HD DVD is more popular on Netflix

We've heard a few times from Netflix that HD discs are not a big part of their business and that both formats are about even. Now it seems we were correct to assume that these reports were somewhat inaccurate. What we did get wrong, is that we figured Blu-ray was more popular than HD DVD. It seemed logical to us that since Blu-ray outsold HD DVD two to one, that they'd out rent them too. But in reality it's the other way around and HD DVD is over 2 times more likely to be set as a Netflix subscribers preferred format. While Netflix subscribers can rent both formats, only one can be preferred. The real question is, what does this mean? And is it a good thing? One might argue that people are more likely to buy an inexpensive HD DVD player and rent movies, rather than sit on the side lines; but we'd bet the red camp has a different take on the matter -- especially when you consider their favorite stat to brag about is attach rates.

[(Unverified) Posted Oct 5th 2007 1:46PM]

54:46 is the ratio for the latest week. That's a 1.17:1 ratio. Of course, according to Ben, that's a 1:1 ratio. According to Ben's math, BD and HD DVD are exactly even in sales for this last week!

[kcmurphy88 Posted Oct 5th 2007 11:58AM]

@Mike

Enjoy it while it lasts. Maybe after Toshiba sells 3 million $150 players this Christmas, you PS3 guys can actually get some video games to play. It seems like Sony is starving you so that you buy more movies.

[BenD Posted Oct 5th 2007 1:59PM]

According to the regular post at AVS that I linked to it's 63/37 which is 1.702:1. Which is easily roundedable to 2:1.

Do you have a link to your data?

[(Unverified) Posted Oct 5th 2007 2:10PM]

Same thread--newer posts. Data gets updated faster by individual posters. Watch that same spot and it will be updated today or tomorrow. Here's one (of many) posts with the data:

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?p=11823486#post11823486

[BenD Posted Oct 5th 2007 2:17PM]

Hmm, Dave, that post is dated today.
Now I'm supposed to be able to see the future too?
Sheesh.

[(Unverified) Posted Oct 5th 2007 2:30PM]

Well, Ben, my point is that, with numbers that close, numbers after the decimal point matter. If the ratio was 99.5:1, I'd let a 100:1 comment slide--but the numbers between Blu-Ray and HD-DVD are really close--and the 2:1 ratio that was clear earlier this year, has been fading. For the past month or more, the numbers have been fluctuating between 1.17-1.7 :1. That's not 2:1. Trends matter--and the trend is that Blu-Ray's lead is slipping. So, if you don't want to report on it, then don't. Either it's news or it isn't. IF you think it's news, though, I'm just asking you to be accurate.

I like you, Ben. As far as I can tell, you seem to be a cool guy who's genuinely interested in HD media. I think that, if you gave HD-DVD a chance, you might change your opinion of it. But I do think you're biased. That's fine. Be biased. Just please report the facts honestly.

[BenD Posted Oct 5th 2007 2:50PM]

The stat was a side note and it's just as relevant to this post with or without the trend. You are nit-picking. Posting a headline that stating, "HD DVD is not being outsold by double anymore" would be laughable. If the trend continues and it's 50:50 then I'll post it.

As for giving HD DVD a try, I wrote these a long time ago.
www.engadgethd.com/2006/04/19/hd-dvd-review/
www.engadgethd.com/2007/05/11/toshiba-hd-a20-review/

For me it's about content and CE support. There are more movies on Blu-ray that I want to see than HD DVD and I consider Toshiba a sub-par CE manufacturer. I've never owned anything made my Toshiba and that doesn't mean I never will, but I prefer other brands. And no, not Sony. I haven't bought a Sony product since my old 32" Wega, about 10 years ago.

[(Unverified) Posted Oct 5th 2007 3:08PM]

Gotcha. It's just an incorrect side-note. I'm not nit-picking. It's actually a huge difference. Also, you mentioned it as a justification to your surprise. So, I was just explaining to you why you shouldn't be so surprised. As far as the suggestion that a post titled, "HD DVD is not being outsold by double anymore" would be laughable, I'd have to agree. However, that's a post you could have made over a month ago. Here's a post you could make today according to your rounding rationale, "HD DVD sales even with Blu-Ray sales". How laughable would that be, Ben?

[thrlride Posted Oct 5th 2007 3:51PM]

Though I don't think stats should be rounded any direction, does it really matter?

For consistency sake, when blu-ray finally passed HD-DVD in sales was it immediate news or did the authors wait a few weeks for trends?

[(Unverified) Posted Oct 5th 2007 4:04PM]

I don't think it matters, Ryan--unless it's mentioned. If the ratio is going to be mentioned in a post, it should be accurate. Otherwise, guys like me with nothing better to do will keep commenting on it. I would have done the same if it was just some poster making a comment. I agree that probably shouldn't be a separate news story--even when/if HD-DVD does pass Blu-Ray in sales. I'd have been fine if the ratio hadn't been mentioned at all. Ultimately, if you're going to say something in a tech blog, I'd prefer it if it was obviously opinion or fact. Incorrect information isn't helping anyone. If EngadgetHD is just going to make stuff up, what's the point?

[BenD Posted Oct 5th 2007 4:10PM]

Now wait a second here.
I used the most up to date information at the time of the post and rounded to the nearest full number. You can take beef with that if you want, but don't call it incorrect information.

[(Unverified) Posted Oct 5th 2007 4:18PM]

It is a huge difference, Ben. It is completely inaccurate. It's not okay to round when the numbers are that close. If .3 isn't significant, then I'd say 1.0 isn't significant. There's a big difference between 0.7 and 1.0. Even based on the latest numbers, I'd never actually claim there was a tie--although, by your logic, you would. And, using the latest numbers, it's MUCH closer at 1.17:1.

Here's an idea for your next article:

"HD-DVD is no good and Blu-Ray is good and also Bul-Ray will win teh format war becasue it is butter and hodls more data and the hardcoat. HD-DVD is for pour people who live in tailer porks. I never lertn farctions because tehy are for l00zerz. M$ sux0rz!!!111!!"

[wholm Posted Oct 5th 2007 4:24PM]

Ben,

Next time, please please be significant to 4 digits...this would make the official number 1.71x where x = a number of 1-9. This would remove all confusion and debate, I am sure of it.

[BenD Posted Oct 5th 2007 4:26PM]

You are being unreasonable, don't be surprise if I never respond to your comments anymore.

[(Unverified) Posted Oct 11th 2007 7:13AM]

If I have done my math correctly, Ben rounding 1.7:1 up to 2:1 is equivalent to a %15 increase in BR sales numbers, that in my book is a significant amount.
If the numbers were 99.7:1, rounding up to 100 would be fine, but %15 is a major hike in any mans language.

[(Unverified) Posted Oct 5th 2007 4:31PM]

I'm sorry you feel that way, Ben. I thought my story idea was humorous. As for our little debate, I honestly believe I'm being fair. As I said, I don't think that sales are even now--even though the ratio is 1.17:1--where you claim that 1.7:1 is the same as 2:1. So, I'm merely trying to make an argument for accuracy. If I were unreasonable, I'd be suggesting that sales were equal. Can we both agree that, based on the latest numbers, sales are NOT equal and that Blu-Ray has the sales advantage?

[wholm Posted Oct 5th 2007 4:32PM]

Okay, I got a number, lets vote on this:

1.301432827

1.00000 for yes, 2.00000 for no

[thrlride Posted Oct 5th 2007 4:39PM]

Walter,

that should be reported as 1.3, not 1.0 nor 2.0.

[(Unverified) Posted Oct 5th 2007 4:39PM]

Actually, walter, according to your earlier post, you're not allowed to use zeros. You stated that x would be a value ranging from 1-9. Further, although you only stated a single number would represent x, and your example was 1.71x, you also stated that the standard would be "significant to four digits". You're not only bad at math, you also don't know how to follow your own rules.

So, I vote 2.00000, where the zeros are representative of your stupidity.

[wholm Posted Oct 5th 2007 4:47PM]

Dave,

Only kidding and making reckless fun of the situation because I am bored right now, but those values (1 and 2) were representing yes and no. They were not to be voted on, just used in voting. You were to vote on the 1.301432827 value, which was from an average on the up trending ratios from the SI field. Also, from the data available (which is why it should been see as funny) there are only 2 significant digits in most of the number and particularly the most recent numbers (using the numbers for an earlier post)

Hard to say that the tides have turned yet, statistically you will have to wait on that.

Thank you Dave, it is no longer funny now that I have to explain it.

[(Unverified) Posted Oct 5th 2007 4:55PM]

Sorry, Walter. I didn't know you were trying to be funny. I thought you were just trying to be a jerk. ;)

[Bearxor Posted Oct 7th 2007 4:43PM]

My $.02

I got a HD-DVD player for the XBox 360 through ShopFreePay.com for about twenty bucks. I own one HD-DVD movie, King Kong. I rent tons through netflix.

That is all.