How could Sony tard pack the cheap PS3 and not mention it?

The TV functionality is no longer a PS3 ‘thing’. Sony have released a different piece of proprietary technology (or are about to) that enables all content at home to be remotely accessed via an expensive (£200 or so) hub. As far as I remember, currently only laptops (VAIO, presumably) and palmtops are supported.
I wish I could remember the name, and the exact details elude me. I do remember that changing channels was unsupported.

That PDF is awesome. This is what I learned:

  1. The PS3 will enhance the joy of entertainment. In other words, a given unit of entertainment will provide more joy! Since I use the same units to quantify “joy” and “entertainment” (mcg of dopamine), that means that the PS3 transcends thermodynamics and can generate infinite mass from a small “seed” amount.

  2. The PS3 is the most advanced computer system (that runs entertainment software in a house). They use the present tense. Considering that PS3 does not exist, and certainly does not reside in any homes, that means that the PS2 does not exist and/or cannot play games, either.

  3. PS3 supports the latest full HD 1080p displays. Since those use HDMI, and the $499 model doesn’t allow HDMI, the $499 model is not a PS3. What the hell is it?

  4. PS3 supports 72 Mbps BD transfers (“2x”). The PDF says 48 Mbps is the maximum bitrate defined in the Blu-Ray standard. So, before Blu-Ray is even out, Sony is already promoting something that violates the official standard?

  5. Maximum heat and noise reduction have been achieved, resulting in the exact same levels as you get when buying a current PS2. In other words, they achieved no reduction at all, and are bragging about it.

What a load of cross-talk and BS. It’s like each sentence was written by a different avatar of Kenny K or marketing exec, without communication.

#4 is you misunderstanding. The 48mbps is what is required for blu-ray movie playback. the maximum required to play back a movie.

#5 is innteresting, I’ve read here that it is as quiet as a slim ps2, but i’ve read elsewhere they are as loud or louder than the 360 or old ps2’s. We’ll see when it comes out.

The grid in the press release lists “Wireless controller (Bluetooth)” under both models. That could be read to mean wireless controller support, but there’s also an entry for plain old “Bluetooth 2.0 (EDR),” so it would be odd to list “Wireless controller” separately unless they’re referring to the controller itself and not simply wireless controller support.

The “1080p-over-HDMI-only” rule applies to BD-Video, i.e. Blu-ray movies. There’s nothing preventing Sony from doing 1080p over component for games or other non-movie content, although come to think of it we could use some official word on whether they actually plan to do so. I’d also like to know if the system upconverts standard DVDs.

Thanks for the clarification. However, I can’t imagine a stupider move on Sony’s part than this. “We want to win the format war, so let’s saturate the market with BD players by sneaking BD into our game consoles. But… let’s make it only work at DVD resolution, so people can PAY for a BD player, but GET a DVD player.”

I understood it, actually, but I was just making fun of Sony’s inability to use English. It’s not like this is a multibillion dollar electronics company with an entire North American division, writing a press release for the world’s foremost electronic entertainment exposition, announcing its most important product in the last four years. Ok, so maybe it’s a little like that…

I can only suppose a rogue employee sent them up the bomb.

My guess is they meant to say “minimum” and some wires got crossed somewhere.

No, I think the use of the word “bitrate” vs. transfer speed is clear enough unless you’re trying to be obtuse. People don’t say “it has xxx bitrate” when talking about the transfer speed.

Okay, I hadn’t actually read that part of the press release. It makes sense in context, but in the name of strict accuracy it should’ve read “BD-Video standard” instead of “BD standards.”

That’s true.

Regarding Component video versus HDMI: The rumor is that the $399 version will allow up to full 1080p resolution on everything except movies that have the ITC flag enabled.

I think this is the same deal with Xbox 360’s HD-DVD addon. Component video only (through 360) no HDMI.

I’ve mentioned this before, but it was in the middle of that huge threadcast so I’ll repeat it here. There’s no technical obstacle to doing 1080p over component – at least not at 24fps and 30fps – but BD-Video and HD DVD-Video simply don’t allow it, with or without the ICT. The most you can get via component with either format is 1080i, assuming the studio is generous enough to allow it. Like I said, there’s no reason that should apply to PS3 games and other non-BD-Video content, but Sony should clarify this ASAP.

Oh, THOSE movies. Um, movies from indy studios, Michael Moore crap, and stuff from those motion picture conglomerates that are campaigning for consumer rights, hmmm?

Every HD DVD movie currently available is from a major studio, and none of them have the ICT enabled. Disney, Fox and Sony/MGM/Columbia have said they won’t downrez and Paramount is thought to be leaning in that direction as well. Universal (which is only backing HD DVD at the moment) has said they won’t use it, but that only applies to “first-generation” titles and they may change their mind at any point. Warner Bros. is the big unknown – they’re said to have pushed harder for the ICT than anyone else, and while none of their HD DVD releases to date implement it, they haven’t made any promises one way or the other.

Huh. I stand corrected. Although if BD-Video is incapable of putting out a 1080p signal without HDMI in the first place, the ICT flag becomes irrelevant… doesn’t it?

No, because the ICT prevents 720p and 1080i over component – you’re stuck with 960x540, which is better than standard DVD (720x480), but not by enough. Without the ICT you can do everything except 1080p over component.

And now for the really stupid question, what’s the point? What am I missing? Why would the studio care if you’re using component or HDMI? Does HDMI have some other benefits I’m missing?

HDCP. Copy protection. Over component you can easily rip that data and throw it into a torrent and then the entertainment industry loses 100 BILLION DOLLARS!

HDMI = digital, component = analog. Waaaaaaay easier for 'em to implement “rights management” on a digital signal vs. analog. IE, there’s no benefits for you, but there are for the studios. (well, there’s a slight benefit for you in that the digital signal will be more precise, but hey).

At least, that’s my understanding of it, I’m sure Bob V. will correct me if I’m wrong :)

They’re afraid of people producing pirated copies from the highest-quality outputs. There’s no copy protection on component, but there is (or can be, if the TV/monitor supports it) with HDMI.

(Edit: Bah, the lack of (direct) preview on the quick reply prevents you from seeing if anyone else has already replied…)