Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan Gordon
I knew when I posted that, I'd be hearing from you Gary.
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan Gordon
I don't really care if the BDA makes a new profile for every feature added, but my suggestion was in regards to PM's comments regarding "any possible *consumer confusion* regarding a future Profile or intentional *double-dipping* on the part of the C.E. companies?" DVD didn't have any... or at least any public perception of "Profiles", and I don't see why (in a post-Profile 2.0 world) there shoud be a reason for there to be one for Blu-ray either.
|
Profile 1.0 was the unfortunate situation. It would have been preferable if BD launched with the FGP. Then everyone would be saying "oh BD-Live is just added features".
The problem is people are turning around a concept in other areas which are called progress and upgrades, and turning them into something else.
(1) Demanding mandatory 2.0 sets up a moving target of what BD player should be. When I expect the intent is exactly the opposite.
You can't wave a hand and declare BD 2.0 mandatory. It would take time, and the very concept would mean a schedule delay in adoption as people waited for "the real Blu-ray players".
And when several arrive, they will say "these are too expensive, I'll wait for cheaper real Blu-ray players".
(2) It creates a buzz of victimization around any new feature proposed. People will ask "why can't my player do the new stuff?" "Shouldn't the BDA offer a rebate for people stuck with the old crappy players".
New features, rather than being exciting new upgrades, instead become something to condemn makers for not planning support for in advance, with demands they suffer financially for planning it.
That culture will most assuredly end any new improvements in BD. CE and the BDA will simply not want the headaches, complaints, costs, and loss of goodwill.
Gary