Talk:Format war
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Contents |
[edit] EVD
To quote the artical: "High-definition optical disc formats: Blu-ray Disc versus HD-DVD versus Enhanced Versatile Disc"
I dont think that Enhanced Versatile Disc is a contender here... It is between Blu Ray and HD-DVD. I doubt it will cause much debate, so I just removed it.
[edit] Order ?
Wouldn't a chronological order be appropriate?--Hhielscher 20:58, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
- I wouldn't think it particularly necessary, but it could hardly hurt. I don't know if it would be maintainable though -- depends on how obvious it was that it was to be kept chronological. Haikupoet 23:55, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
- I would support a chronological order. Peter S. 16:22, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
- Ok, done. I have also tried to order entries within each decade (by approximation). Should we really order with the oldest one first? Peter S. 21:52, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] H/W Support for Video Data compression
Perhaps it is worthy to mention the hardware support for different mayor compression formats. Windows Media and DivX have more widespread support in the hardware as opposed to Real and Quicktime. Quicktime is supported as a container format on the Sony Clié and in AVC (mpeg 4 part 10). Real is not widely supported. In China there are some hardware players that support it, since they 'have' a lot of 'backup' copies of tv series in this format.
[edit] Digital Recording
Another less
[edit] AM Stereo
Although not widely recognized, with the right equipment, AM stereo was capable of equivalent or greater fidelity than FM, which is 50–15,000 Hz. AM broadcast stations are spaced at 10 kHz intervals in the US, but stations are never assigned on adjacent channels in the same region, and the broadcast signal can exceed this bandwidth. At least one receiver employed a 10 kHz notch filter to reduce interference and extend bandwith. With the Carver TX-11a tuner used as the receiver, listeners in blind testing were unable to distinguish the difference between an over-the-air AM stereo signal and non-broadcast studio program material. --Blainster 18:16, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Tape formats
The article says: Portable audio tape formats: 8-track and four-track cartridges versus Compact audio cassette, but the compact audio cassette appeared 7 years after the introduction fo the 8-track. It was more of a succession than a format war, although both coexisted for some time. Otherwise, we could list wax cylinders vs rubber vs shellac vs vinyl vs 4-track vs 8-track vs compact cassette vs compact disk..... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 132.79.14.15 (talk • contribs) 14:58, May 25, 2006 (UTC)
- It was, in fact, a head-to-head competition. The cassette was introduced in 1963, one year prior to the 8-track's 1964 entry to the market. Perhaps you are referring to the development of high-fidelity cassettes in 1971 (when Dolby-B was added). Prior to that year 8-tracks had lower noise and arguably higher frequency response. So the analogy you offer is not apt. --Blainster 22:33, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
[edit] x2 vs K56flex
For some time, online providers were required to maintain two modem banks for what was then high-speed access.
So, was this a requirment of some officiating body? or a requirment of market forces? I think this statment is pretty vague. If it was market forces, it would be more clear if it were "For some time, online providers were forced to maintain two modem banks for what was then high-speed access."
- Good point, it was just a marketing tactic, not a requirement. --Blainster 16:44, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Blu-ray vs HD DVD
10 Reasons Why High Definition DVD Formats Have Already Failed. Shawnc 06:57, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
- Yeah, I like especially the line "The high definition DVD formats, however are really just the same source material packaged in two different wrappers". I think we could add something like it to define "format war" properly (e.g. "the content is the same, companies just battle about the media wrapper"). Peter S. 07:26, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
I seem to remember seeing a device that could play both BluRay and HD-DVD. Can anyone back me on this?
[edit] Mac v. PC
Isn't Macintosh versus PC a format war? Jack Daw 08:25, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
- I wouldn't exactly classify mac vs. pc a format war. No more than Chevrolet vs. Ford is a format war... Cburnett 20:40, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
What about Firewire vs USB?
[edit] Film industry?
Before my time, but was there any format wars in terms of the film industry? Cburnett 21:52, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
- By "film" I mean both photography and video. 35 mm film reads to me that prior to 1909 there was a lot of competition. That's just width, what about physical construction and aspect ratio? Cburnett 06:53, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
- Here is a source for lots of info on 35mm: Film-Tech.com. It doesn't accept direct page links, so go there and select the Tips menu on the left, then the FAQ link at the bottom of the next page for a vast and detailed explanation of film formats. --Blainster 20:49, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Endianness a format war?
Endianness: little-endian vs. big-endian vs. middle-endian? Cburnett 21:54, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
- I think this is meant to deal more with hardware formats. Software formats change endlessly. --Blainster 20:41, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
- Endianness is entirely hardware derived. The 4 bytes that make up a 32-bit int have to be stored in memory in some particular way for operations (again hard coded in hardware) to make sense. Cburnett 22:28, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
- So true, Motorola vs. Intel. As a software guy I see only the bits. But the endianness is not really germane to the marketing wars between the two, as it confers no real advantage. Segmented addressing was a bigger annoyance for Intel MCUs. Mot may have touted flat addressing and the lack of need to split addresses or manipulate longints a time or two, but without noticable effect on sales.--Blainster 23:01, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
- Endianness is entirely hardware derived. The 4 bytes that make up a 32-bit int have to be stored in memory in some particular way for operations (again hard coded in hardware) to make sense. Cburnett 22:28, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
-
-
-
- Touche. I suppose it's more of a slap fight than a war or battle. It's quite trivial to htonl/htons and ntohl/ntohs as appropriate, just tedious. Cburnett 01:12, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
-
-
[edit] War of Currents?
How about the War of Currents? Cburnett 12:56, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
- That is an excellent example of a marketing competition, but this article is about various competing media formats. While power grids are currently being tested as an Internet delivery network, don't you think it's kind of a stretch to put it here? Now I see that Microchannel doesn't fit either, so out it goes--Blainster 21:37, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
-
- Again, touche. :) I swear I read the intro. I guess I had a much looser definition of "format" in my head while ignoring that word "media"...
-
- Anywho: can we change the definition of the article though? Is there an advantage to keeping it strictly about media formats? Or can/should we grow a parent article out of this? I'm not wanting a list of simple competing technologies (say java vs. c++) but where VHS vs. betamax and AC vs. DC are the caliber of competition. Thoughts? Cburnett 22:33, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
The current wars are definitely interesting, but I think it may fit better on a different list than Format wars. Try to come up with a name for a new article covering hardware, and we could move the more hardware-based stuff to it. The difficulty is sorting out whether the carrier (hardware) or message (software) is the more salient way to think of the technology. If we can't think of a better name, we can either add a new section to this article, or disambig to Format war (hardware) and Format war (software).
Remember, expanding lists can get way out of hand if editors don't dedicate themselves to tending them. You need to be willing to create an appropriate definition, and defend it as necessary against off-the-wall additions. --Blainster 23:11, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
- You mean like endianness and war of currents? :) I'll have to give it some thought. Cburnett 23:35, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Laserdisc?
Would Laserdisc be considered to have engaged in a format war with VHS or early DVD? --Badger151 06:24, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Mobile phones?
TDMA vs CDMA in the "last" generation of mobile phones, and now we've got GSM vs CDMA (or is it WCDMA?... T-Mobile and Cingular vs Sprint and Verizon in the US anyway)
Does that not count as a format war at all? --Dr3wrocks 07:33, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
- Well, it is true they are different, but the industry competition has been based more on things like price, coverage, and service, than on transmission format. The incompatibility sometimes serves as a deterrant to changing carriers, but I don't think it has defined the market. --Blainster 22:05, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
