Jump to content



Photo

WalMart to sell $199 HD-DVD player in Q4 2007?


  • Please log in to reply
72 replies to this topic

#31 libertas83

libertas83

    Neowinian

  • 787 posts
  • Joined: 02-November 05

Posted 21 April 2007 - 17:48

Remember the real competition of HD-DVD and Blu-Ray is with DVDs. People are happy with DVDs and many need a more compelling reason (price) to re-build their movie collection again. This is why it is so important for price to drop on HD players; otherwise, HD movies will be just like laser disc, a limited market.


#32 goji

goji

    Neowinian Senior

  • 4,894 posts
  • Joined: 20-June 03
  • Location: Monster Island

Posted 21 April 2007 - 18:15

most people will probably be running it on a 720p TV (which are around $500 @ WAL-MART for a 32"). making the TV + the player $100 more than a PS3 or sony's new "cheap" $600 br player coming out in the summer.

also, it STILL doesnt need AA. its not upscaling the discs from 1080p to 720p. thats going down, and again ITS THE SAME CHIPSET as in all the other B-R HD-DVD players.

youre trying to say it will be crap because its sold at walmart. and other players so much better because its less expensive. thats the most retarded logic ive ever heard. all your doing is being an ass and assuming (quite falsely).

and lastly, besides the fact that lcds are w/in range of average consumers now and are expected to 1/2 in price by the end of the year; what makes you think that even people w/ $2,000 HDTVs wouldnt buy it? usually people who have that amount of money to blow also know how to save money. a lot of the tech in DVD players is obsolete when dealing w/ LCDs since they dont use an electron gun to scan the lines individually; the pixels are displayed concurrently. youre just speaking out of your ass trying to be an elitist; and you fail.


Judging that is from Walmart which is more concerned with bulk sales vs quality already preclucedes it from being a worthy player. No electronic product from Wal-mart to date would ever be deemed worthy of being found in a relatively serious home theater application, an no, HTiB are not HT. It is not being elitist at all, however calling out Wal-mart on obviously known business practices that it has pursued for over a decade now: build really cheap with close to slave labor and sell marginally higher.

Additionally there is proof of "same chipset". Even if it were, it does not address abilities of the actual player. For example, the 200 dollar addon for the 360 is incapable of meeting the full specs of the HD-DVD consortium as the 360 does not have HDMI 1.3 specs which allow for the transfer of the HD audio tracks or surround sound PCM tracks either, only in stereo. At most, basic current standard surround sound options will exist, ie. DD, Pro Logic IIx and DTS. The rights to the name and the tech for the HD audio tracks will probably be to expensive to incorporate into a 200 dollar base model. After all, within the last year and a half, most receiver have now received DTS decoding abilities, which was reserved for the higher end gear, which to this day decode at higher bit rates and fidelity than any cheaper model.

Will there be an overall lack of quality in the Wal-Mart model? Yes, and to deny it is just plain silly. It's a Wal-mart product, not a Pioneer Elite or Meridian (which if you had the money for the latter player you would probably never step foot into a Wal-mart anyways :p )

#33 vetgigapixels

gigapixels

    Neowinian Senior

  • 16,521 posts
  • Joined: 08-December 02
  • Location: California, USA
  • OS: Windows 7 64-bit

Posted 21 April 2007 - 19:30

Honestly, for the audience this is trying to reach, capabilities don't matter. We're here on a tech forum... So obviously most of us will know not to buy this, but for the average Joe out there who wants to try out this new technology, a $200 player is perfect. Besides, if the customer is willing to pay $200 on an usually twice as expensive player, then they probably won't be too choosy about having every single HD-DVD spec capability in this player.

This is to help HD-DVD penetrate the market more, and I think it's definitely going to work.

#34 Inplode

Inplode

    Neowinian Senior

  • 3,262 posts
  • Joined: 19-September 04

Posted 21 April 2007 - 20:15

Walmart branded electronics? No thanks.



rofl what i bought my 42 inch hdtv there and its great ! if the 199 hd-dvd player of correct ill be getting one

#35 OP Boz

Boz

    Neowinian Senior

  • 7,480 posts
  • Joined: 21-October 03

Posted 21 April 2007 - 20:27

Judging that is from Walmart which is more concerned with bulk sales vs quality already preclucedes it from being a worthy player. No electronic product from Wal-mart to date would ever be deemed worthy of being found in a relatively serious home theater application, an no, HTiB are not HT. It is not being elitist at all, however calling out Wal-mart on obviously known business practices that it has pursued for over a decade now: build really cheap with close to slave labor and sell marginally higher.

Additionally there is proof of "same chipset". Even if it were, it does not address abilities of the actual player. For example, the 200 dollar addon for the 360 is incapable of meeting the full specs of the HD-DVD consortium as the 360 does not have HDMI 1.3 specs which allow for the transfer of the HD audio tracks or surround sound PCM tracks either, only in stereo. At most, basic current standard surround sound options will exist, ie. DD, Pro Logic IIx and DTS. The rights to the name and the tech for the HD audio tracks will probably be to expensive to incorporate into a 200 dollar base model. After all, within the last year and a half, most receiver have now received DTS decoding abilities, which was reserved for the higher end gear, which to this day decode at higher bit rates and fidelity than any cheaper model.

Will there be an overall lack of quality in the Wal-Mart model? Yes, and to deny it is just plain silly. It's a Wal-mart product, not a Pioneer Elite or Meridian (which if you had the money for the latter player you would probably never step foot into a Wal-mart anyways :p )


I don't really see how this player will be worse then HD-DVD addon for 360. I really don't. The 360 add-on is wonderful in playing HD-DVDs and is certainly not in the high-end of the spectrum. I know I have it. So this new stand-alone HD-DVD player really just needs a tweak in software to run independently unlike XBox's HD-DVD addon. And it will do it at around $199-$299 bucks a pop. I don't think all Walmart products suck too. Some of them are solid, not the top quality as Pioneer Elite but you are making a completely stupid comparison. Pioneer Elite DVD costs from $600 and up little less a Blu-Ray player.

The reason why this product will most likely NOT suck is because the Chinese manufacturer built a new factory, it's creating new technology that actually allows consumer to have better quality no matter how bad the implementation. It's natural progression.

Blu-Ray simply cannot do this as the manufacturing costs rely on revamping whole freakin' factories. Not so with HD-DVD and how is this bad? Well it's not, it's good for consumer because they don't have to pay Blu-Ray's cost of implementation.

This is why HD-DVD is so much more consumer oriented. Blu-Ray has the approach in a way "Oh if you really want somehting good you have to pay us higher price to get pretty much the same crap".

I have PS3 too and 8 BD movies so there's your fanboy theory going out the window. I prefer HD-DVD simply because it's better for everyone. I have enough money to have both and go each way they go, but a lot of people on this board even and in general don't have money to use your type of reasoning and that's "too watch hi-def you need at least $600 and up player". It's just insane to be honest.

As for technical capabilites and Blu-Ray being better is just untrue. It might look better on paper but those are just flashing your eyes with something irrelevant. It's like saying you have a glass that's filled with water all the way to the top and Blu-Ray is saying well we can pour even more water on that. But dude, you can't fill that glass anymore. What's the point of having more water and charging a lot more money for it when you can't use it. Sure, you might get a bigger resolution TVs and something new in audio (read new glass in our metaphor) but the industry is not like it was at DVD inception. It's much more progressive. In a few years, HD-DVD will be again replaced with newer technology.

If you picked Blu-Ray, what you would get is struggle by giants to keep that format alive and stop the progress as the initial costs of implementation were very high. At it will happen, even Blu-Ray technicially superior bandwith capabilities are going to be overshadowed by new standard. But then you would see how hard Sony and the crew would fight to keep the BD going instead of something new. It's the way Sony works man.

#36 goji

goji

    Neowinian Senior

  • 4,894 posts
  • Joined: 20-June 03
  • Location: Monster Island

Posted 21 April 2007 - 21:33

I don't really see how this player will be worse then HD-DVD addon for 360. I really don't. The 360 add-on is wonderful in playing HD-DVDs and is certainly not in the high-end of the spectrum. I know I have it. So this new stand-alone HD-DVD player really just needs a tweak in software to run independently unlike XBox's HD-DVD addon. And it will do it at around $199-$299 bucks a pop. I don't think all Walmart products suck too. Some of them are solid, not the top quality as Pioneer Elite but you are making a completely stupid comparison. Pioneer Elite DVD costs from $600 and up little less a Blu-Ray player.


The standalone player will be greatly underpowered. If MS comes out and states that all 3 cores are running to provide the playback of the video and audio, one has to wonder how "bad" this $200 player is going to be; cheap. After all the 360 with the add-on is around 600 dollars and that’s without the HDMI 1.2 spec. And the comparison of the Pioneer Elite and Meridian is with the next gen version of discs, they will be better just as they were with the previous gen; still a valid comparison.

The reason why this product will most likely NOT suck is because the Chinese manufacturer built a new factory, it's creating new technology that actually allows consumer to have better quality no matter how bad the implementation. It's natural progression.

Blu-Ray simply cannot do this as the manufacturing costs rely on revamping whole freakin' factories. Not so with HD-DVD and how is this bad? Well it's not, it's good for consumer because they don't have to pay Blu-Ray's cost of implementation.


So then, is it cheaper to build a brand new facility with equipment than overhaul some equipment in a current one? I don't want to get off topic but your reasoning here is quite muddled and unsound.

This is why HD-DVD is so much more consumer oriented. Blu-Ray has the approach in a way "Oh if you really want somehting good you have to pay us higher price to get pretty much the same crap".

I have PS3 too and 8 BD movies so there's your fanboy theory going out the window. I prefer HD-DVD simply because it's better for everyone. I have enough money to have both and go each way they go, but a lot of people on this board even and in general don't have money to use your type of reasoning and that's "too watch hi-def you need at least $600 and up player". It's just insane to be honest.


Not sure if this is addressed to my argument, but here goes. If you re read my previous post, the example provided was about the 360's HD-DVD addon. You are NOT receiving a fully functional HD-DVD player, but a crippled one that does not meet the core requirements as set by the HD-DVD consortium even at the cheapest bundle of $500! Do you expect better from a 200 dollar model? Not 1 gig of ram, a Pentium 4 and a bunch of other DSP’s which ran the initial Toshiba players.

With the PS3’s built in Blu-Ray you are receiving all core specs and capabilities to boot unlike the 360’s. The player being released by Wal-mat will merely allow the average consumer to say they have “HD-DVD” functionality, and that’s where the ball stops.
The PS2 was a decent and cheap DVD player, which in reality wasn’t great at all. It served its purpose, when it worked. This will more than likely be the same thing with Wal-marts offerings.

If anything, this is a gorilla tactic to flood the market with cheap alternatives and potentially undermine the whole reason for having a high def standard. At 200 dollars, what’s the point? For consumers that this equipment is geared for, they will be better off purchasing DVD’s and not the new formats.

In other related news: Meet the Venture SHD7000 HD DVD player. Hardly a :whistle:VD player :whistle:

Posted Image

#37 Danrarbc

Danrarbc

    Neowinian Senior

  • 4,415 posts
  • Joined: 28-November 01
  • Location: Corner of no and where

Posted 22 April 2007 - 01:50

You're such a Wal-Mart fanboy. I prefer Target. Ha! :rolleyes:

Go slap on a blue vest and hand me my damn smiley face sticker. :laugh:

Sales figures still don't lie right?

Actually Wal-mart is doing away with the vests.

Posted Image


In other related news: Meet the Venture SHD7000 HD DVD player. Hardly a real HD-DVD player :whistle:

It almost seems like you don't want HD-DVD to ever get cheap.

#38 goji

goji

    Neowinian Senior

  • 4,894 posts
  • Joined: 20-June 03
  • Location: Monster Island

Posted 22 April 2007 - 03:26

It almost seems like you don't want HD-DVD to ever get cheap.


Whats the point? 200-300 dollars to receive what exactly? HD audio and video is about higher than regular DVD quality, none of which will be available this cheap this soon. Maybe 3 years after market penetration has been effectively reached and high end components become cheaper and standardized, but not now. HD products do not have any hard market share just yet. DVD is still just coming into its own with many average consumers.

#39 Ji@nBing

Ji@nBing

    Moonlapse Vertigo

  • 9,975 posts
  • Joined: 24-December 02
  • Location: Victoria, BC, Canada

Posted 22 April 2007 - 03:34

For $199, I'll pick one up for sure. Wasn't all that interested in HD media yet. But for $199, why not?

#40 vetL3thal

L3thal

    Honor, Duty, Fidelity

  • 19,062 posts
  • Joined: 30-May 04
  • Location: New Jersey

Posted 22 April 2007 - 03:35

No thanks, Walmart. However, this will be a good alternative for the people that are cheap and want the satisfaction of having an HD-DVD drive though its quality and what it offers is questionable at this point.

#41 vetgigapixels

gigapixels

    Neowinian Senior

  • 16,521 posts
  • Joined: 08-December 02
  • Location: California, USA
  • OS: Windows 7 64-bit

Posted 22 April 2007 - 03:35

For $199, I'll pick one up for sure. Wasn't all that interested in HD media yet. But for $199, why not?

Exactly. And that's why this is going to do so well for HD-DVD.

#42 7Dash8

7Dash8

    Veritas Aequitas

  • 636 posts
  • Joined: 17-October 06

Posted 22 April 2007 - 04:44

I still don't see the point. "HD quality" means nothing unless your TV can actually resolve the additional information in the HD disk (whether Blu-Ray or HDDVD). "Trying out" this new technology therefore results in much the same image quality as DVD on anything but decent 720P - 1080P screens, and importantly it needs to be on larger screen sizes, since beyond a certain viewing distance, your eyes simply can't tell the difference from the improved resolution.

Before someone starts a debate on this, this is a fact - check this Viewing Distance Calculator. For a 32" screen for example you need to be sitting only a few feet from the screen to benefit from the extra resolution. Beyond that the difference is not noticeable.

So really, this player is going to see a lot of people wasting their money, getting home to breathlessly await the "HD Experience", only to find it looks and sounds much the same as regular DVD on their low to medium-end TVs.

#43 mk1990

mk1990

    Neowinian Senior

  • 1,946 posts
  • Joined: 19-December 04
  • Location: Australia, Sydney Nationality: Korean
  • OS: Win7, OSX
  • Phone: iphone 5

Posted 22 April 2007 - 04:48

Looks and sounds ok, how about the quality, brand and the lifetime of the actual player? Is it worth it and what it says to be true?

#44 vetgigapixels

gigapixels

    Neowinian Senior

  • 16,521 posts
  • Joined: 08-December 02
  • Location: California, USA
  • OS: Windows 7 64-bit

Posted 22 April 2007 - 04:50

Looks and sounds ok, how about the quality, brand and the lifetime of the actual player? Is it worth it and what it says to be true?

We probably won't get to know any of those details until it gets reviewed.

#45 Flae_qui

Flae_qui

    Your Friendly Neighborhood IT Technician

  • 1,361 posts
  • Joined: 19-March 03
  • Location: Maryland, USA

Posted 22 April 2007 - 04:56

most people who shop at wal-mart can't even afford a TV that a HD DVD will look good on... so why do they need one?