Talk:DIVX

Well, this isn't right! DivX is a company, and DIVX is a format! Thus they obviously shouldn;t be redirected. Where did DIVX go, or did it ever exist?... 86.41.149.187 (talk) 10:31, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To explain the above, DIVX (standing for Digital Video Express) redirected to DivX, the software codec company, with a further disambiguation to the Digital Video Express page. Logically, DIVX should redirect to Digital Video Express (as thats what DIVX means), and those looking for DivX can sort themselves out via the disambiguation link on top. Im going to go ahead and edit this and assume that no-one will ever know... Geno-Supremo (talk) 10:41, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ah, it was just a revert. Geno-Supremo (talk) 10:44, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Recycling/landfill issues

At the time, there was an environmental concern that people would be buying throwaway discs that would accumulate in landfills. This was brought up in many news articles about the new format and its impact on garbage. Does anyone have a citation for it? BrotherSulayman (talk) 22:23, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Over a decade later: Yes. I'm adding it to the article now.--Martin IIIa (talk) 19:53, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What exactly does this mean?

What does it mean when it says the accounting module is erased? What exactly does this do, and for what purpose? I would imagine most people reading the article also would be confused by this, and it certainly doesn't help that Googling it just gives you things about the DivX video codec. I'm going to add the clarify tag for this reason. flarn2006 [u t c] time: 02:33, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Additional references

Some DIVX (or Divx?) history is in "A Short History of the Divx Home Video System" at http://www.the-doa.com/Pages/DoaDivxHistory.html. It says that Divx was a home video (rental) system - not just a "videodisc format" or "a rental format variation on the DVD player" - and mentions "a catalog of over 500 titles".

There are additional Resources listed at http://www.the-doa.com/Pages/index.htm. They include "What was Divx?" at http://www.the-doa.com/Pages/DoaWhatWasDivx.html and lists of titles.

There is/was a DIVX Owners Association - see "About the DOA" at http://www.the-doa.com/Pages/DoaAbout.html.

Peter Jones 180.200.178.247 (talk) 12:46, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm too lazy to go through the history to see if it got wiped out before, but I added this site just now as an external link, given that there were none before (just refs). It's good to have a source on-line of all the titles and in time the article's list could be expanded to include them. It would be a lot of work, but these could be linked to...say, Amazon.com listings if someone demanded refs for each title. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.194.68.215 (talk) 02:48, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on DIVX. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071007094046/http://www.digitalbits.com/articles/oldstudionews/paramount.html to http://www.digitalbits.com/articles/oldstudionews/paramount.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:27, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Economies of scale?

I seriously doubt that economies of scale were what drove pricing down within months of release. Depending upon what point in time this statement refers to, either the change in pricing occurred between a market test and an actual launch, or it occurred when an inflated initial price structure ran headlong into the reality of the market they entered. But either way, if you're going to say something like 'economies of scale' is the cause, then it really should be more than just an assertion. If nobody knows why the pricing dropped, then any cause should be removed since it would just be speculation. It would be great as well if some actual pricing existed.

Oh… pricing at launch would probably be better situated in the 'launch' section than the 'format' section.

Under 'demise', the format introduction costs were already sunk. Lack of acceptance seems to be a legitimate factor however. And what does 'shot down' mean? Surely there's a better way to write this? Meanwhile, the citation re: Circuit City's loss says nothing about the company suffering an after-tax loss. It merely says that this amount was spent on the 'experiment'. Finally, was Future Shop a U.S. retailer at this time? The section refers to a U.S.-wide rollout but then lists Future Shop as one of the four major retailers for this product.

Thanks, ogenstein (talk) 17:46, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Massive expansion

Added a lot more content to the article. TheBuddy92 (talk) 03:20, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]