Talk:Blu-ray/Archive 6

Fox and MGM's (lack of) support for Blu-ray
I think we might want to make note of the fact that Fox and MGM have effectively stopped supporting Blu-ray for the time being. Fox has not released a title since April 24th (almost 4 months) and has no titles with an announced release date. MGM has not released a title since March 13th (5 months today) and has no titles with an announced release date. I am posting this here first to try to avoid any controversy and get others input before this change is made. Refrences:  --Ray andrew 13:41, 13 August 2007 (UTC)


 * lets not micro manage the studios release dates and wait for an announcement about these things in the future.. just my opinion.  Tracer9999 00:11, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Is it really micro managing? Half (as of now in terms of the big six) of blu-ray's studio support has been MIA almost all year. Don't you think that at least deserves mention? --Ray andrew 03:49, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Ray..It is kinda interesting.. but who knows maybe the studios are just going to release a bunch for the christmas rush as more people get the players and they can sell more. esp with prices coming way down... lets let it play out. the real interesting thing though is that with half of thier studios "MIA" blu-ray has still managed to release more movies then Hd DVD this year according to my very quick count on the historical release dates pages...now Imagine if that other half of thier studios was not not MIA for "most" of the year... that would be Really scary for HD DVD...  personally I can't wait for a good profile 2.0 universal player to come out so who releases on what is irrelevant.. I just want my HD..from whoever.. -Tracer9999 03:34, 22 August 2007 (UTC)


 * 20th Century Fox is releasing The Simpsons Movie on Blu-Ray in December, so I think there are upcoming releases - just not many during the middle of the year. Like Tracer9999 said, there is a Christmas season coming up - and Blu-Ray's going to have to match HD DVD's Transformers/Shrek the Third - Universal and Paramount HD DVD exclusives. Remstar 23:25, 1 November 2007 (UTC)


 * cough cough james cough cough bond cough cough dis cough ney cough Markthemac 04:32, 30 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't think there is any need for this change anymore since BR release dates from Fox and MGM have been confirmed. There is no lack of BR support from both studios. Just check out the new BR release date list. --Ckyle88 09:54, 14 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Agree, that is unless they don't make good on there release dates (hey thats how this whole thing started). --Ray andrew 12:56, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Hewlett-Packard, who removes it and why?
I am wondering if somebody removes HP from both Blu-ray Disc Association and this article from the list of supporting companies and Board of Director? Is this right as now (HP quit BDA)?--w_tanoto 15:40, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I have restored HP in BDA article's list of Board of Director, but I should not bother to add it here, as HP support both formats.--w_tanoto 16:26, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I decided to restore everything after discovering that a person removed HP from those mentioned above just based on because s/he bought a laptop with HP and received HD DVD, and make early conclusion that HP does not support BD. S/he should have consulted us.--w_tanoto 16:41, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

162.58.0.64's “lower cost” edit
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Blu-ray_Disc&diff=152904892&oldid=152876357 --AVRS 12:52, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Are the prices or the kinds mixed up?
 * The source requires Flash (that I cannot view).

I was the one who added the price comparison. I'm not sure what you mean be "mixed up", but the prices are accurate. As for Flash, why do you not have Flash??? Just go download the plugin, and you'll be all set. ;-) -  Theaveng 13:17, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

PC playback
It's not very clear on the article about how much support there is for playback on a pc.Is there alot of support for playback with the menus, and subtittles etc, on PC?.Seems like Powerdvd is only software available, not sure about VLC media player. Rodrigue 17:54, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

powerdvd, indeovideo, Nero showtime and some other less known decoders Markthemac 04:42, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Format Porn Edits
Please take a moment to view the discussion taking place regarding the addition of pornography industry statistics and its effect on vhs and betamax format war and subsequently the HD format war on pretty much every article related to the HD format war. It is my position that since both formats have stated on the record that they both ALLOW porn, it is a moot point. the fact that porn is allowed is all that needs to be posted. there is no controversy and therefore no comparison to the betamax era nor to the porn industry in 1998 or 2001 when the referenced article was posted. The submission makes guesses as to the cause of the downfall of a 30 year old technology and if anything confuses the reader as to the relevence of porn in the current climate. The editor wants to debunk the myth porn had anything to do with betamax losing to vhs. as this does not apply to the current situation I feel this material should be added to the betamax, vhs, sony, or one of those relevent articles. rather then repeat everything (I might have already though..lol). feel free to look at

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Comparison_of_high_definition_optical_disc_formats

In order to avoid an edit war I will honor whatever the consensus is. after a resonable amount of time to get responses. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Tracer9999 (talk • contribs).


 * (1) Tracer you are in violation of wiki rules which specifically state do NOT delete other people's contributions.  Wiki rules state you may reword, rewrite, add citations, but you are NOT to delete whole paragraphs just because you "felt like it".  "When someone makes an edit you consider biased or inaccurate [such as the Forbes.com paragraph], improve the edit, rather than reverting it."
 * (2) As for the comparison about porn, I agree beta/vhs is irrelevant, but I like the Bluray/HD-DVD comparison and information from forbes.com.  I vote to leave it there.  It answers the question "What if a major adult studio (like playboy) chose one format over the other?"  Could a major studio affect the outcome?  I like the answer Forbes gives us.  Theaveng 09:02, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
 * (2) As for the comparison about porn, I agree beta/vhs is irrelevant, but I like the Bluray/HD-DVD comparison and information from forbes.com.  I vote to leave it there.  It answers the question "What if a major adult studio (like playboy) chose one format over the other?"  Could a major studio affect the outcome?  I like the answer Forbes gives us.  Theaveng 09:02, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Double-sided Blurays exist. So too do Long Play (LP) videotapes.
Neither of these are part of the official Blu-ray or VHS specifications...... and yet they both exist in the real world. Therefore they should be discussed in their respective wiki entries. 162.58.0.64 12:33, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Cite a source for double sided blu-ray discs and we can discuss them, until then its speculation --Ray andrew 17:54, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Profiles
The correct term for the pre-10/31/07 profile is "Profile 1 (Grace Period Profile)". People commonly refer to this profile as "Profile 1.0", but that is not the official terminology. Likewise, the proper term for the profile that takes effect 11/1/07 is "Profile 1 (Final Standard Profile)", but many people informally refer to it as "Profile 1.1". "Profile 2 (BD-Live)" is often called by the colloquial terms "Profile 2.0", "Profile 2.0 BD-Live", or simply "BD-Live". I changed the article to reflect the more proper terminology. Kelpie3483 00:30, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

European/Japanese Sales figure HD DVD/BD
I'd like to add the following (applies to EU only) to the article, also to comparison between HD DVD and BD:


 * HD DVD claimed 70% (83,000) of stand-alone players (excluding PlayStation 3) - Gfk Figure
 * Blu-ray has 94% of hi-def players (including 1.3 million PS3 sold)
 * Blu-ray claimed 70% of software/title sales across the Europe (650,000 titles vs 332,000) - Gfk Figure


 * The attach rate of HD DVD disc is four per player
 * The attach rate of Blu-ray disc is half disc per player (Graffeo claims that European GfK data suggests that only one Blu-ray movie is sold for every two Sony PlayStation3 consoles)


 * http://www.current.com.au/2007/09/05/article/QDCYXBFYPL.html

BD has 90%+ share in Japan http://www.google.co.id/search?q=blu-ray+japan+90%25&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-GB:official&client=firefox-a http://www.n4g.com/News-64661.aspx


 * please comment on any changes I should make on this--w_tanoto 14:08, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Triple layer 51GB HD DVD-ROM
The inclusion of this new HD-DVD technology in the BD/HD-DVD comparison article is not a good thing to do at the moment, since its not yet confirmed if it is compatible with all HD-DVD players currently on the market. This makes the information about HD-DVD having the storage advantage over BR a bit misleading at this time. I think this line should be removed from the article until more on this subject will become clear. --Ckyle88 10:23, 14 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Actually its been pretty well confirmed by many news agencies directly with Toshiba. --Ray andrew 12:58, 14 September 2007 (UTC)


 * http://www.betanews.com/article/Toshiba_DVD_Forum_Hasnt_Yet_Approved_Final_51_GB_HD_DVD_After_All/1189716943

Toshiba: DVD Forum Hasn't Yet Approved Final 51 GB HD DVD After All By Scott M. Fulton, III, BetaNews September 13, 2007, 4:55 PM

In a statement to BetaNews this afternoon, a Toshiba spokesperson said that only a preliminary version of Toshiba's 51 GB three-layer, single-sided HD DVD format had been approved by the DVD Forum, caretaker of HD DVD.

As it turned out, and as Toshiba's spokespersons may have only just now realized, the DVD Forum signed off on a preliminary specification, which may have been confused for the final specification because its version number is 1.9.

"We understand that the preliminary version (1.9) of the physical specifications for the triple-layer 51 GB HD DVD-ROM disc has been approved," said Toshiba's spokesperson today.

The spokesperson then added that it has not yet been determined whether current HD DVD players or recorders will be able to use the new format, which the headline of an official Toshiba statement given to BetaNews today is now calling "Trip-Layer." "Toshiba will study the performance of current HD DVD player/recorders with the disc after the standard receives final approval by the DVD Forum."

That last part is a pretty clear indication that final approval was not granted, contrary to our earlier report based on industry news that cited sources with a stake in the format.

The formal Toshiba statement reads as follows: "We welcome the DVD Forum Steering Committee's decision to approve the preliminary version (Version 1.9) of the physical specifications for the triple-layer 51 GB HD DVD-ROM disc. This decision reinforces the fact that HD DVD is capable of offering a range of capacities due to the flexible nature of the format and provides studios with even greater options for creating high definition content. With extended capacities, studios can meet their future needs for releases that may require more storage."

Toshiba's admission today is the first genuine admission from the company that work on engineering the final "Trip-Layer" format has actually not been completed, as was previously believed.

yes, it's confusing ATM, regarding the specs. Toshiba itself said triple layer has not been completed, and we don't know if it's compatible with current player --w_tanoto 14:07, 14 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree that it's a bit premature to include it in the comparison table; I think we should take it out now and re-add it as soon as the DVD Forum approves the final specification. -Paul1337 00:50, 16 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I also agree we should take it out for now. -- Vdub49 01:51, 16 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I'd say take it out completely from tables on three articles (BD, HD DVD, and Comparison), and replace it with words instead, saying TL51 is approved (preliminary), but testing still needs to be done, etc--w_tanoto 06:02, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree.. it should be removed until final and more info on compatability with existing players is available -Tracer9999 12:26, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Somebody going to do it? or should I? There is risk: the HD DVD side won't agree. Should I also remove the triple layer from the table as well?--w_tanoto 12:40, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

-I reverted some.. I personally think its should be removed completly until a final standard.. they are not releasing disc's on the "preliminary" standard. until its final.. and the compatibility questions have been addressed its just talk and vapor. It should be mentioned in the HD DVD article but NOT as an official spec until its final.. Ray, be fair on this. you know if this was a blu ray prelim standard that the blu ray page would have already been reverted. Im cool on adding it to the article. but lets wait till even HD DVD knows whats going on before making it the official capacity of HD DVD that could take another 6 mo or who knows.. even longer to finalize... lets not push vaporware until its final -Tracer9999 13:27, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
 * i guess the job is done. i removed it from the table, but still think it deserve to be mentioned in the article. I think the triple layer should also be removed from HD DVD information box.--w_tanoto 13:30, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

So does Blu-ray have a triple layer standard?
I know the TDK labs have experimented with multiple layers, but have any of these larger discs moved beyond the lab & into official testing for consumer use? - Theaveng 13:24, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
 * No. We don't know if it will make it to public and when.--w_tanoto 13:26, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

TDK has demonstrated 4 layer media on modified hardware with special optics. --Ray andrew 12:48, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Um yeah, I know, I just said "TDK labs have experimented with multiple layers". They've done 4-layer 100-gig and 6-layer 200-gig discs.  I was just curious if a triple-layer Blu-ray is in the works, and if yes, will it be as easy as a firmware upgrade? (like with HD-DVD)  -  Theaveng 18:18, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
 * No news regarding if BD TL is in work. Likely not. Nobody knows if HD DVD TL will work on current player. We'll just have to wait and see. If it does work, there might be a chance that possible future BD TL will work as well.--w_tanoto 19:02, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
 * From what I've read in the HD DVD talk page, the tests are all done and proved to work with most units; it just needs final approval from the managers. -  Also I'm not sure incompatibility would stop this development.  When VCRs were released they only had one speed... then both JVC and Sony modified their machines to double the tape length.  Then circa 1980 (5 years later), they introduced Beta-III and SLP to triple the tape length.  The new speeds were not compatible with the older machines, such that someone buying a Beta-II or Beta-III tape could not play them, but neither JVC nor Sony seemed to care.  -  I doubt Toshiba's going to care either; they'll just see it as an opportunity to sell more units.


 * Theaveng, read what I said more carefully, the player they demonstrated it on has specially modified optics, ie. they physical change the the drive, so unless this was just an unnecessary modification then four layer BD wont work with just a firmware update on current players. --Ray andrew 21:53, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I see no place in the TDK References where it says "modified optics". I've deleted it from the article since it constitutes a random guess and/or original research without substantiation.  And you've still not answered my original question Ray.  -  Theaveng 20:31, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Ugg, I guess thats what happens when people switch real references for press releases. I dug up the original reference: "However, the company made some alterations to the firmware and the optical system inside the head, to make the player compatible with four-layer BD playback." --Ray andrew 21:14, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
 * "But in the current demonstation, Hitachi used a 'standard drive'." Thus opening the possibility of using 4-layer discs in standard Blu-ray players, and just doing a simple firmware upgrade as will be done with triple-layer HD-DVD players.  -  Theaveng 18:56, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Yep your right, I didn't read the article carefully, I just remembered that when they were originally demoed they were using modified optics. I wouldn't get your hopes up yet as they weren't actually reading data off the disk, the disk just had a different frequencies of the pits on each layer, and they showed that they could focus on each layer by looking at waveforms on the oscilloscope. --Ray andrew 21:43, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

History
Is there a reason why no history info? How did BD get started? Who started it? Why did Disney defect at the last minute? Why didn't Sony comply with the DVD Forum? What happened? The origins of Blu-ray, I want to know. Can we get something started? Swisspass 11:15, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I read that thet royalties on the CD would expire in 2007 and suspect that this is related to the history of the BD. Andries 06:01, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Uh... doubtful. Sony has a long, long, long history of developing new standards, and for no real reason other than because they wanted to.  For whatever reason this company loves to do research and development.  Here's a quick list:  Umatic (~1968), Betamax (1975), Betacam (81), Compact Disc (82), Video8 (85), DAT (87), Hi8 (88), Minidisc (~90), Digital Betacam (~90), miniDV (92), Digital8 (99), PSP Universal Media Disc (~2004), HighDV (~2004), and on and on and on.  Sony makes new standards "just because" they feel like it, and not because of losing the CD royalties.  -  Theaveng 14:46, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
 * They also seem to have a legacy of failures in regards to formats. I will work on getting some of the history behind BDA and adding to the article. I've come to the conclusion that it was not a favorable start, because this article lacks the origins. I think it's relevant and important for people to know, and quite frankly I am very curious to learn. I always wondered what happened, and why Sony defected from the DVD Forum to push BD. Swisspass 16:49, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
 * (1) Many companies have failed standards.  JVC created Wide-VHS and Digital-VHS, both of which flopped.  Philips tried to upgrade CD to Super Audio CD, and Compact Cassettes to Digital Compact Cassettes, both of which failed.  Microsoft tried to convert ordinary TVs to WebTVs and failed.  And on and on and on.   (2)  Sony probably created Blu-ray for the same reason why JVC defected from the Umatic/Betamax consortium (which controlled near-100% of the market in 1975), and JVC went off to create VHS.  They thought they could make more money with their own format (and it turns-out, JVC was correct).    Point:  I don't think there's any kind of hidden agenda; it's just business as usual for how modern corporations operate.  I think you'll discover that yourself, as you do your research.  -  Theaveng 13:06, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

HD DVD also uses blue laser
One very important information which should be near the top of the article is that the competing format HD DVD also uses a blue laser. This is something that not a lot of people would know and would also educate people as it would instantly clear up the misconception that Blu-ray uses a blue laser and the competing HD DVD uses a red laser. People should look at this article, see that fact, and be able to walk away with a "wikipedia taught me something that I did not know that I can tell my friends" sort of feeling. And it IS perfectly relevent that a competing format also uses a blue laser. JayKeaton 04:33, 16 October 2007 (UTC)


 * That should probably go in the "Comparisons of HD discs" article. -  Theaveng 13:13, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

It probably should, but wouldn't it be an interesting thing to read that relates to Blu-ray in real terms? Plus the lead section already mentions that it uses a blue laser and it also mentions that it is in a format competition with HD DVD. It just makes sense JayKeaton 14:38, 16 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Done. Although it will probably get deleted by some other editor.  - Theaveng 11:24, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

I really don't see why this keeps being reverted. Do we want people to think that only Blu Ray uses a blue laser? You can hardly even say Blu Ray without even mentioning that it is in format war with HD DVD, even the lead mentions it, so why should it not say that they both share a common technical trait? The only reason I can think of that people don't want that is that they believe it might damage Sony's image. JayKeaton 06:47, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Because this is contained in the HD DVD article, as well as the high def comparison article. It is out of place in the lead for an article about Blu-ray Disc. —Locke Cole • t • c 07:17, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Then why even mention in the lead that Blu Ray is competing with HD DVD? JayKeaton 12:15, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

I think that mentioning this in the laser and optics section is prominent enough — Ksero 12:34, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Jay, it should be included in the lead when HD DVD is mentioned, it's a common misconception that we can help dispel. --Ray andrew 12:45, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Splendid, and it's already dispelled in the HD DVD article. —Locke Cole • t • c 21:26, 22 October 2007 (UTC)


 * The overview is no longer part of the lead section. I don't understand why the laser thing keeps getting deleted. Are we trying to trick people into thinking that the 402 blue laser is unique to Blu Ray? JayKeaton 09:46, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Because it is irrelevant in an article about Blu-ray Disc. HD DVD is mentioned, and a comparison occurs later in the article (as well as a link to a complete comparison). There's nothing "tricky" about that in the least. —Locke Cole • t • c 13:20, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Well I think it is very relevant considering the name "Blu Ray" and also considering that the format war is mentioned in the overview. JayKeaton 06:30, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I strongly disagree and do not think this belongs anywhere in the lead of the article. —Locke Cole • t • c 23:30, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Strongly disagree with what? The overview section is no longer in the lead, since this thread was started the overview was moved to its own section which is not in the lead. I am just saying that it is very relevant that for a technology called Blu Ray that it be mentioned that a blue laser is in fact the standard for all next generation discs and is the standard for Blu Rays primary competition. JayKeaton 20:35, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Too technical?
This article has been flagged as too technical. Why would someone think that? It seems perfectly clear to me. - Theaveng 13:13, 16 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I think people are getting confused with the numbers and MB/GB's in it, which is understandable if you don't know much about computers. But ya I'll look it over to see if it can be any clearer later.  -- Vdub49 21:46, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

I've been bold
Compare this to the previous version. I summarized all the "Stand-alone players and the PlayStation 3", "Recordable stand-alone players", "Portable players" and so on into the "List of Blu-ray devices" table. I found most of those sections to be too detailed for an encyclopedic article. I also moved some of the content around so the order makes more sens (at least to me ) and I started a "History" section.

Now... go forth and be bold yourself! Can you find a better way of organizing the article? — Ksero 14:27, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Profile 1.1 and user supplied memory
I noticed that it says to meet profile 1.1, user supplied memory such as memory sticks and usb drives can be used.. Thats all news to me and must be a recent addition to this article. the whole point of 1.1 is to set a standard. I don't think its the can be used with 1.1 if you buy your own memory standard...my understanding is it requires the memory to be included and BUILT in.. am I wrong? Is there something I missed, an announcement or something. I have added a citation needed tag however this info if untrue is detrimental to the article and I intend on removing it if not sourced in a relativly short period of time.. any objections? -Tracer9999 21:00, 17 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Well I'll object ;)... Refer to the requirement for 1.1 is to just be capable of handling 256MB of persistent memory, it need not be included with the player. Same for profile 2.0. --Ray andrew 21:52, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

"The first wave of players have no such minimum. Today, so-called persistent memory is optional on Blu-ray. However, as of June 2007, new Blu-ray Disc movie players will require a minimum of 256MB of persistent memory storage, in the form of flash memory. If the player has an Internet connection, the minimum required local storage will be 1GB of memory." PCWORLD MAGAZINE.. not a blog. http://www.pcworld.com/printable/article/id,128205/printable.html .. removing until source specified as PCWORLD is a major magazine and specifically states FLASH memory -Tracer9999 22:07, 17 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Well what can I say thats old information (heck it quotes a cutoff of June 2007), what's posted in the link I gave above is the latest and most accurate. --Ray andrew 22:11, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

lol.. the release date changed..not the profile -Tracer9999 22:13, 17 October 2007 (UTC) your post is a forum.. not a legitamite source


 * Well if you want to all the misinformation that was going on back then, what ever happened to HD PIP ? --Ray andrew 22:15, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Not to be a dick, but the PC world FAQ doesn't even refer to profiles: Do home-theater Blu-ray Disc players have any minimum storage requirements? The first wave of players have no such minimum. Today, so-called persistent memory is optional on Blu-ray. However, as of June 2007, new Blu-ray Disc movie players will require a minimum of 256MB of persistent memory storage, in the form of flash memory. If the player has an Internet connection, the minimum required local storage will be 1GB of memory. Also, it may have been true at some time that they were to include built in memory, but guess what the BDA got cheap and decided that "capability" was enough. --Ray andrew 22:22, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

both you and I know june was the orig release date.. now your just grasping at straws.. heres one from oct 11th..

http://www.hardcoreware.net/upcoming-ps3-firmware-to-add-blu-ray-profile-11-picture-in-picture-playback/

note the "onboard memory". others refer to "local" memory. If you find an article from a major magaine or NEWS source. then I say put it back up. but as of now the only major source says FLASH based -Tracer9999 22:28, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Ray.. even the source after your revert (regarding the delay) says

"Additionally, after Oct. 31, all Blu-ray players must hold a minimum 256MB of persistent memory storage, which will help power the picture-in-picture feature. Also, any Blu-ray player that features an Internet connection is required to have 1GB of such memory, in order to hold whatever content users decide to download from the Web." a minimum... if you add it.. its not a minimum.. the minimum would be 64k plus whatever you add.. thats not a standard thats a suggestion.. it must come with 256MB..if you want to add more good for you. but 256MB is the minimum http://www.videobusiness.com/article/CA6427147.html -Tracer9999 22:45, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

HERE: (www.emedialive.com/articles/readarticle.aspx?articleid=11397#iij) not a blog or forum, I'll take an apology now. Also it was pretty rude of you to go ahead and remove the information so shortly after I objected, hopefully you can be more patient in the future. --Ray andrew 22:46, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

lol.. my post was too old. so you pull one from june 2006... lastest source is still PCWORLD article sorry... get a recent source.-Tracer9999 22:50, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Now your really being difficult, clearly the FAQ has been updated since it was originally posted, just look at the list of players. --Ray andrew 22:59, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

my suggestion.. leave it a capable of supporting 256MB. as there is obviously a blurry line at this point as to wether it is FLASH based or add-on. common sense would dictate its flash based but this is sony/blu ray group we are talking about so who knows. however the most RECENT source is PC world.. So I say in the interest of keeping the article accurate. we error on the side of caution. which is that it must be capable of supporting a minimum of 256MB.. let the consumer decide how or well update when these come out next month and we know more.. -Tracer9999 23:06, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
 * No the PC world article is the oldest source, and it has been shown to be out of date, if you want proof that the FAQ I posted above has been recently updated, just go to www.emedialive.com and you will see:

EMedialive announces updates to The Authoritative Blu-ray Disc (BD) FAQ in the following categories: II. Physical, Logical, and Application Specifications; VI. Compatibility; IX. Industry Support, Prices, and Availability. Posted 12 Oct 2007
 * so its been updated less then a week ago, you still going to trust a many months old PCWorld article? Its a common misconception that 1.1 players will have 256MB built in, we would be doing a disservice to the community if we did not correct that misconception. --Ray andrew 23:24, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
 * in fact here is a list of updates to the above FAQ (www.emedialive.com/Articles/ReadArticle.aspx?ArticleID=11761) --Ray andrew 23:31, 17 October 2007 (UTC)