I agree. <<Ebert's confused. Maybe he wouldn't be so negative if Bob's suggestion of DVD Plus! was used instead of DIVX.>>
When Divx eventually appears at my local Circuit City, I'll do a little sales-people "training", emphasizing to think of Divx as DVD+ when comparing the two for prospective customers. :)
There is a slough of DIVX dissing at the alt.video.dvd newsgroup, including mention of the Ebert article. Of course, many of the people posting on the DVD thread likely are owners of current DVD equipment, and their sour attitudes towards a Divx future might be understandable on that basis alone. The divx.com site offers information to answer most of the misgivings about Divx posted at the alt.video.dvd newsgroup.
A URL for a newsgroup thread that reveals Divx gripes won't post here correctly, but the thread can be found by doing a <quick search> for "Can buy a divx disc outright" at dejanews.com , opening one item and then doing a "View Thread" to organize. Personally, I think Divx will fly, *if* the vast majority of movie titles will be available both for rental *and* purchase. When I see the phrase "many titles" used in some of the answers to FAQs at the DIVX.COM page, I pause and wonder, for example:
source1: divx.com
source2: divx.com
Q: Exactly what does "convert to unlimited viewing" mean?
A: For many Divx titles, consumers will have the option to pay a one-time fee after the initial viewing period, and may then play the converted disc as often as desired without additional charges. The "free plays" are applicable only to the converting player and other players on the same billing account.
A: Divx is designed primarily for the rental market. Nevertheless, if
consumer demand exists, standard DVD and Divx Gold titles will be
available for purchase, and the Divx player will play both. On many Divx titles, consumers also will have the option to pay an additional, one-time fee and "unlock" a specific movie for unlimited viewing.
eric |
