Print 50 comment(s) - last by Gzus666.. on Nov 18 at 9:14 AM

Netflix consumers will have one month before the rental service stops renting HD DVDs

Online movie rental company Netflix sent an e-mail to its subscribers informing them they would no longer be able to rent HD DVDs.

"Effective December 15, 2008, we will no longer carry HD DVDs," a message to subscribers said.  "At that time, we will automatically replace any HD DVD titles in your queue with standard DVDs when available.  You don't have to do anything."

"Last February, we announced that since most of the major movie studios had decided to release their high-definition movies exclusively in Blu-ray, we were going exclusively Blu-ray as well and would be phasing out our HD DVDs."

Since Sony-backed Blu-ray won the format war and HD DVDs are no longer being released by movie studios, this decision isn't shocking.  Netflix will stop selling used DVDs by the end of the month, and it's unsure what will happen to the company's HD DVD catalog -- Netflix never sold high-def content.

The company will now shift support back to DVDs, Blu-ray and streaming services, with a strong emphasis on Blu-ray and streaming services.  The company recently announced several partnerships in which consumers will be able to stream TV episodes and movies directly into the living room using a set-top box or certain Blu-ray players.

Comments     Threshold

This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

RE: 360
By Gzus666 on 11/14/2008 7:29:18 PM , Rating: 2
Well, the man went to Columbia and Harvard University, if he didn't at least have a reasonable understanding of these things, I would definitely be a bit worried.

RE: 360
By BansheeX on 11/15/2008 3:54:44 AM , Rating: 3
Start being worried then, because most of the idiots that are in the Federal Reserve and managing our financial firms are ivy league schooled neo-keynesians. The type of "economics" predominantly taught in this country comes from a man named John Maynard Keynes who completely misunderstood the causes of the great depression and proposed government-centric ideas that government and socialist academics latched onto as a replacement for classical ones. That's how America enabled the path to bankruptcy and how a coinflip became 50% more reliable than every financial firm in America.

Here are some hilarious clips of Ron Paul economic advisor and austrian student Peter Schiff vs a neo-keynesian (Swonk) and a supply-sider (Laffer).

Here's Schiff explaining in detail how we got here in 2006:

Here's Schiff's outlook going forward.

RE: 360
By Gzus666 on 11/15/2008 12:33:37 PM , Rating: 3
Yea, I'm not afraid of Obama any more than the rest though. I'm more concerned about things like taking us off the gold standard and the other constant stupidity they enjoy. Ron Paul loves reaming them on that and so many other things. Ron Paul is actually smart though, that seems to be the difference.

Hope they figure that crap out, I don't want to have to move to Canada or Europe, not a huge socialism fan. Strongest country in the world and it seems they will kick our ass economically rather than with an army, ha.

RE: 360
By foolsgambit11 on 11/16/2008 3:54:49 PM , Rating: 2
Come on. The gold standard? What's the point in limiting total wealth to a certain finite quantity? Gold has no intrinsic value. Why don't we go to a tree-based economy? Your money's only worth the number of trees you've got in your country. During wars, instead of collecting people's gold for the war effort, we could go out and plant trees.

To make the value of all the gold in the world equal the value of the world economy now would make gold incredibly expensive. So expensive, someday it might start to make sense to transmute lead into gold. In fact, the limiting factor on the price of gold would be the cost of the power needed to transmute lead into gold.

Besides, if we were to go back to the gold standard, why wouldn't we just go to a single world currency? Since the idea is for governments not to have control over the total value of currency in circulation, it would make sense to just have a single currency - the U.N. Dollar, maybe?

RE: 360
By Gzus666 on 11/16/2008 5:31:17 PM , Rating: 2
I'd be OK with a world currency, would probably put things in balance.

If we were still on the gold standard, they estimate oil would be $3.50 per barrel. That is not a typo, $3.50. Having an imaginary number set to your money is kinda crazy. Also some of our strongest times as a country were while we were on the gold standard. Hell, use diamonds if you really want. Any resource works, we practically do it with oil anyway. Don't put all your eggs in one basket I guess.

Sooner or later China is going to want their loans repaid, thats not going to be good. I have a feeling if WWIII happens, it will be over us owing everyone money.

RE: 360
By Oregonian2 on 11/16/2008 11:57:10 PM , Rating: 2
Yes, might be $3.50 a barrel, but you'd probably be making fifty cents an hour if you've got a good job.

Actually I'm not sure how it's work out. I more suspect that gold just would be a million dollars an ounce and that the only winners would be the gold mining companies and those who own the mines. The new materials that they have to replace gold on connectors would have been invented earlier, and nobody would have gold jewelery.

I also suspect those pushing the gold standard are those owning gold or stock in entities that do.

RE: 360
By foolsgambit11 on 11/16/2008 3:36:20 PM , Rating: 2
Yeah. We've done so awful since 1933.

Take a look around. I mean, obviously, I can't spew wealth numbers at you, because you probably believe those are flawed by a basic misunderstanding of what value is.

Then separate fiscal, monetary, and economic policy. They affect each other, but they are different.

There is no doubt that we need some change in how the system is run, but these people who want to throw the baby out with the bathwater seem to forget that there's a lot worth saving, and that the system can function very well. Think of it like nuclear power. Done right, it works great, and pound for pound, produces the most returns. But it has to be done carefully, thoughtfully, and with constant monitoring to ensure optimum performance.

Ron Paul is great - he's the other side of Lyndon LaRouche. I personally think they're the same person....

"I'd be pissed too, but you didn't have to go all Minority Report on his ass!" -- Jon Stewart on police raiding Gizmodo editor Jason Chen's home

Most Popular Articles5 Cases for iPhone 7 and 7 iPhone Plus
September 18, 2016, 10:08 AM
Automaker Porsche may expand range of Panamera Coupe design.
September 18, 2016, 11:00 AM
Walmart may get "Robot Shopping Carts?"
September 17, 2016, 6:01 AM
No More Turtlenecks - Try Snakables
September 19, 2016, 7:44 AM
ADHD Diagnosis and Treatment in Children: Problem or Paranoia?
September 19, 2016, 5:30 AM

Copyright 2016 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki