That is a peculiar and frankly ignorantly rude response. Even the richest person in the world does not spend more on something unless they are getting something more in return. That is how they stay rich, by not spending more on things or wasting money. And since that 99 player plays movies equally as well as the more expensive ones it is silly to spend the extra. And I am an attorney. Anyway, why I bothered to respond to you is beyond me as you are obviously a child with a response like that.
And to the rest, EngadgetHD has always been biased towards Blu-Ray and now since their owners are Blu-Ray exclusive to think that would change is silly. But like I said before, 90% of the hits they are and have gotten on this web site are from people interested in the format war. They better come up with something else quick. Look at the most commented on threads and all deal with the format war. So instead of gloating and posting silly stuff like this they should be thinking what they will all be doing after the format war is completely over in like 6 months. Although a friend (Also an attorney) randomly told me two days ago he was amazed he got a HD DVD player for 129 that included 7 free movies. I laughed. Then when I talked to him yesterday he thoroughly enjoyed 300 on it. So it may drag on a bit longer.
The typical, pompous, arrogant response that I've seen from the extremist BD crowd. "If you can't pay more, then you're obviously not serious about home theatre."
I hope that you don't have to deal with the plebes and bourgeoisie too often. Wouldn't want to ruin your day now, would we?
I am too puzzled why an attorney would bother to take the time to feed an internet troll.
I am inclined to beleive that you actually are an attorney who would read petty internet chat forums because you bother to flat out mention "I am an attorney."
Knowing actual rich people I kow one thing. They do not waste time responing to trolls on the internet. one of the ways they get rich is by concentrating on things that matter.
I also know that if you want to get the best stuff for far below market value hang out in a rich neighborhood. Want a nice leather couch $300. Last years top of the line washer and dryer free in the trash, it was the wrong color. A used Jaguar, no mechanical or cosmetic problems, $2k.
As fas as engadget is concerned, the blu-bias has never been that bad. This is a blog not a main line news source. The prefernce has been shown but I haven't seen facts fabricated to make arguments. Engadget has thrived on the format war and engadgetHD will at some point go away leaving engadget as one of the top(2 or 3) blogs for electronic related items.
Given how corporations work you are an attorney you should know all about that, it is highly doubtful that timewarner had anything to do at all with the bent of this site. It be more believeable to say that Ben got an inordiante amount of perks for the BD group. If this site even mattered in forming opinions.
I'm glad your friend(also an attornry) is enjoying his HD player.
Perhaps my argument didn't have enough weight. Maybe I need to post where I recieved my degress and what they were in? Oh wait I need creditability on my stance on wealth, I'll post up where I live and my total assets and libailities. Of course I'll also have to post my age so people can see where I fall on the age to wealth distribution. Then my profession, of course my job adds a great amount of weight to my words. Oh wait, THAT WOULD BE A COMPLETLY ASSININE THING TO DO!
I think you need to get a reality check and stop watching reruns of LA Law. The average attorney makes about 70k a year and is far from rich. I stated that just to show that people who have professions can chose a format based on quality and price and not be ignorant enough just to assume that because something costs more it is higher quality. I am far from rich. I bought an HD DVD player about a year ago and enjoy it. I am fully aware at this point (as well as pretty much guessed when I bought it) Blu-Ray is winning and will win. Not because it costs more. Not because it is superior. The biggest factor was the PS3. HD DVD can brag all it wants about selling 5k to 20k units a month. But the PS3 is selling about 60-80k units a month and would whether it had the Blu-Ray player in it or not. That was too much for HD DVD to battle. But until the Warner announcement they were certainly holding their own which in my opinion speaks heavily of what people want.
If you want to post your balance sheet feel free.
Oh and BTW, I put my pants on one leg at a time and don’t spend every weekend at the country club. I am sitting here watching football.
"lol @L.S. Maybe if you had a career to "try & further" you could actually afford to buy a HDM player that costs more than $99."
"A fool and his money are soon parted." --Thomas Tusser
Go right ahead and blow several hundred dollars on an early Blu-Ray player. I'll wait it out with my HD-A3, which plays SD DVDs wonderfully, and HD DVDs just fine. And right now there's not too terribly many titles I'd want on either format, so why bother?
Warner made a decision based on flawed logic. It's probably ultimately the right decision, yeah, but again, for the wrong reasons.
There was no reason to bring in your profession. As a lawyer you have some pratice in argument formation. Bringing up profession is trying to build an argument by building an appeal to authority. Why would being a lawyer be any better than being blogger or working at McDonalds? Is it really necessary to mention that your friend is also a lawyer? Lawyers agree! HD-DVD is the way to go. There is no benefit to the bringing profession into it.
The BD won the format war because it did a better job at getting support than HD-DVD. The question HD-DVD supporters never asked was WHY the players had more features and less price. BD had a better business plan. HD-DVD was like the friend in college who maxed out his debts to get popular. When you look deep enough you see that they won't be able to keep their friends.
Bringing a balance sheet into thing makes no sense. I was pointing that out to show mentioning profession makes nosense either.
“While it's not exactly punching it out with the heavyweights in multi-room audio, the Mint Studio does certainly hold its own with many similarly-priced iPod docks out there.â€
Now that we've thrown 'em off the trail, use the form below to get in touch with the people at Engadget. Please fill in all of the required fields because they're required.
Ah well, it was good while it lasted.
Obviously, thanks to Engadget's Warner connection an out and out Blu-bias is the way of things now.
Pity but I guess some folks have a career to try & further, eh?
lol @L.S. Maybe if you had a career to "try & further" you could actually afford to buy a HDM player that costs more than $99.
To su6oxone,
That is a peculiar and frankly ignorantly rude response. Even the richest person in the world does not spend more on something unless they are getting something more in return. That is how they stay rich, by not spending more on things or wasting money. And since that 99 player plays movies equally as well as the more expensive ones it is silly to spend the extra. And I am an attorney. Anyway, why I bothered to respond to you is beyond me as you are obviously a child with a response like that.
And to the rest, EngadgetHD has always been biased towards Blu-Ray and now since their owners are Blu-Ray exclusive to think that would change is silly. But like I said before, 90% of the hits they are and have gotten on this web site are from people interested in the format war. They better come up with something else quick. Look at the most commented on threads and all deal with the format war. So instead of gloating and posting silly stuff like this they should be thinking what they will all be doing after the format war is completely over in like 6 months. Although a friend (Also an attorney) randomly told me two days ago he was amazed he got a HD DVD player for 129 that included 7 free movies. I laughed. Then when I talked to him yesterday he thoroughly enjoyed 300 on it. So it may drag on a bit longer.
If you cant admit that Blu-ray has won, then that's YOUR fault!
@su6oxone:
The typical, pompous, arrogant response that I've seen from the extremist BD crowd. "If you can't pay more, then you're obviously not serious about home theatre."
I hope that you don't have to deal with the plebes and bourgeoisie too often. Wouldn't want to ruin your day now, would we?
Jackass.
To Jvirg1,
I am too puzzled why an attorney would bother to take the time to feed an internet troll.
I am inclined to beleive that you actually are an attorney who would read petty internet chat forums because you bother to flat out mention "I am an attorney."
Knowing actual rich people I kow one thing. They do not waste time responing to trolls on the internet. one of the ways they get rich is by concentrating on things that matter.
I also know that if you want to get the best stuff for far below market value hang out in a rich neighborhood. Want a nice leather couch $300. Last years top of the line washer and dryer free in the trash, it was the wrong color. A used Jaguar, no mechanical or cosmetic problems, $2k.
As fas as engadget is concerned, the blu-bias has never been that bad. This is a blog not a main line news source. The prefernce has been shown but I haven't seen facts fabricated to make arguments. Engadget has thrived on the format war and engadgetHD will at some point go away leaving engadget as one of the top(2 or 3) blogs for electronic related items.
Given how corporations work you are an attorney you should know all about that, it is highly doubtful that timewarner had anything to do at all with the bent of this site. It be more believeable to say that Ben got an inordiante amount of perks for the BD group. If this site even mattered in forming opinions.
I'm glad your friend(also an attornry) is enjoying his HD player.
Perhaps my argument didn't have enough weight. Maybe I need to post where I recieved my degress and what they were in? Oh wait I need creditability on my stance on wealth, I'll post up where I live and my total assets and libailities. Of course I'll also have to post my age so people can see where I fall on the age to wealth distribution. Then my profession, of course my job adds a great amount of weight to my words. Oh wait, THAT WOULD BE A COMPLETLY ASSININE THING TO DO!
Uhm Joe
I think you need to get a reality check and stop watching reruns of LA Law. The average attorney makes about 70k a year and is far from rich. I stated that just to show that people who have professions can chose a format based on quality and price and not be ignorant enough just to assume that because something costs more it is higher quality. I am far from rich. I bought an HD DVD player about a year ago and enjoy it. I am fully aware at this point (as well as pretty much guessed when I bought it) Blu-Ray is winning and will win. Not because it costs more. Not because it is superior. The biggest factor was the PS3. HD DVD can brag all it wants about selling 5k to 20k units a month. But the PS3 is selling about 60-80k units a month and would whether it had the Blu-Ray player in it or not. That was too much for HD DVD to battle. But until the Warner announcement they were certainly holding their own which in my opinion speaks heavily of what people want.
If you want to post your balance sheet feel free.
Oh and BTW, I put my pants on one leg at a time and don’t spend every weekend at the country club. I am sitting here watching football.
"lol @L.S. Maybe if you had a career to "try & further" you could actually afford to buy a HDM player that costs more than $99."
"A fool and his money are soon parted." --Thomas Tusser
Go right ahead and blow several hundred dollars on an early Blu-Ray player. I'll wait it out with my HD-A3, which plays SD DVDs wonderfully, and HD DVDs just fine. And right now there's not too terribly many titles I'd want on either format, so why bother?
Warner made a decision based on flawed logic. It's probably ultimately the right decision, yeah, but again, for the wrong reasons.
Jvirg1,
There was no reason to bring in your profession. As a lawyer you have some pratice in argument formation. Bringing up profession is trying to build an argument by building an appeal to authority. Why would being a lawyer be any better than being blogger or working at McDonalds? Is it really necessary to mention that your friend is also a lawyer? Lawyers agree! HD-DVD is the way to go. There is no benefit to the bringing profession into it.
The BD won the format war because it did a better job at getting support than HD-DVD. The question HD-DVD supporters never asked was WHY the players had more features and less price. BD had a better business plan. HD-DVD was like the friend in college who maxed out his debts to get popular. When you look deep enough you see that they won't be able to keep their friends.
Bringing a balance sheet into thing makes no sense. I was pointing that out to show mentioning profession makes nosense either.