Why did dvd beat out divx?

[flambus]

??

 

[Looney]

When did they fight?

 

[Viper GTS]

Because people don't like to be have their movie watching tracked, & when they buy something they want to own it for more than 36 hours (or however long it was).

It was a bad idea, & it never went anywhere.

Viper GTS

 

[mithrandir2001]

I think 1/3 or 1/2 of the DivX controlling company was owned by a law firm content on using as much legal wrangling possible to maximize the extraction of $$$ from consumers. It was content control above all else and consumers rightfully rejected it.

 

[MonstaThrilla]

They made a nice codec though...

 

[SaltBoy]

For the uninformed, the "Divx" Flambus is referring to is NOT the .avi codec. Rather, it was a format that directly competed with DVD in the early days of the format. It died in early 1998, I believe.

Why it didn't work: lack of widescreen, rental only, no extras included, couldn't be copied onto one's hard drive, etc... It is also perhaps the biggest reason why movie studios such as Fox, Disney, and Paramount took so long to get onto the DVD bandwagon. They wanted more control over what the people saw.

Yep, bad idea.

 

[mithrandir2001]

<< They made a nice codec though... >>


That's completely different, though it is easy to get confused. The original "DivX" was a proprietary DVD format. The current "DivX" is a codec often used for pirating DVDs. That's why it is now called "DivX ; )"

 

[Looney]

Oh, THAT divx.

Anyways, i don't think that's the reason (although that was the reasons i've heard too)... really, what's so different about buying a divx movie and renting a DVD and needing to return it? Except instead of returning the movie, you throw it in the trash (yes! more things to throw in the waste). I know i certainly wouldn't have a problem. Prices were similar, and you did'nt have to have a membership to get the movie.

I think the reason why it wasn't popular was because DVD rentals weren't big until like 2 yrs ago (even today, they're about 1/20 the size of normal VCR rentals). They were ahead of their time, and couldn't return enough of the investment in time, so they went belly up.

Whoever owns the technology should hold onto it for a couple more years, will probably be possible then.

 

[flambus]

thanks guys.

 

[MonstaThrilla]

I thought the DiVx codec we all use now, for umm, stuff, is the same codec used on the DiVx discs? Like how mpeg-2 is used for DVD's?

 

[flambus]

MonstaThrilla -- i am curious to know that too.

 

[KingHam]

Basically the economics of DivX did not work. When DivX was originally conceived the prevailing notion was that DVD's would retail for $25-30 a disc. At that price point DivX was an interesting concept that provided more flexibility than renting at 15-20% of the cost of buying the movie and the consumer had the option to "unlock" the movie if they decided they liked it enough. Of course, since DVD's retailed for $12-20 instead of $25-30 DivX no longer made sense economically.

 

[erikistired]

the difference is studios were ONLY releasing on divx, not on both formats. for us collectors, that just didn't work.

~erik

 

[Freejack2]

Enh, won't matter soon anyhow. Pretty soon once the RIAA and others get their riot act passed, all computers will have built in hardware copyright protection.
They may not have won with Divx but they'll win with hardware protection.

 

[Angrymarshmello]

The whole concept of DivX was just a stupid idea to begin with. It was common sense that consumers would push more towards DVD than a rent-a-movie DivX crapola.

 

[Windogg]

Not only that but Divx needed a special player to work. That player needed to be plugged into a phone jack for the system to work. Only a few outlets pushed it because it was the brainchild of CircuitSh!tty. Other electronics stores had no incentive to sell a competitior's product.

Wunbdigg

 

[NelsonMuntz]

<< It is also perhaps the biggest reason why movie studios such as Fox, Disney, and Paramount took so long to get onto the DVD bandwagon. They wanted more control over what the people saw. >>


I thought these three companies were into the DVD deal from pretty early on. My understanding is that Warner Brothers was the big Hollywood investor in DiVx and they got really hurt by the whole thing. Notice how the early WB DVDs, like Batman, had no extra footage, just trailers.