Sony Invites Toshiba and Microsoft to Join Blu-ray camp

Sony Pictures has openly invited Toshiba and Microsoft to join the Blu-ray Disc Association.

The comment above comes from Don Eklund, executive vice president of advanced technologies and Rich Marty, vice president, new business development, after Pocket-lint asked which companies they would most like to have in the Association, following the announcement from Acer that it would start to sell PCs with Blu-ray drives.

"We would love to have Toshiba and Microsoft on board," said Don Eklund in an interview with Pocket-lint at IFA in Berlin, Germany.

Read Full Story >>
The story is too old to be commented.
TriggerHappy4062d ago (Edited 4062d ago )

Why can't they just accept and work together? The response that Toshiba and Microsoft give all depends on how far this war is going to keep on progressing.

Knowing Microsoft, even if Toshiba, which is UNLIKELY, decided to give in, Microsoft would NEVER support that idea as it will hurt them in many ways, most notably their gaming department.

RadientFlux4062d ago

Actually Microsoft is making money off of Blu-Ray. Blu-Ray along with HD-DVD are using one of Microsoft's video codec. So no matter who win's the format war Microsoft makes money.

Which is why I thought Microsoft was already part of the Blu-ray Disc Association but I guess not.

ParaDise_LosT4062d ago (Edited 4062d ago )

Damn beat me to it :(

Stella4062d ago

Not true. Companies have dumped the Microsoft's VC1 codec and have standardized on the better AVC.

No royalties for Microsoft.

BenzMoney4062d ago (Edited 4062d ago )

Your comment is wrong on so many levels. While I agree that it would be nice if they could "work together" it is Sony, not Microsoft, that is being stubborn.

If you remember back to 2005 when MS announced that they would be supporting HD-DVD (this was well before the 360 was even released) their biggest reason was because it supported DRM-enabled copying. For its part, Sony refused to add such a feature to their 'locked-down' blu-ray format.

Why would Microsoft want to support a media format where they would be unable to sell a corporate license of their software, provide a single (or few) discs along with that license, and grant the client the right to copy their disc for distribution throughout the company for use with their license?

Blu-ray would not allow such a scheme - THAT is why MS doesn't support it. It is not user friendly. It is not corporate friendly (where do you think MS's bread-and-butter is?) Sony is draconian in their copy protection - always have been. Why do you think they are always trying to shove their proprietary crap down consumers' throats? Why are they always installing rootkits on our computers?

So, in other words, if MS were to use blu-ray and were to sell a corporate license of Windows, for instance, to a company that had hundreds of offices spaced thousands of miles apart (like mine) they would have to provide discs to all those offices! The company would be unable to make copies themselves and hence MS would have to provide all the hard copies of the software, increasing price by quite a large margin.

So... why can't they just work together? Because *Sony* refuses to budge - that's why.

This has very little, if anything, to do with MS's gaming division (as you suggest) and everything to do with corporate clients and ease of distribution - and that's without even touching the equally valid point about the increased production costs that would be acquired by moving to a completely different manufacturing facility while at the same time having to increase volume due to disabling drm-enabled copying! It just doesn't make business sense.

The reason the other (movie) companies don't care about this is because they want to sell multiple discs! They don't want there to be any flexibility in copy-enabling because they don't want any copying, period. As a provider of software (for the most part), MS has much different concerns.

EDIT: Those who disagree, I'd be interested in hearing your reasons...

Vo_Cal4062d ago

that Merc just got owned by BenzMoney... Please Merc, dont respond. Your ignorance astounds me.

risk4062d ago

you say you work for a big company that has centers that are inaccessible by normal means of transportation in a hurry. yet you've never heard of network installation? im pretty sure you know all about network installs...

TriggerHappy4062d ago

Cool, thanks for steering me straight then.

Well regardless of whose fault it is, it has created war, I just wanna see end to this craziness.


Very matured comment there Vo_Cal, but unlike some people on here, I will admit my mistake if I make one....

BenzMoney4062d ago (Edited 4062d ago )

Of course I've heard of network installs. But are they always a viable alternative? What about bandwidth issues? My internal network might be 100Mbps, but the inter-office network communication is only done via a single T1 connection. How logical would it be for me to be doing a software rollout on hundreds of workstations when the source files are located at a remote location?

An example: My office is in city x and the company's main servers are located in the head office located in city y (maybe even in another country) - is it going to be efficient for 300+ workstations to be updated through a network install during a software roll out? Keep in mind that I work for an engineering consulting firm that needs to follow strict corporate guidelines in document preparation. It is not acceptable for a software roll-out to last weeks (or even days) when document production must be consistant across all offices. Now multiply that by another 100 offices.

The answer is no, it won't be efficient or even possible.

New software rollouts, particularly universal ones involving large programs (such as an OS or AutoCAD, for instance) are done over the weekend with an old fashioned disc-based installation. Those discs are usually copied by the IT department in the head office and shipped to the other offices for roll-out.

Imagine all offices trying to do a network install during a software rollout on the same day - bandwidth just wouldn't be able to support that. Especially not for multi-GB sized programs!

Get real. Network installs are nice, but they're not always practical.

I'd like to see MS try to explain that one to their clients. "Um, yeah - sorry. We're going to have to inconvenience you for days or possibly even weeks while the new OS is installed on your computers. What's that? Oh, yeah - I know it used to be simple. But we can't just let you copy our discs anymore because we're using blu-ray and Sony won't let us."

BenzMoney4062d ago (Edited 4062d ago )

It would definitely be nice to see an end to the war but concessions that needed to be made weren't, and that's why talks stagnated - and here we are.

Back in the days of VHS/Betamax it was different, the war was about a single type of media: movies. This time things are more complicated. The format that becomes the successor to dvd doesn't just have to pander to the movie studios - but to the video game industry, the IT industry, and multi-national corporations as well.

Blu-ray is great for movies, but they refused to give an inch where the other users of optical media needed them to. Can you blame them? Maybe not - they own a bunch of movie studios. But can you blame MS for not being eager to alienate their customers by hopping on the bandwagon for a format that isn't best for what they sell? I don't think so.

ktchong4062d ago

And that is why BenzMoney has so many bubbles!

More bubbles for you! Bubbles love BenzMoney!

Omegasyde4061d ago (Edited 4061d ago )

I believe your opinion and I like the fact that you backed up your reasoning with facts and debatable aspects but I disagree.

The software Giant Microsoft, currently holds a monopoly running with little or no opposition in certain markets that Microsoft runs. No brainer right, but they aren't anti-copyright and there is other reasoning behind why they back up HD DVD as well.

A aspect that made HDDVD so attractive for Microsoft was during the beginning of the format and the potential features that HD DVD was suppose to have. It was toted to even have more user friendly options other than being able to burn the disc.

HD DVD's hybrid support was the ace. Where one side is DVD and the other side is HD DVD. Microsoft thought this would lure people in faster into HiDef viewing than Blu-ray. The supposinly thought would be that people would have an option and that everyone would be happy. On the software side, Microsoft could put out software that is on HDDVD, but being able to run on standard DVD roms as well. This catapulting action of sneaking the option was a surefire hit. This would be the ace in the sleeve, and make HD DVD a faster Universal format to adopt for users alike.

During the initial pith of HD DVD before blu-ray, Toshiba claimed that HD DVD held more storage.(which now is the opposite with blu-ray holding more per layer at 25g vs 15g)

Sounded appealing in the beginning.

But back to your main point about managed copies and software distribution. So as a consumer, you are stating that it's beneficial to be able to copy your movies right? True, but...

Lets look at the music world for a minute and see how Napster, limewire, and MP3's in general have done to it. Piracy runs rampant, yet Itunes with its copy protection (somewhat) has helped curved piracy to a degree.

What about Eastern Asia and other parts of the world where there is no set laws for copyright infringement? If in managed copy, you are allowed to make just "1 copy" how soon would it be to break that software barrier? Granted Blu-ray has been cracked as well, but its alot harder and time consuming vs. where half the work is done for you (HD DVD).

From a Business perspective what would you trust more?

Thats the main reason why more movie productions chose blu-ray and not HD DVD despite HD DVD being out almost a year ahead of Blu-ray. Why would any company want you to copy their movie, then give or sell it to someone else? Managed copy?

I hope that was good enough reason behind my disagree, and I believe that if Sony's Blu-ray came out(w/ current features) first before HD DVD(w/ current features), Microsoft would probably went with blu-ray.

BUT WAIT. Blu-ray now also allows managed copy as of <Q4 2007...

Hmm, Hd DVD Sounded appealing in the beginning.

tfur4061d ago

From the sounds of it, your IT group should be fired.

Are you telling me that you have people go personally to 300+ workstations and do disk installs? Sorry man, that is not how it is done. For PC imaging, Ghost is used. For server side, iso images (not discs) are mounted from the ILO on the server. NO IT group is gonna spend 3 weeks doing disc based installs, when an image can be ghosted in less than an hour.

Now if you are talking "real" workstations, that run UNIX or Linux, well its even easier. You either PXE kickstart if Linux boxes, or jumpstart the Suns.

Also, your IT department should have staging servers in each location. If they don't, you should be looking for another IT manager. Also, I find it hard to believe that anyone using modern workstations would be using a 100base-t network. Everything is now Gigabit.

The idea that having a person go to each PC, and install from disk (on 300 PC's LOL), is ridiculous. It just doesn't happen that way.

Too bad your IT department doesn't use UNIX/Linux... you would not have to install applications on each machine. All of the engineering applications run on Linux now. This is why Pixar, ILM, and all Oil and Gas software now runs Linux/Unix. Just install one (1) set of binaries, and automount the application tree on each workstation via NIS. Make one change on the server, all clients see it.

risk4061d ago

benz you missed my point instead of sending a dvd for every single pc to every office, you would send a single dvd to every server, which you would then use to start a network isntall. im not saying this is the best alternative, or even teh easiest, im just saying that there are other alternatives, hell i know how much easier it would be if you could just make copies and burn it on a dvd of your own, but in the end microsoft and sony and every other company is after the money, even if they didnt charge extra for these extra costs microsoft would still make money on everything sold.

spasticjustice4061d ago

I agree, having your entire staff go to machine after machine is completely ridiculous. The way we do it here is with Norton Ghost and deploying images onto each machine. Boot from a thumb drive, it's as simple as that. Even in the past at other jobs where Ghost isn't used, we still would boot from a network floppy, access the off-site server, and deploy the image from our location. I haven't heard of anything as obsurd as this in a while, going to each computer because of network bandwidth issues...pfff....

+ Show (11) more repliesLast reply 4061d ago
hella whip4062d ago

Of course they'd love to have them onboard as it would mean that they would've won the format war.

monkey6024062d ago

It would be nice to have it over with though

cuco334062d ago

HD DVD already won then

sony and many in the BDA sat (some still sit) on the HD DVD board while BD was in development behind HD DVD's backs. Toshiba didn't mind having the competition there, sony's only returning the favor and doing so in a marketing scheme kind of way

yet another thing the sony group imitates or copies

Bleucrunch4062d ago

Those two companies have big egos and will never join that even if HD-DVD is gonna lose the war

mighty_douche4062d ago

its a great idea, and if you can get blu-ray into the pc market microsoft will have to start supporting it more! i dont think microsoft will tho because of the 360 but who knows, microsoft will go where the money is, plain and simple!

snakeak4062d ago

Blu-ray is already cornering the PC market. Dell, Apple, and Acer(and Sony, of course) have started selling blu-ray drives.

aiphanes4062d ago

I think a deal is in the may take a year...but it is already in the works...