720p LCD screen is but I 've done some A/B testing of the same movie between blu-ray and dvd on my 56 " 1080p LCD at normal viewing distance and the improvement is quite noticeable .
Even though there is noticeable improvement in picture sharpness I find the color depth to be the main thing I appreciate.That said movie production quality is a big factor also .
For example on blu-ray you can clearly see how some of the non-cgi scenes in Transformers look grainy most likely do them trying to punch up the light of shots made in low light with lenses that were too slow .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm not sure how large your 720p LCD screen is but I've done some A/B testing of the same movie between blu-ray and dvd on my 56" 1080p LCD at normal viewing distance and the improvement is quite noticeable.
Even though there is noticeable improvement in picture sharpness I find the color depth to be the main thing I appreciate.That said movie production quality is a big factor also.
For example on blu-ray you can clearly see how some of the non-cgi scenes in Transformers look grainy most likely do them trying to punch up the light of shots made in low light with lenses that were too slow.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1339213.28421501</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1339213.28430825</id>
	<title>Re:I work in he rental industry</title>
	<author>hazydave</author>
	<datestamp>1245672180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If they're identical HDTVs, you're probably not crippling DVD much. All digital TVs do internal up/down scaling anyway, most also do inverse telecine on 24p material that was pulled down to send over at 60i. Digital displays don't directly support interlaced video, you need good 2D rescaling to avoid pixelization of SD material, most run at 60Hz if not 120Hz refresh these days. A digital link from your DVD player helps, and sure, there are upscalers of different quality out there, but it's actually kind of hard to not upscale a DVD on a modern TV today. The upscaler in the DVD player was largely a way to sell new DVD players to people who already had them.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If they 're identical HDTVs , you 're probably not crippling DVD much .
All digital TVs do internal up/down scaling anyway , most also do inverse telecine on 24p material that was pulled down to send over at 60i .
Digital displays do n't directly support interlaced video , you need good 2D rescaling to avoid pixelization of SD material , most run at 60Hz if not 120Hz refresh these days .
A digital link from your DVD player helps , and sure , there are upscalers of different quality out there , but it 's actually kind of hard to not upscale a DVD on a modern TV today .
The upscaler in the DVD player was largely a way to sell new DVD players to people who already had them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If they're identical HDTVs, you're probably not crippling DVD much.
All digital TVs do internal up/down scaling anyway, most also do inverse telecine on 24p material that was pulled down to send over at 60i.
Digital displays don't directly support interlaced video, you need good 2D rescaling to avoid pixelization of SD material, most run at 60Hz if not 120Hz refresh these days.
A digital link from your DVD player helps, and sure, there are upscalers of different quality out there, but it's actually kind of hard to not upscale a DVD on a modern TV today.
The upscaler in the DVD player was largely a way to sell new DVD players to people who already had them.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1339213.28422157</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1339213.28421757</id>
	<title>The first step is a beaut</title>
	<author>eudaemon</author>
	<datestamp>1245684240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I have an up-converting DVD player connected via HDMI to a 720p flat panel, and I also have a<br>Windows Media Center box driving the same flat-panel via HDMI.  Both render a *really* nice picture.<br>Could I get an even better picture from bluray source material? Sure.  But I also need to upgrade my<br>flat panel to fully benefit from bluray.  So now it's $200 for the player and another $600+ for a new<br>"reasonably" (32" or more) sized 1080p flat panel.  That's a steep barrier to entry when 95\% of my<br>TV watching is either downloaded torrents or streamed from Netflix.  I'm sure Netflix would send me bluray<br>movies instead of regular def DVD with no incremental costs.  But still, it's not worth it.  Not yet.</p><p>If I do buy anything *right now* I'll go buy a $200 bluray player with netflix streaming. Incrementally another $100<br>for a bluray player instead of $100 for a roku? I can justify that.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I have an up-converting DVD player connected via HDMI to a 720p flat panel , and I also have aWindows Media Center box driving the same flat-panel via HDMI .
Both render a * really * nice picture.Could I get an even better picture from bluray source material ?
Sure. But I also need to upgrade myflat panel to fully benefit from bluray .
So now it 's $ 200 for the player and another $ 600 + for a new " reasonably " ( 32 " or more ) sized 1080p flat panel .
That 's a steep barrier to entry when 95 \ % of myTV watching is either downloaded torrents or streamed from Netflix .
I 'm sure Netflix would send me bluraymovies instead of regular def DVD with no incremental costs .
But still , it 's not worth it .
Not yet.If I do buy anything * right now * I 'll go buy a $ 200 bluray player with netflix streaming .
Incrementally another $ 100for a bluray player instead of $ 100 for a roku ?
I can justify that .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I have an up-converting DVD player connected via HDMI to a 720p flat panel, and I also have aWindows Media Center box driving the same flat-panel via HDMI.
Both render a *really* nice picture.Could I get an even better picture from bluray source material?
Sure.  But I also need to upgrade myflat panel to fully benefit from bluray.
So now it's $200 for the player and another $600+ for a new"reasonably" (32" or more) sized 1080p flat panel.
That's a steep barrier to entry when 95\% of myTV watching is either downloaded torrents or streamed from Netflix.
I'm sure Netflix would send me bluraymovies instead of regular def DVD with no incremental costs.
But still, it's not worth it.
Not yet.If I do buy anything *right now* I'll go buy a $200 bluray player with netflix streaming.
Incrementally another $100for a bluray player instead of $100 for a roku?
I can justify that.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1339213.28421193</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1339213.28424421</id>
	<title>Re:Don't buy into that lie</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245693240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>If your friends spend 500$ on a 'KIDS MACHINE' they either have to be filthy rich or insanely retarded.<br> <br>
I have a PS3 and I own only 2 blu-rays that I picked up from a bargain bin at best buy (9.99 each). I get my blu-rays from netflix and none of them have ever forced me to watch *any* ads/previews. <br>
On the other hand, I have a bunch of dvd's that absolutely insist that I sit through 5 mins of ads to get to the root menu even though I purchased them.<br> <br>
Blu-rays on my PS3 load up in 5-6 seconds, max 10. How much faster is hd-dvd? nanosecond load times? What do you mean extortionist prices? When both formats were competing for market dominion, the prices for the discs were pretty much the same, hd-dvd's are going for $4 each coz merchants are trying to dispose of the stock, If hd had won, you would be seeing blu-rays for 99c.</htmltext>
<tokenext>If your friends spend 500 $ on a 'KIDS MACHINE ' they either have to be filthy rich or insanely retarded .
I have a PS3 and I own only 2 blu-rays that I picked up from a bargain bin at best buy ( 9.99 each ) .
I get my blu-rays from netflix and none of them have ever forced me to watch * any * ads/previews .
On the other hand , I have a bunch of dvd 's that absolutely insist that I sit through 5 mins of ads to get to the root menu even though I purchased them .
Blu-rays on my PS3 load up in 5-6 seconds , max 10 .
How much faster is hd-dvd ?
nanosecond load times ?
What do you mean extortionist prices ?
When both formats were competing for market dominion , the prices for the discs were pretty much the same , hd-dvd 's are going for $ 4 each coz merchants are trying to dispose of the stock , If hd had won , you would be seeing blu-rays for 99c .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If your friends spend 500$ on a 'KIDS MACHINE' they either have to be filthy rich or insanely retarded.
I have a PS3 and I own only 2 blu-rays that I picked up from a bargain bin at best buy (9.99 each).
I get my blu-rays from netflix and none of them have ever forced me to watch *any* ads/previews.
On the other hand, I have a bunch of dvd's that absolutely insist that I sit through 5 mins of ads to get to the root menu even though I purchased them.
Blu-rays on my PS3 load up in 5-6 seconds, max 10.
How much faster is hd-dvd?
nanosecond load times?
What do you mean extortionist prices?
When both formats were competing for market dominion, the prices for the discs were pretty much the same, hd-dvd's are going for $4 each coz merchants are trying to dispose of the stock, If hd had won, you would be seeing blu-rays for 99c.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1339213.28421839</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1339213.28425757</id>
	<title>Re:I work in he rental industry</title>
	<author>torqer</author>
	<datestamp>1245697740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Normal Viewing Distance is really the essential part.</p><p>To fully notice the detail 1080p you need to sit approx 7 feet away from a 50 inch TV.<br>If you bought one of those 32inch TVs... Try 4 feet away.  You'll only start to the benefits of 720p at 9 feet.</p><p>If you watch your TV from across a decent sized room, you need an exceptionally large screen to really soak in the benefits.</p><p><a href="http://s3.carltonbale.com/resolution\_chart.html" title="carltonbale.com">http://s3.carltonbale.com/resolution\_chart.html</a> [carltonbale.com]<br><a href="http://www.carltonbale.com/2006/11/1080p-does-matter/" title="carltonbale.com">http://www.carltonbale.com/2006/11/1080p-does-matter/</a> [carltonbale.com]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Normal Viewing Distance is really the essential part.To fully notice the detail 1080p you need to sit approx 7 feet away from a 50 inch TV.If you bought one of those 32inch TVs... Try 4 feet away .
You 'll only start to the benefits of 720p at 9 feet.If you watch your TV from across a decent sized room , you need an exceptionally large screen to really soak in the benefits.http : //s3.carltonbale.com/resolution \ _chart.html [ carltonbale.com ] http : //www.carltonbale.com/2006/11/1080p-does-matter/ [ carltonbale.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Normal Viewing Distance is really the essential part.To fully notice the detail 1080p you need to sit approx 7 feet away from a 50 inch TV.If you bought one of those 32inch TVs... Try 4 feet away.
You'll only start to the benefits of 720p at 9 feet.If you watch your TV from across a decent sized room, you need an exceptionally large screen to really soak in the benefits.http://s3.carltonbale.com/resolution\_chart.html [carltonbale.com]http://www.carltonbale.com/2006/11/1080p-does-matter/ [carltonbale.com]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1339213.28421501</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1339213.28429097</id>
	<title>This is compete fiction... just do the math.</title>
	<author>hazydave</author>
	<datestamp>1245665760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Troll much? This was clearly a faulty survey... and really, why get all excited about a survey of some otherwise unexplained but small group of people. Like any survey, the results tell you something about the group being surveyed, but it may not be that interesting on an absolutely scale. And so you can't even begin to extrapolate to the whole USA, or you'll just sound foolish. What the survey definitely seems to tells us... more Harris Interactive poll takers have HD-DVD stand-alone players than Blu-Ray.</p><p>But hey, this is public info... why not just do the math? About 500,000 stand-alone Blu-Ray players were sold prior to 2008, world-wide (Blu-Ray Disc Association Press Release, CES 2008).  At the start of 2008, the HD-DVD players were ahead, though even by then, the Blu-Ray market had the numbers, if you added in PS3s. And it showed... at the start of 2008, BD software was outselling HD-DVD 2:1. Add in the PS3s, and that's about 10.7 million players in US homes at the end of 2008 (BDA again), including a total of 3.1 million stand-alone players (Adams Media Research).</p><p>And keep adding... stand-alone Blu-Ray player sales for 1Q09 topped 400,000 in the USA alone. That's nearly as many as all of the dedicated HD-DVD players ever sold in the US market (widely distributed press release, here's one example: http://www.npd.com/press/releases/press\_090506.html). Sony did 2.5 million PS3s in the same quarter, worldwide... I couldn't find US figures, but they're still doing a nice business, even with stand-alone Blu-Ray players a better deal these days (when the PS3 was the cheapest BD player on the market, it was kind of a no-brainer). So we're closing in if not already passed the 12 million mark on Blu-Ray players in the USA, including PS3s.</p><p>At the press conference in 2008, Toshiba's announcement of discontinuing the HD-DVD, they gave numbers:</p><p><div class="quote"><p>At the press conference, Atsutoshi Nishida also revealed total HD-DVD hardware sales worldwide, facts previously made opaque in officially announcements. A grand total of 1.3-million HD-DVD players sold worldwide breaks down to 300k Xbox 360 drives, 300k PC drives, 600k dedicated US players, 100k dedicated Euro players, and 30,000 dedicated Japanese players. Against the more than 10-million Blu-ray players in circulation, HD-DVD was indeed fighting an uphill battle in the format war. Nishida also commented that Toshiba has "no plan at all this moment" to begin supporting Blu-ray.</p> </div><p>Keep in mind... Toshiba made ALL the HD-DVD players other than the Samsung dual-more players. It seemed like an open spec, but with Toshiba heavily subsusizing their hardware in order to beat Blu-Ray on price, no one else could hope to compete. So no one else did... they all went to the Blu-Ray camp.</p><p>And so there are nearly 10x as many Blu-Ray capable players in the USA now as all of the HD-DVD players that will ever be made, world-wide. But even looking at dedicated players, there are over 2.5x more dedicated Blu-Ray players sold in the USA now than Toshiba made HD-DVD players for the whole world. This post was nothing but a troll.. the post itself might even have mentioned that this result was from a poll, not an actual examination of published or tracked sales figures.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Troll much ?
This was clearly a faulty survey... and really , why get all excited about a survey of some otherwise unexplained but small group of people .
Like any survey , the results tell you something about the group being surveyed , but it may not be that interesting on an absolutely scale .
And so you ca n't even begin to extrapolate to the whole USA , or you 'll just sound foolish .
What the survey definitely seems to tells us... more Harris Interactive poll takers have HD-DVD stand-alone players than Blu-Ray.But hey , this is public info... why not just do the math ?
About 500,000 stand-alone Blu-Ray players were sold prior to 2008 , world-wide ( Blu-Ray Disc Association Press Release , CES 2008 ) .
At the start of 2008 , the HD-DVD players were ahead , though even by then , the Blu-Ray market had the numbers , if you added in PS3s .
And it showed... at the start of 2008 , BD software was outselling HD-DVD 2 : 1 .
Add in the PS3s , and that 's about 10.7 million players in US homes at the end of 2008 ( BDA again ) , including a total of 3.1 million stand-alone players ( Adams Media Research ) .And keep adding... stand-alone Blu-Ray player sales for 1Q09 topped 400,000 in the USA alone .
That 's nearly as many as all of the dedicated HD-DVD players ever sold in the US market ( widely distributed press release , here 's one example : http : //www.npd.com/press/releases/press \ _090506.html ) .
Sony did 2.5 million PS3s in the same quarter , worldwide... I could n't find US figures , but they 're still doing a nice business , even with stand-alone Blu-Ray players a better deal these days ( when the PS3 was the cheapest BD player on the market , it was kind of a no-brainer ) .
So we 're closing in if not already passed the 12 million mark on Blu-Ray players in the USA , including PS3s.At the press conference in 2008 , Toshiba 's announcement of discontinuing the HD-DVD , they gave numbers : At the press conference , Atsutoshi Nishida also revealed total HD-DVD hardware sales worldwide , facts previously made opaque in officially announcements .
A grand total of 1.3-million HD-DVD players sold worldwide breaks down to 300k Xbox 360 drives , 300k PC drives , 600k dedicated US players , 100k dedicated Euro players , and 30,000 dedicated Japanese players .
Against the more than 10-million Blu-ray players in circulation , HD-DVD was indeed fighting an uphill battle in the format war .
Nishida also commented that Toshiba has " no plan at all this moment " to begin supporting Blu-ray .
Keep in mind... Toshiba made ALL the HD-DVD players other than the Samsung dual-more players .
It seemed like an open spec , but with Toshiba heavily subsusizing their hardware in order to beat Blu-Ray on price , no one else could hope to compete .
So no one else did... they all went to the Blu-Ray camp.And so there are nearly 10x as many Blu-Ray capable players in the USA now as all of the HD-DVD players that will ever be made , world-wide .
But even looking at dedicated players , there are over 2.5x more dedicated Blu-Ray players sold in the USA now than Toshiba made HD-DVD players for the whole world .
This post was nothing but a troll.. the post itself might even have mentioned that this result was from a poll , not an actual examination of published or tracked sales figures .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Troll much?
This was clearly a faulty survey... and really, why get all excited about a survey of some otherwise unexplained but small group of people.
Like any survey, the results tell you something about the group being surveyed, but it may not be that interesting on an absolutely scale.
And so you can't even begin to extrapolate to the whole USA, or you'll just sound foolish.
What the survey definitely seems to tells us... more Harris Interactive poll takers have HD-DVD stand-alone players than Blu-Ray.But hey, this is public info... why not just do the math?
About 500,000 stand-alone Blu-Ray players were sold prior to 2008, world-wide (Blu-Ray Disc Association Press Release, CES 2008).
At the start of 2008, the HD-DVD players were ahead, though even by then, the Blu-Ray market had the numbers, if you added in PS3s.
And it showed... at the start of 2008, BD software was outselling HD-DVD 2:1.
Add in the PS3s, and that's about 10.7 million players in US homes at the end of 2008 (BDA again), including a total of 3.1 million stand-alone players (Adams Media Research).And keep adding... stand-alone Blu-Ray player sales for 1Q09 topped 400,000 in the USA alone.
That's nearly as many as all of the dedicated HD-DVD players ever sold in the US market (widely distributed press release, here's one example: http://www.npd.com/press/releases/press\_090506.html).
Sony did 2.5 million PS3s in the same quarter, worldwide... I couldn't find US figures, but they're still doing a nice business, even with stand-alone Blu-Ray players a better deal these days (when the PS3 was the cheapest BD player on the market, it was kind of a no-brainer).
So we're closing in if not already passed the 12 million mark on Blu-Ray players in the USA, including PS3s.At the press conference in 2008, Toshiba's announcement of discontinuing the HD-DVD, they gave numbers:At the press conference, Atsutoshi Nishida also revealed total HD-DVD hardware sales worldwide, facts previously made opaque in officially announcements.
A grand total of 1.3-million HD-DVD players sold worldwide breaks down to 300k Xbox 360 drives, 300k PC drives, 600k dedicated US players, 100k dedicated Euro players, and 30,000 dedicated Japanese players.
Against the more than 10-million Blu-ray players in circulation, HD-DVD was indeed fighting an uphill battle in the format war.
Nishida also commented that Toshiba has "no plan at all this moment" to begin supporting Blu-ray.
Keep in mind... Toshiba made ALL the HD-DVD players other than the Samsung dual-more players.
It seemed like an open spec, but with Toshiba heavily subsusizing their hardware in order to beat Blu-Ray on price, no one else could hope to compete.
So no one else did... they all went to the Blu-Ray camp.And so there are nearly 10x as many Blu-Ray capable players in the USA now as all of the HD-DVD players that will ever be made, world-wide.
But even looking at dedicated players, there are over 2.5x more dedicated Blu-Ray players sold in the USA now than Toshiba made HD-DVD players for the whole world.
This post was nothing but a troll.. the post itself might even have mentioned that this result was from a poll, not an actual examination of published or tracked sales figures.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1339213.28427151</id>
	<title>DVD Decrypter</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245702780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm pretty happy upscaling my DVD-Decrypted, VOB-cleaned, DVD-Shrunk, Movie-only (i.e. "clean"--no menus, previews, crap, etc.) disks to 720p.  What is the cost/benefit to going to blu-ray?  NOT worthwhile, I'm sure.  What are the odds of being caught doing this?  Pretty slim.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm pretty happy upscaling my DVD-Decrypted , VOB-cleaned , DVD-Shrunk , Movie-only ( i.e .
" clean " --no menus , previews , crap , etc .
) disks to 720p .
What is the cost/benefit to going to blu-ray ?
NOT worthwhile , I 'm sure .
What are the odds of being caught doing this ?
Pretty slim .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm pretty happy upscaling my DVD-Decrypted, VOB-cleaned, DVD-Shrunk, Movie-only (i.e.
"clean"--no menus, previews, crap, etc.
) disks to 720p.
What is the cost/benefit to going to blu-ray?
NOT worthwhile, I'm sure.
What are the odds of being caught doing this?
Pretty slim.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1339213.28425031</id>
	<title>Re:Don't buy into that lie</title>
	<author>terjeber</author>
	<datestamp>1245695340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>the movies border on extortionist in pricing</p></div><p><div class="quote"><p>only one of the circle of friends who has a PS3 have more than two blu ray movies</p></div><p>Cool stats. Bad ones of course. 14\% of movies sold today are on BD. Easy stats. Not like the dumb-ass stuff the OP quoted. Dumb-ass not because I disagree with it but because it was astonishingly wrong. Tosh never sold enough HD-DVD players to cover 11\% of the US market. Even if all of them were sold in the US.</p><p>Enough sour grapes for 200 gallons of bad wine. Wrong too of course. Why don't you just check Amazon for BD movie prices please?</p><p>Oh, and forced play has been a part of all movie formats since (and including) DVD. It was part of HD-DVD too. Please try to get your facts straight before you take the offer of a tissue from the Anonymous Coward below.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>the movies border on extortionist in pricingonly one of the circle of friends who has a PS3 have more than two blu ray moviesCool stats .
Bad ones of course .
14 \ % of movies sold today are on BD .
Easy stats .
Not like the dumb-ass stuff the OP quoted .
Dumb-ass not because I disagree with it but because it was astonishingly wrong .
Tosh never sold enough HD-DVD players to cover 11 \ % of the US market .
Even if all of them were sold in the US.Enough sour grapes for 200 gallons of bad wine .
Wrong too of course .
Why do n't you just check Amazon for BD movie prices please ? Oh , and forced play has been a part of all movie formats since ( and including ) DVD .
It was part of HD-DVD too .
Please try to get your facts straight before you take the offer of a tissue from the Anonymous Coward below .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>the movies border on extortionist in pricingonly one of the circle of friends who has a PS3 have more than two blu ray moviesCool stats.
Bad ones of course.
14\% of movies sold today are on BD.
Easy stats.
Not like the dumb-ass stuff the OP quoted.
Dumb-ass not because I disagree with it but because it was astonishingly wrong.
Tosh never sold enough HD-DVD players to cover 11\% of the US market.
Even if all of them were sold in the US.Enough sour grapes for 200 gallons of bad wine.
Wrong too of course.
Why don't you just check Amazon for BD movie prices please?Oh, and forced play has been a part of all movie formats since (and including) DVD.
It was part of HD-DVD too.
Please try to get your facts straight before you take the offer of a tissue from the Anonymous Coward below.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1339213.28421839</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1339213.28423973</id>
	<title>My Blu-Ray player is in the repair shop</title>
	<author>zerofoo</author>
	<datestamp>1245691680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>And I don't miss it.  I have plenty of DVDs, DVRed material, and streaming content (iTunes, Boxee, Cable Co, and Satellite) to keep me entertained.</p><p>As a matter of fact, apart from the few Blu-Ray movies I own, I would probably never miss my player if it was never returned to me.</p><p>Alternative content sources, apart from cost, may be Blu-Ray's biggest problem.</p><p>-ted</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>And I do n't miss it .
I have plenty of DVDs , DVRed material , and streaming content ( iTunes , Boxee , Cable Co , and Satellite ) to keep me entertained.As a matter of fact , apart from the few Blu-Ray movies I own , I would probably never miss my player if it was never returned to me.Alternative content sources , apart from cost , may be Blu-Ray 's biggest problem.-ted</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And I don't miss it.
I have plenty of DVDs, DVRed material, and streaming content (iTunes, Boxee, Cable Co, and Satellite) to keep me entertained.As a matter of fact, apart from the few Blu-Ray movies I own, I would probably never miss my player if it was never returned to me.Alternative content sources, apart from cost, may be Blu-Ray's biggest problem.-ted</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1339213.28429679</id>
	<title>I think in the age of iTunes, internet videos</title>
	<author>msimm</author>
	<datestamp>1245667860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>and post hd-dvd/blue-ray format war the consumer has simply started to notice the benefits of high definition isn't tied to a expensive platter produced by a single vendor/consortium. We'd been forced to choose and there was a time when it appeared to make sense, but the magic of blue-ray technology isn't the high quality video or the expensive little boxes, it's a just delivery system.</htmltext>
<tokenext>and post hd-dvd/blue-ray format war the consumer has simply started to notice the benefits of high definition is n't tied to a expensive platter produced by a single vendor/consortium .
We 'd been forced to choose and there was a time when it appeared to make sense , but the magic of blue-ray technology is n't the high quality video or the expensive little boxes , it 's a just delivery system .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>and post hd-dvd/blue-ray format war the consumer has simply started to notice the benefits of high definition isn't tied to a expensive platter produced by a single vendor/consortium.
We'd been forced to choose and there was a time when it appeared to make sense, but the magic of blue-ray technology isn't the high quality video or the expensive little boxes, it's a just delivery system.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1339213.28422999</id>
	<title>Re:Both are obsolete.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245688320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>They've been out slightly over 3 years, not 4. And Blu-ray has so far been adopted more quickly than DVD (and VHS, audio CDs, HDTV, color TV,<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>They 've been out slightly over 3 years , not 4 .
And Blu-ray has so far been adopted more quickly than DVD ( and VHS , audio CDs , HDTV , color TV , ... ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They've been out slightly over 3 years, not 4.
And Blu-ray has so far been adopted more quickly than DVD (and VHS, audio CDs, HDTV, color TV, ...).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1339213.28421543</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1339213.28422325</id>
	<title>DVD Good enough</title>
	<author>justleavealonemmmkay</author>
	<datestamp>1245686100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Lemme see. I could afford a 600 Full HD flat screen, but really, why do it before my 82cm CRT dies somewhere in 2020 ? Even if I had a flat screen, DVD would be good enough.</p><p>DVD brought to us good enough pictures on a price that makes any video marketable at virtually any price. Yeah it was fine to watch LOTR on it, but seeing the crappy 1980s cartoons most Gen-Xers buy in bulk, the picture quality is not the main selling point. It's that it's very cheap to produce.</p><p>Blu Ray does not add a lot on top of it. Good classics won't be release for the next 5 years, for the same reason they were not released immediately on DVD: you don't want your A-list movie to be in the budget bin by the time everyone has a player. The manufacturing cost is probably low, but not as low as DVDs. And niche crap that we were happy to watch on a b&amp;w CRT in 1982 are readily available on DVD, so why wait ?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Lem me see .
I could afford a 600 Full HD flat screen , but really , why do it before my 82cm CRT dies somewhere in 2020 ?
Even if I had a flat screen , DVD would be good enough.DVD brought to us good enough pictures on a price that makes any video marketable at virtually any price .
Yeah it was fine to watch LOTR on it , but seeing the crappy 1980s cartoons most Gen-Xers buy in bulk , the picture quality is not the main selling point .
It 's that it 's very cheap to produce.Blu Ray does not add a lot on top of it .
Good classics wo n't be release for the next 5 years , for the same reason they were not released immediately on DVD : you do n't want your A-list movie to be in the budget bin by the time everyone has a player .
The manufacturing cost is probably low , but not as low as DVDs .
And niche crap that we were happy to watch on a b&amp;w CRT in 1982 are readily available on DVD , so why wait ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Lemme see.
I could afford a 600 Full HD flat screen, but really, why do it before my 82cm CRT dies somewhere in 2020 ?
Even if I had a flat screen, DVD would be good enough.DVD brought to us good enough pictures on a price that makes any video marketable at virtually any price.
Yeah it was fine to watch LOTR on it, but seeing the crappy 1980s cartoons most Gen-Xers buy in bulk, the picture quality is not the main selling point.
It's that it's very cheap to produce.Blu Ray does not add a lot on top of it.
Good classics won't be release for the next 5 years, for the same reason they were not released immediately on DVD: you don't want your A-list movie to be in the budget bin by the time everyone has a player.
The manufacturing cost is probably low, but not as low as DVDs.
And niche crap that we were happy to watch on a b&amp;w CRT in 1982 are readily available on DVD, so why wait ?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1339213.28422741</id>
	<title>Re:Don't buy into that lie</title>
	<author>Aladrin</author>
	<datestamp>1245687480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"HD-DVD loaded faster,"</p><p>Mine doesn't.  Waiting for my HDDVD to start up is extremely painful.  It's 2-3x the startuptime of my ps3, more, if you include the time to actually start playing the movie on each.</p><p>"have less expensive players,"</p><p>At the time, yes.  (Of course, the best BluRay player at the time also plays video games...)</p><p>" and less expensive movies."</p><p>Now, but not then.  Back then, I was paying the same for both, when you compare the same movie in each format.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" HD-DVD loaded faster , " Mine does n't .
Waiting for my HDDVD to start up is extremely painful .
It 's 2-3x the startuptime of my ps3 , more , if you include the time to actually start playing the movie on each .
" have less expensive players , " At the time , yes .
( Of course , the best BluRay player at the time also plays video games... ) " and less expensive movies .
" Now , but not then .
Back then , I was paying the same for both , when you compare the same movie in each format .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"HD-DVD loaded faster,"Mine doesn't.
Waiting for my HDDVD to start up is extremely painful.
It's 2-3x the startuptime of my ps3, more, if you include the time to actually start playing the movie on each.
"have less expensive players,"At the time, yes.
(Of course, the best BluRay player at the time also plays video games...)" and less expensive movies.
"Now, but not then.
Back then, I was paying the same for both, when you compare the same movie in each format.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1339213.28421839</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1339213.28441169</id>
	<title>Re:really?</title>
	<author>Nick Ives</author>
	<datestamp>1245780600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>On the other hand, games compete with films -- quite a few of those PS3 owners do not own a single Blu-Ray movie.</p></div><p>PS3 has the opposite problem, there are more people with films and no games than there are with games and no films. That's part of the reason behind the PS3's awful <a href="http://kotaku.com/5222086/ps3-attach-rate-overtakes-wii-attach-rate" title="kotaku.com">attach rate</a> [kotaku.com].</p><p>N.B. Those calculations for attach rate are based off NPD sales figures which are only relevant for North American and don't include downloadable games from PSN which is a big thing because PSN has some gems that've done gangbusters.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>On the other hand , games compete with films -- quite a few of those PS3 owners do not own a single Blu-Ray movie.PS3 has the opposite problem , there are more people with films and no games than there are with games and no films .
That 's part of the reason behind the PS3 's awful attach rate [ kotaku.com ] .N.B .
Those calculations for attach rate are based off NPD sales figures which are only relevant for North American and do n't include downloadable games from PSN which is a big thing because PSN has some gems that 've done gangbusters .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>On the other hand, games compete with films -- quite a few of those PS3 owners do not own a single Blu-Ray movie.PS3 has the opposite problem, there are more people with films and no games than there are with games and no films.
That's part of the reason behind the PS3's awful attach rate [kotaku.com].N.B.
Those calculations for attach rate are based off NPD sales figures which are only relevant for North American and don't include downloadable games from PSN which is a big thing because PSN has some gems that've done gangbusters.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1339213.28421987</parent>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_22_1339213_99</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1339213.28421187
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1339213.28426809
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_22_1339213_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1339213.28421309
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1339213.28421669
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1339213.28429289
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_22_1339213_90</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1339213.28421187
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1339213.28421663
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1339213.28422127
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_22_1339213_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1339213.28421167
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1339213.28421839
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1339213.28422631
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1339213.28424665
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_22_1339213_81</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1339213.28421309
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1339213.28421669
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1339213.28424639
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_22_1339213_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1339213.28421429
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1339213.28422969
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_22_1339213_78</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1339213.28421309
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1339213.28421669
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1339213.28428491
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_22_1339213_80</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1339213.28421193
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1339213.28425421
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_22_1339213_54</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1339213.28421167
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1339213.28421839
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1339213.28422741
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_22_1339213_45</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1339213.28421489
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1339213.28425881
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_22_1339213_115</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1339213.28421187
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1339213.28421377
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1339213.28424571
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1339213.28552011
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_22_1339213_68</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1339213.28421193
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1339213.28421765
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1339213.28422157
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1339213.28430825
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_22_1339213_73</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1339213.28421193
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1339213.28421501
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1339213.28422191
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1339213.28426309
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_22_1339213_44</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1339213.28421187
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1339213.28422363
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_22_1339213_105</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1339213.28421309
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1339213.28422129
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_22_1339213_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1339213.28421193
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1339213.28421501
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1339213.28427269
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_22_1339213_96</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1339213.28421217
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1339213.28421619
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1339213.28431121
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_22_1339213_110</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1339213.28421543
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1339213.28422999
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_22_1339213_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1339213.28421217
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1339213.28422163
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_22_1339213_37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1339213.28421167
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1339213.28421839
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1339213.28426147
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_22_1339213_86</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1339213.28421679
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1339213.28423491
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_22_1339213_93</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1339213.28421167
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1339213.28421839
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1339213.28437933
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_22_1339213_76</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1339213.28421193
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1339213.28421765
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1339213.28422275
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_22_1339213_67</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1339213.28421167
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1339213.28421839
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1339213.28423185
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_22_1339213_70</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1339213.28421167
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1339213.28421839
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1339213.28433293
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_22_1339213_43</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1339213.28421167
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1339213.28421643
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1339213.28441165
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_22_1339213_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1339213.28421167
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1339213.28422605
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_22_1339213_113</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1339213.28421243
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1339213.28441101
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_22_1339213_66</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1339213.28421193
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1339213.28421501
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1339213.28422817
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_22_1339213_104</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1339213.28421195
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1339213.28424131
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_22_1339213_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1339213.28421167
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1339213.28421839
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1339213.28423349
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_22_1339213_57</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1339213.28421193
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1339213.28421765
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1339213.28422545
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_22_1339213_60</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1339213.28421193
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1339213.28421501
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1339213.28423679
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_22_1339213_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1339213.28421193
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1339213.28421501
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1339213.28423021
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_22_1339213_103</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1339213.28421309
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1339213.28422291
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_22_1339213_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1339213.28421167
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1339213.28421643
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1339213.28421987
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1339213.28427281
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_22_1339213_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1339213.28421193
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1339213.28421501
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1339213.28424077
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_22_1339213_94</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1339213.28421193
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1339213.28421501
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1339213.28422443
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_22_1339213_85</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1339213.28421193
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1339213.28421607
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_22_1339213_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1339213.28421217
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1339213.28421619
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1339213.28423591
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_22_1339213_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1339213.28421167
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1339213.28421839
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1339213.28424421
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_22_1339213_84</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1339213.28421187
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1339213.28422097
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_22_1339213_58</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1339213.28421193
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1339213.28421501
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1339213.28428921
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_22_1339213_49</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1339213.28421429
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1339213.28422433
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_22_1339213_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1339213.28421297
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1339213.28431301
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_22_1339213_91</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1339213.28421195
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1339213.28423915
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_22_1339213_65</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1339213.28421265
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1339213.28421511
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_22_1339213_48</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1339213.28421489
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1339213.28425075
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_22_1339213_79</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1339213.28421243
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1339213.28422259
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_22_1339213_109</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1339213.28421201
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1339213.28421267
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_22_1339213_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1339213.28421187
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1339213.28422801
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_22_1339213_102</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1339213.28421217
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1339213.28422531
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_22_1339213_55</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1339213.28421193
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1339213.28421501
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1339213.28424641
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_22_1339213_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1339213.28421167
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1339213.28421839
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1339213.28423887
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_22_1339213_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1339213.28421309
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1339213.28421669
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1339213.28479529
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_22_1339213_116</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1339213.28421543
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1339213.28423225
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_22_1339213_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1339213.28421167
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1339213.28421839
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1339213.28425031
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_22_1339213_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1339213.28421309
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1339213.28421669
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1339213.28434627
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_22_1339213_83</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1339213.28421193
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1339213.28421765
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1339213.28422327
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_22_1339213_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1339213.28421167
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1339213.28421643
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1339213.28421987
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1339213.28441169
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_22_1339213_97</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1339213.28421309
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1339213.28421669
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1339213.28436059
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_22_1339213_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1339213.28421195
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1339213.28433559
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_22_1339213_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1339213.28421309
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1339213.28421669
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1339213.28423793
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_22_1339213_74</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1339213.28421193
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1339213.28421501
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1339213.28422455
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_22_1339213_47</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1339213.28421193
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1339213.28421765
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1339213.28423315
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_22_1339213_50</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1339213.28421243
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1339213.28421539
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_22_1339213_108</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1339213.28421201
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1339213.28422165
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_22_1339213_111</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1339213.28421671
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1339213.28429489
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_22_1339213_52</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1339213.28421167
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1339213.28421643
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1339213.28424555
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_22_1339213_107</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1339213.28421193
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1339213.28421765
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1339213.28422617
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_22_1339213_77</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1339213.28421217
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1339213.28426361
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_22_1339213_38</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1339213.28421309
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1339213.28422501
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_22_1339213_98</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1339213.28421217
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1339213.28421619
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1339213.28424235
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_22_1339213_71</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1339213.28421193
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1339213.28421757
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_22_1339213_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1339213.28421217
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1339213.28421619
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1339213.28423483
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_22_1339213_42</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1339213.28421167
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1339213.28424885
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_22_1339213_114</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1339213.28423059
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1339213.28437827
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_22_1339213_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1339213.28421717
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1339213.28423933
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_22_1339213_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1339213.28421195
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1339213.28427327
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_22_1339213_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1339213.28421167
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1339213.28421839
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1339213.28427325
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_22_1339213_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1339213.28421187
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1339213.28424223
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_22_1339213_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1339213.28421195
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1339213.28423639
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_22_1339213_95</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1339213.28421167
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1339213.28421839
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1339213.28436573
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_22_1339213_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1339213.28421193
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1339213.28421765
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1339213.28432627
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_22_1339213_69</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1339213.28421187
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1339213.28421487
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1339213.28423493
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_22_1339213_72</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1339213.28421167
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1339213.28421643
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1339213.28423157
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_22_1339213_63</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1339213.28421167
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1339213.28421839
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1339213.28435621
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_22_1339213_106</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1339213.28421167
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1339213.28423709
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_22_1339213_59</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1339213.28421193
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1339213.28421501
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1339213.28422423
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_22_1339213_62</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1339213.28421187
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1339213.28421487
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1339213.28423641
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_22_1339213_100</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1339213.28421193
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1339213.28421765
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1339213.28426035
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_22_1339213_41</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1339213.28421187
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1339213.28422659
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_22_1339213_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1339213.28421193
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1339213.28421501
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1339213.28422573
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_22_1339213_64</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1339213.28421193
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1339213.28422503
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_22_1339213_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1339213.28421297
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1339213.28422355
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_22_1339213_87</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1339213.28421217
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1339213.28421619
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1339213.28423531
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_22_1339213_40</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1339213.28421309
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1339213.28421669
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1339213.28428717
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_22_1339213_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1339213.28421167
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1339213.28421839
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1339213.28424503
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_22_1339213_101</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1339213.28421187
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1339213.28421377
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1339213.28424571
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1339213.28433255
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_22_1339213_89</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1339213.28421309
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1339213.28421669
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1339213.28424611
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_22_1339213_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1339213.28421167
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1339213.28421839
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1339213.28433345
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_22_1339213_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1339213.28421193
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1339213.28421501
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1339213.28422153
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_22_1339213_92</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1339213.28421193
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1339213.28421501
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1339213.28425233
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_22_1339213_88</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1339213.28421243
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1339213.28421675
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_22_1339213_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1339213.28421543
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1339213.28422597
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_22_1339213_82</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1339213.28421193
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1339213.28421765
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1339213.28425539
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_22_1339213_56</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1339213.28421193
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1339213.28421501
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1339213.28425757
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_22_1339213_61</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1339213.28421551
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1339213.28422183
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_22_1339213_75</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1339213.28421243
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1339213.28421747
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_22_1339213_46</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1339213.28421187
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1339213.28421487
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1339213.28430285
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_22_1339213_51</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1339213.28421671
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1339213.28422723
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_22_1339213_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1339213.28421217
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1339213.28421619
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1339213.28425041
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_22_1339213_112</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1339213.28421489
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1339213.28427185
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_22_1339213_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1339213.28421543
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1339213.28441591
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_22_1339213_53</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1339213.28421193
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1339213.28421765
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1339213.28426517
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_22_1339213_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1339213.28421217
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1339213.28421619
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1339213.28423551
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_22_1339213_39</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1339213.28421719
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1339213.28432209
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_22_1339213.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1339213.28421543
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1339213.28441591
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1339213.28422999
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1339213.28422597
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1339213.28423225
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_22_1339213.20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1339213.28421269
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_22_1339213.33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1339213.28421965
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_22_1339213.29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1339213.28421187
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1339213.28421377
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1339213.28424571
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1339213.28552011
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1339213.28433255
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1339213.28421663
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1339213.28422127
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1339213.28422363
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1339213.28424223
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1339213.28422659
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1339213.28426809
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1339213.28422801
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1339213.28422097
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1339213.28421487
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1339213.28423641
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1339213.28423493
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1339213.28430285
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_22_1339213.23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1339213.28421147
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_22_1339213.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1339213.28421195
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1339213.28423639
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1339213.28433559
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1339213.28423915
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1339213.28427327
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1339213.28424131
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_22_1339213.18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1339213.28423059
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1339213.28437827
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_22_1339213.26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1339213.28421489
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1339213.28425075
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1339213.28427185
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1339213.28425881
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_22_1339213.15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1339213.28421281
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_22_1339213.34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1339213.28421265
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1339213.28421511
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_22_1339213.16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1339213.28421717
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1339213.28423933
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_22_1339213.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1339213.28421193
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1339213.28425421
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1339213.28421765
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1339213.28422617
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1339213.28425539
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1339213.28426517
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1339213.28423315
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1339213.28422275
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1339213.28426035
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1339213.28422545
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1339213.28432627
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1339213.28422327
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1339213.28422157
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1339213.28430825
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1339213.28421501
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1339213.28422443
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1339213.28423021
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1339213.28422573
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1339213.28425757
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1339213.28425233
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1339213.28422817
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1339213.28424077
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1339213.28422191
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1339213.28426309
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1339213.28423679
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1339213.28422153
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1339213.28428921
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1339213.28427269
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1339213.28422455
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1339213.28424641
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1339213.28422423
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1339213.28421757
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1339213.28422503
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1339213.28421607
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_22_1339213.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1339213.28421243
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1339213.28421675
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1339213.28421539
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1339213.28441101
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1339213.28422259
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1339213.28421747
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_22_1339213.25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1339213.28421217
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1339213.28421619
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1339213.28423591
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1339213.28424235
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1339213.28425041
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1339213.28423483
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1339213.28431121
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1339213.28423551
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1339213.28423531
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1339213.28422163
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1339213.28422531
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1339213.28426361
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_22_1339213.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1339213.28421201
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1339213.28421267
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1339213.28422165
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_22_1339213.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1339213.28423543
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_22_1339213.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1339213.28421297
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1339213.28431301
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1339213.28422355
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_22_1339213.22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1339213.28422381
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_22_1339213.35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1339213.28421923
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_22_1339213.17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1339213.28421671
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1339213.28429489
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1339213.28422723
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_22_1339213.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1339213.28421451
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_22_1339213.30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1339213.28422063
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_22_1339213.36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1339213.28422643
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_22_1339213.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1339213.28422317
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_22_1339213.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1339213.28424409
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_22_1339213.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1339213.28421719
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1339213.28432209
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_22_1339213.21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1339213.28423847
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_22_1339213.19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1339213.28429097
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_22_1339213.31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1339213.28421167
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1339213.28423709
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1339213.28424885
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1339213.28421839
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1339213.28427325
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1339213.28423185
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1339213.28435621
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1339213.28423887
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1339213.28437933
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1339213.28436573
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1339213.28433293
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1339213.28424421
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1339213.28426147
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1339213.28423349
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1339213.28433345
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1339213.28422631
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1339213.28424665
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1339213.28424503
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1339213.28425031
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1339213.28422741
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1339213.28422605
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1339213.28421643
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1339213.28424555
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1339213.28423157
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1339213.28441165
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1339213.28421987
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1339213.28441169
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1339213.28427281
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_22_1339213.27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1339213.28421895
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_22_1339213.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1339213.28421679
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1339213.28423491
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_22_1339213.24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1339213.28421309
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1339213.28421669
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1339213.28428717
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1339213.28429289
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1339213.28424611
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1339213.28423793
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1339213.28479529
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1339213.28424639
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1339213.28434627
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1339213.28436059
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1339213.28428491
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1339213.28422129
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1339213.28422291
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1339213.28422501
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_22_1339213.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1339213.28423973
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_22_1339213.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1339213.28421429
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1339213.28422433
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1339213.28422969
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_22_1339213.32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1339213.28424775
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_22_1339213.28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1339213.28421379
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_22_1339213.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1339213.28421551
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1339213.28422183
</commentlist>
</conversation>
