Comments Locked

46 Comments

Back to Article

  • samuraijake - Sunday, January 27, 2008 - link

    I'm a little late coming to this party, but still found the discussion interesting. This thread has yielded a lot of support for both (or neither) of the formats. Some of the more interesting rationales that I noticed:

    - Blu-ray will win out because "HD-DVD" is a mouthful and Blu-ray is a more memorable name.

    - Blu-ray will win out because even though it is more expensive now, it will be cheaper in the future.

    - "Let's use reason to determine the winner. One choice: Blu-ray" [paraphrased]

    - Sony is evil so HD-DVD should win.

    - Microsoft is evil so Blu-ray should win.

    - Blu-ray will win because it is technologically superior to HD-DVD

    - HD-DVD will win because it is technologically superior to Blu-ray

    As anyone with even a moderate ability to evaluate things objectively will acknowledge, any topic that is so hotly debated as this one (HD-DVD vs. Blu-ray) probably has justifiably good reasons for both options. Blu-ray is higher capacity. HD-DVD is capable of backwards compatibility. Blu-ray supports higher a higher bit rate. HD-DVD is less costly to manufacture at this point. The reasons go on.

    Most of the individuals who post in discussions such as these are well versed in the pros and cons of the competing options. Well, maybe 'most' is a bit generous. ;) But regardless, we have the luxury of understanding video bit rates as compared to audio and video quality, data density as it relates to long term medium reliability, the strengths (and weaknesses) of the copy protection mechanisms implemented in both formats. We know the benefits and pitfalls of a changing format profile as well as a static one. We can weigh the value of a format's strengths on the scale of our own interests. For example, will we be ripping this content? Will a format support the bit rate necessary for feeding our 8.1 channel surround sound system with lossless audio streams? Will additional features via Internet connectivity during playback further enhance our experience?

    We ask questions such as these in order to determine which format will better serve our interests and then ally ourselves with whichever product or solution we believe most effectively satisfies our (and other's perceived) needs. But this approach is more limited in its application than we may be willing to admit.

    Early adopters use this reasoning to determine which is the 'better' product. (And we are still early adopters. Though the HD market has certainly grown by leaps and bounds, the library of movies and available players is but a sliver of the device and content cornucopia that is standard definition DVD.) But as adoption and interest in this blossoming technology become more and more widespread, the mode of reasoning also begins to shift. Our friends, who perhaps have HDTVs but no HD disc player, visit our homes and marvel at the image quality of our HD playback. Being a little educated about things technological themselves, they acquiesce to our recommendations and purchase similar hardware to ours. Their friends visit them, perhaps less well versed in all things tech, and marvel at our friends amazing video playback. This 'third-generation' of prospective buyers is perhaps less interested in bit rates and capacities and longevity and more concerned about the almighty dollar. They long for HD optical media playback, but to them cost is a limiting factor.

    The cycle continues and for as much as we (the pioneers and early adopters) educate ourselves on the pros and cons, the simple truth is that widespread adoption (or at least interest in adoption) will create a potential customer pool composed primarily of individuals who do not understand the complexities of video codes, sampling, profiles, constrained paths, and the rest of the intricate web that comprises the current HD video market.

    We as purveyors of a progressive digital lifestyle (early adopters, geeks, what have you) tend to prioritize our spending to accommodate our feelings about the various components of our digital life. I believe plasma is better for me than LCD, so I financially finagled until I could afford the plasma TV after which I had pined. But again, as the pool of potential HD optical media consumers expands, it will invariably draw in those who do not prioritize their spending to accommodate a long-wished-for and long-deliberated digital lifestyle purchase. To put it simply, these consumers are more interested in having an HD movie on their bookshelf (to put in their player, of course) rather than having the ability to circumvent copy protection in order to archive or location-shift our purchased movies. They want an HD movie rather than an optical medium with 50GB of storage capacity with a guaranteed shelf-life of 50 years for mission critical backup.

    The end game is cost (or perhaps perceived cost). These individuals are concerned with the service that this new technology (format) provides, not the quality of the technology itself. We all know that 1s and 0s are the same regardless of the media upon which they might reside. It is the quality of the delivery of those ones and zeros that we the techies are debating. What the unknowing masses will debate is not the quality of the technology, because they are unconcerned or unaware of the differences in digital delivery systems; what they will debate is the cost of said technology. For to them the content is the goal. Less expensive content means that more content can be had for the same initial outlay.

    To further cloud the landscape of modern HD media, I fear that there is yet another perspective at work in the midst of the decision and policy makers. While we as lovers of technology debate its quality, and lovers of content (and not concurrently lovers of tech) debate its cost, there are other bodies which debate each format's profitability. For these entities, the quality of a technology is a secondary factor in the forging of allegiances (however close of a secondary factor it may be or how touted a technology's superiority, it is still secondary). Even the quality of the content being delivered is a second-level consideration, ever trumped by the allure of even mildly increased margins.

    It is these three qualifications that a 'winning' format must satisfy. A technology of quality [or at least acceptable] design and implementation, one that provides content at reasonable and even inviting cost, and one that is poised to profit the content providers as they meet [legitimate] consumer demand (not a perceived, imposed, or artificially inflated one). And as we've seen exemplified in the ferocity of debate, un-abashedness of promotion, and the rising level of adoption, that may very well be a quite difficult role to fulfill.

    So how can we apply this understanding to recent rumblings in the high definition optical media world? It would appear that the selection of a next-generation media standard is being left to those who would profit (via content and licensing) from the standardization of their proffered technology. Though debates rage in cyberspace concerning which technology holds more merit for technology's sake, our voices are not acted upon. Though HD adoption is progressing at an encouraging pace and the cost of entry into HD is continually falling, the overwhelming majority of thus far untapped consumers has yet been unable to cast its vote on the issue. Thus sales figures and projections and the actual, physical, in-the-brick-and-mortar-store purchases are based on the whims of we who embrace this technology purely because it is technology; and we will certainly never come to a unanimous (or even majority) agreement, for we are all so very similar in our disparity.

    And thus, those who would profit from the delivery of our coveted, pristine, digital content are fighting hard to ensure the victory of the most profitable (in relation to their own bottom lines) format. This is not in we, the consumers' best interests, but this is indeed the manner in which this ordeal is being decided. What hope can we garner from such a seemingly dismal future should our technology be decided those who would have us pay for it? It seems that people have a history of refusing to suffer under the burden of a 'bad' or 'wrong' technology. For example, digital rights management (DRM) was implemented not for the consumer, but for the provider. It is a bad technology, one to which people are slowly beginning to awake. Now we find ourselves in the midst of a music industry which is fast repealing (some of) its DRM constraints. Laser discs did not take hold. Accuracy-crippled GPS navigation quickly was replaced. Severely inefficient gasoline engines (outdated technology) are under attack. ISP-level web content filtering has roused a cry of "Foul!" from the technorati. Biometric security systems for personal computers abound while threats of online identity theft seemingly compound; yet countless passwords are still the user's birth date or last name.

    Anand is correct. This "format war"--as we are so fond of labeling this technological and commercial clash of interests--is being fought for the industry, not the consumers for which the industry exists. But people will not embrace a technology (or a means to content; i.e. format) which they do not want, no matter how hard a technology (or content) provider tries to convince them that they must or should. If one format does "win out" over the other without the people's say, and if it is one that does not serve the people, I have a feeling that before too much is endured, the people's voice--either in a voice of protest or in an abstinence of adoption--will be heard.

    That said, I'm going to go watch a DRM-free HD video streamed over a network using open source software on a plasma television via an HD-DVD equipped Microsoft Xbox 360 over a non-HDCP compliant interface and simultaneously display the content on any of several other TVs and other video devices throughout the house.
  • pomaikai - Tuesday, January 8, 2008 - link

    People migrated from VHS to DVD because of the convenience of not having to rewind tapes, going straight to scenes, improved picture quality, smaller media, etc. The list goes on. What does hi def dvd have to offer other than a better picture? Nothing!!! BD cant even go online until profile 2.0. I dont care about picture in picture. My TV has picture in picture and I have never used it. The new features that are in hi-def are all marketing. Things that sound cool, but really have no use to most people.

    The problem with online distribution is portability. To be able to play everything that you can download you currently need a PC connected to every TV and very few people can afford a HTPC on every tv in there home. Because of DRM you cant just convert your movie into mobile format or just reduce the size to fit more movies on a laptop while full resolution is on home pc. Nothing is compatible with anything because of DRM. Because of DRM and the amount of codecs it is to hard for a single media player to be able to play movies from netflix, unbox, etc. Portable media players will need to be constantly updated to keep up with all the new codecs.

    Successful online distribution will succeed after the death of DRM and HDCP. Who wants to purchase a 1080p movie online or on a Hi-Def DVD to find out the quality is reduced because something somewhere does not meet the standards of the drm scheme. Could be a video card, cables, or anything. Or have the company go under and not be able to get a new license for a movie on your hard drive.

    Streaming is the future. I rip all my DVDs and convert them to stream to my 360. I would buy both BD and HD-DVD if I was able to rip and stream it, but it is still not easy to do. I have no desire to search through my 200 disc collection to find out the movie is not in the right case, in my wifes car, or my son got ahold of it and scratched it all up. Once a DVD is ripped it is easy to create a mobile copy, a high-def 720p upconverted copy and a SD copy for a laptop with limited space.
  • pomaikai - Tuesday, January 8, 2008 - link

    People migrated from VHS to DVD because of the convenience of not having to rewind tapes, going straight to scenes, improved picture quality, smaller media, etc. The list goes on. What does hi def dvd have to offer other than a better picture? Nothing!!! BD cant even go online until profile 2.0. I dont care about picture in picture. My TV has picture in picture and I have never used it. The new features that are in hi-def are all marketing. Things that sound cool, but really have no use to most people.

    The problem with online distribution is portability. To be able to play everything that you can download you currently need a PC connected to every TV and very few people can afford a HTPC on every tv in there home. Because of DRM you cant just convert your movie into mobile format or just reduce the size to fit more movies on a laptop while full resolution is on home pc. Nothing is compatible with anything because of DRM. Because of DRM and the amount of codecs it is to hard for a single media player to be able to play movies from netflix, unbox, etc. Portable media players will need to be constantly updated to keep up with all the new codecs.

    Successful online distribution will succeed after the death of DRM and HDCP. Who wants to purchase a 1080p movie online or on a Hi-Def DVD to find out the quality is reduced because something somewhere does not meet the standards of the drm scheme. Could be a video card, cables, or anything. Or have the company go under and not be able to get a new license for a movie on your hard drive.

    Streaming is the future. I rip all my DVDs and convert them to stream to my 360. I would buy both BD and HD-DVD if I was able to rip and stream it, but it is still not easy to do. I have no desire to search through my 200 disc collection to find out the movie is not in the right case, in my wifes car, or my son got ahold of it and scratched it all up. Once a DVD is ripped it is easy to create a mobile copy, a high-def 720p upconverted copy and a SD copy for a laptop with limited space.
  • Frallan - Monday, January 7, 2008 - link

    and thereafter watch the ripped version from my computer on my 40" Sony in Full HD ....

    No way i will give up a free way of getting all the content I want in one format to replace it with 2 expensive. And this comes from someone who thinks that ppl with IP should get payed (and i do pay for all my games [after trying tho]).

    Hopefully there will be one way of doing things soon so I can ease down on the pirating (btw Im swedish so no laws broken in my country)..
  • Tin Hat - Monday, January 7, 2008 - link

    Okay I understand from your comments there is a format war going on and yes, the preferences for each format are arguable. Also there are expensive players & recorders out there. Seems to me theres a lot of you ranting about the obvious in terms of simple economics and product life cycles:

    New products = high prices
    New Ideas = competitors

    Now Im not trying to be smart but I had to mention this before my next comments seemed appropriate. It seems to me that the only opinions worth noting are the ones with good predictions. So let me start the ball rolling by saying what I do know and what I think comes next:

    1) After initial slow start Blu-ray is now out selling HD-DVD 3:1
    2) You can buy dual format Blu-ray burner and HD player now for £200

    Why pick Blu-ray over HD-DVD?

    Well, I dont know if its just me, but the name, irrespective of how much you like Sony, is actually rather cool. Consequently you tend to remember (or prefer) the name when buying movies. I always found HD-DVD to be quite boring to be honest, sounding like any other hardware product out there and not standing out from the crowd. The sales figures seem to suggest the public might agree with my thoughts.

    Also, as long as LG & Samsung continue to make cheap dual format drives Im happy. Format wars won't bother me at all. Costs of recordable disks are shockingly high but then again it’s the product life cycle again so expect prices to drop significantly by Q1 2009.

    Regarding movies, Im stuck here! Common sense tells me the industry will move more towards Blu-ray due to my earlier comments about public preferences. Money talks and some movie studios will defect done the line. Watch this space...
  • EODetroit - Monday, January 7, 2008 - link

    Obviously some blue-ray supporter is spamming the comments using different names. We can tell its the same guy because he triple posts everything he writes.

    Anyways... I'm supporting HD DVD with my wallet.

    Battlestar Galactica FTW.

    $129 HD DVD drive for the 360 FTW (black friday deal)

    Everquest, Everquest 2, Star Wars Galaxies, Vanguard... All of them For The LOSE once Sony put its name on them.

    I know they're totally seperate divisions of Sony but I will never buy anything the Sony Corporation in any way profits from. Fortunately I only had to play EQ1 before I figured that out. I laugh as I play WoW at everyone who wasted money on the other MMOs after not learning from EQ1.

    It may not work the same for Blu Ray vs HD DVD as it did with everything else vs WoW... but nevertheless I'll never buy anything Sony profits from. They lost me as a customer... For Life. I said that 3 years ago and I still mean it.
  • Tin Hat - Monday, January 7, 2008 - link

    Okay I understand from your comments there is a format war going on and yes, the preferences for each format are arguable. Also there are expensive players & recorders out there. Seems to me theres a lot of you ranting about the obvious in terms of simple economics and product life cycles:

    New products equals high prices
    New Ideas equals competitors

    Now Im not trying to be smart but I had to mention this before my next comments seemed appropriate. It seems to me that the only opinions worth noting are the ones with good predictions. So let me start the ball rolling by saying what I do know and what I think comes next:

    1) After initial slow start Blu-ray is now out selling HD-DVD 3:1
    2) You can buy dual format Blu-ray burner and HD player now for £200

    Why pick Blu-ray over HD-DVD?

    Well, I dont know if its just me, but the name, irrespective of how much you like Sony, is actually rather cool. Consequently you tend to remember [or prefer] the name when buying movies. I always found HD-DVD to be quite boring to be honest, sounding like any other hardware product out there and not standing out from the crowd. The sales figures seem to suggest the public might agree with my thoughts.

    Also, as long as LG & Samsung continue to make cheap dual format drives Im happy. Format wars won't bother me at all. Costs of recordable disks are shockingly high but then again it’s the product life cycle again so expect prices to drop significantly by Q1 2009.

    Regarding movies, Im stuck here! Common sense tells me the industry will move more towards Blu-ray due to my earlier comments about public preferences. Money talks and some movie studios will defect done the line. Watch this space...
  • Tin Hat - Monday, January 7, 2008 - link

    I understand from your comments there is a format war going on and yes, the preferences for each format are arguable. Also there are expensive players & recorders out there. Seems to me theres a lot of you ranting about the obvious in terms of simple economics and product life cycles:

    New products = high prices
    New Ideas = competitors

    Now Im not trying to be smart but I had to mention this before my next comments seemed appropriate. It seems to me that the only opinions worth noting are the ones with good predictions. So let me start the ball rolling by saying what I do know and what I think comes next:

    1) After initial slow start Blu-ray is now out selling HD-DVD 3:1
    2) You can buy dual format Blu-ray burner and HD player now for £200

    Why pick Blu-ray over HD-DVD?

    Well, I dont know if its just me, but the name, irrespective of how much you like Sony, is actually rather cool. Consequently you tend to remember [or prefer] the name when buying movies. I always found HD-DVD to be quite boring to be honest, sounding like any other hardware product out there and not standing out from the crowd. The sales figures seem to suggest the public might agree with my thoughts.

    Also, as long as LG & Samsung continue to make cheap dual format drives Im happy. Format wars won't bother me at all. Costs of recordable disks are shockingly high but then again it’s the product life cycle again so expect prices to drop significantly by Q1 2009.

    Regarding movies, Im stuck here! Common sense tells me the industry will move more towards Blu-ray due to my earlier comments about public preferences. Money talks and some movie studios will defect done the line. Watch this space...
  • Tin Hat - Monday, January 7, 2008 - link

    I understand from your comments there's a format war and yes the preferences for each format are arguable. Also there are expensive players & recorders out there. Seems to me there's alot of you ranting about the obvious in terms of simple economics and product life cycles:

    New products = high prices
    New Ideas = competitors

    Now I'm not trying to be smart but I had to mention this before my next comments seemed appropriate. It seems to me that the only opinions worth noting are the ones with good predictions. So let me start the ball rolling by saying what I do know and what I think comes next:

    1) After initial slow start Blu-ray is now out selling HD-DVD 3:1
    2) you can buy dual format Blu-ray burner and HD player now for £200

    Why pick Blu-ray over HD-DVD? Well, I don't know if its just me but the name irrespective of how much you like Sony is rather cool. So consequently you tend to remember [or prefer] the name when buying. I always found HD-DVD to be a mouthful & boring to be honest and the sales figures seem to suggest the public agree with me.

    Also, as long as LG & Samsung continue to make cheap dual format drives I'm happy. Format wars won't bother me at all. Cost of recordable disks is shockingly high but then again its product life cycle again so expect to drop significantly by Q1 2009.

    Regarding movies, I'm stuck here! Common sense tells me the industry will end up with Blu-ray as well due to my earlier comments about public preference trends. Money talks and some movie studios will defect done the line. Watch this space...
  • bandstand124 - Monday, January 7, 2008 - link

    There are only about 900 films available on on HD optical media so the idea of using lists of your favorite films is utterly ridiculous at this point, it is always going to be a tiny sub set of the list of films you want to watch.

    Why not use a more tried and tested method I.E. list each formats advantages and disadvantages in the market place, work out which one is going to win and then buy that one.

    There is only one conclusion. Blu Ray.

    You say the best option is to buy neither. Unfortunately, I like watching films on a big f**king TV in stunning high definition with fantastic sound so I cam up with another option more clever than yours.

    Watch the films you can in Blu Ray, upscale the ones you can't or wait for them to be released on Blu Ray.

    Ta da!

    It's that simple. I have no problems recommending to anybody that HD DVD is a waste of cash and Blu Ray is it for HD films.
  • bandstand124 - Monday, January 7, 2008 - link

    There are only about 900 films available on on HD optical media so the idea of using lists of your favorite films is utterly ridiculous at this point, it is always going to be a tiny sub set of the list of films you want to watch.

    Why not use a more tried and tested method I.E. list each formats advantages and disadvantages in the market place, work out which one is going to win and then buy that one.

    There is only one conclusion.

    Blu Ray.

    So if you want to watch films in stunning high defintion on a massive TV with great sound then do what I am doing, that is:

    Watch the films you can in Blu Ray, upscale the ones you can't or wait for them to be released on Blu Ray.

    It's that simple. I have no problems recommending to anybody that HD DVD is a waste of cash and Blu Ray is it for HD films.
  • bandstand124 - Monday, January 7, 2008 - link

    There are only about 900 films available on on HD optical media so the idea of using lists of your favorite films is utterly ridiculous at this point, it is always going to be a tiny sub set of the list of films you want to watch.

    Why not use a more tried and tested method I.E. list each formats advantages and disadvantages in the market place, work out which one is going to win and then buy that one.

    There is only one conclusion.

    Blu Ray.

    So if you want to watch films in stunning high defintion on a massive TV with great sound then do what I am doing, that is:

    Watch the films you can in Blu Ray, upscale the ones you can't or wait for them to be released on Blu Ray.

    It's that simple. I have no problems recommending to anybody that HD DVD is a waste of cash and Blu Ray is it for HD films.
  • bandstand124 - Monday, January 7, 2008 - link

    There are only about 900 films available on on HD optical media so the idea of using lists of your favorite films is utterly ridiculous at this point, it is always going to be a tiny sub set of the list of films you want to watch.

    Why not use a more tried and tested method I.E. list each formats advantages and disadvantages in the market place, work out which one is going to win and then buy that one.

    There is only one conclusion.

    Blu Ray.

    So if you want to watch films in stunning high defintion on a massive TV with great sound then do what I am doing, that is:

    Watch the films you can in Blu Ray, upscale the ones you can't or wait for them to be released on Blu Ray.

    It's that simple. I have no problems recommending to anybody that HD DVD is a waste of cash and Blu Ray is it for HD films.
  • wetwareinterface - Monday, January 7, 2008 - link

    neither format is superior to the other.
    blu ray has a base storage capacity higher than hd-dvd.
    there are already in place higher hd-dvd storage standards, similar in how at first we had dvd 5 and then later dual layer dvd 9 discs even though dvd 9 was a standard from the start. if 25 Gb isn't enough room for a 1080p movie, special content and interactive features why does hd-dvd have all that? simply put more room = just more crap to put on a disc. 50 Gb is better, to be sure, for backup media but is overkill for a high def 1080p stream. for movie watching hd-dvd is good enough.

    there are some serious advantages to hd-dvd however that make it more consumer/manufacturer friendly. the re-tooling cost to make hd-dvd discs is minimal compared to blu ray. there licensing is free to make players. the encryption standards are less than blu ray. these all sound like factors favoring only manufacturers but here's where the consumer gains an advantage... all this = cheaper players and media vs blu ray. not to mention scratch depth/width issues on the disc media that are easier for hd-dvd to overcome because it's not packing the data so close.

    blu ray only wins in the storage density and only on initial offerings. quality of playback is entirely a non-issue in one format over the other. both formats are capable of playing back the same encoded format/content. neither has an advantage in the movie formats/encoding capabilities placed on them.

    the only one who stands to gain by holding out in the format war is sony as they want licensing fees for their tech. which is why toshiba was thinking of throwing in the towel early. microsoft had an advantage in seeing that not happen as it would take away a reason to own a playstation 3 if hd-dvd became the defacto standard which would really hurt sony in the game console market. yes it's true it was done to cut sony's throat, so what? if it means a format that was better for a consumer doesn't get shelved because no one backed it, boo hoo sony. i don't care about sony's bottom line at all. i care about mine.
  • wvh - Sunday, January 6, 2008 - link


    Just stop buying movies, or download them for free if you must. Until they start thinking about us again.

    As if it's not enough for customers to pay those extortion prices for a simple digital copy and fight the DRM, the industry has to occupy itself with pissing contests like this debate.

    There simply is no value in what is being offered at this moment. YMMV, but think about it. You don't have to collect DVDs. Do something worthwhile.
  • hieyeque - Sunday, January 6, 2008 - link

    Sony owns both the media format and the content and in my opinion this is anticompetitive in nature. However, it's not much unlike Microsoft owning the hardware (XBOX) and also owning the content for that console - they don't, after all, develop the same titles for the PS3. But at some point consumers have to say enough is enough, what if Sony starts buying movie theaters? Do you think they'd let you watch the movies they own somewhere else? Notice the word "let", it's all about control and artificially creating demand for one product based on the demand for another. I like Sony's movies, I don't much care about Blu-Ray or HD-DVD in terms of which format is better, but now I have to have Blu-Ray. They tie products you like to products you don't care about to control the market. This is control and anticompetitive and a hassle and incovienient. What if Blu-Ray was 100GB and double the quality of HD-DVD, what if the price were reasonable? We would all CHOOSE to buy it, not be driven like a bunch of mindless cattle through a narrow path. Let's not forget Sony's other snafu with regard to the Root-kit they installed on unwitting purchasers of their music CD's. Don't forget that this is part of their evil plan to control everyone's lives. Blu-Ray was from it's inception built in to the PS3, Sony knew they would be planting Blu-Ray in children's rooms....Hey they also own the movie studios, PERFECT Muohhahhahahaha, now we've planted the players, we own the content, let's take over the format. Is it really necessary to charge $30 a disc? Come-on - is 10 movies really worth $300 dollars? I'm not saying I totally support HD-DVD, I think those on that side would do the same thing if given the opportunity. But at least it's a choice, if they didn't come out with HD-DVD there would be no choice, none, zip, nada. ...and everybody would be answering to Sony, every movie maker and otherwise. Is it any wonder that Apple is teamed up with Sony? Another organization that over the years has tried the marketing approach of control - whose consumers have overwhelmingly chosen freedom of hardware decoupled from the OS and ONE company! And look- PC's were better than Apples hardware! Why else would an Apple become a PC? Of course the OS is still theirs, but Macs are now regular old PC hardware...That's what we have to do to this format war- hold back your dollars, wait for them to sweeten the pot and start making offerings that we want to buy, not offerings where we, the consumers, have to make sacrifices...HOLD your money until they give in.
  • jpeyton - Sunday, January 6, 2008 - link

    Even for a normal consumer like me, who watches movies in his living room, the COST of Blu-Ray vs. HD-DVD is very similar.

    A 1080p Toshiba A30 HD-DVD player is about $250 on Amazon. A similar 1080p Sony or Samsung Blu-Ray player is about $350 on Amazon.

    Now, I buy about 25 movies for each format over the course of a year or two. Lets say, on average (including various BOGO sales), I pay an average of $20 a title.

    That puts my total investment at $750 for HD-DVD, and $850 for Blu-Ray. Wow, I paid a whole 13% more for Blu-Ray. That really sunk my entire budget; I might have to take a second mortgage to afford that extra $100 that Blu-Ray cost me. Or not.

    I'm sure Anand, spending tens of thousands of dollars on a dedicated Home Theater, really has to pinch his pennies when he's deciding which high-definition movie format to go with.
  • plonk420 - Sunday, January 6, 2008 - link

    here's a few good missed discs:
    Blu-Ray:
    Pirates of the Caribbean 1-3
    Ratatoille
    The Fifth Element


    HD-DVD:
    Serenity (geeks unite!)
    Transformers
    Heroes
  • Avalon - Sunday, January 6, 2008 - link

    I'm not buying anything. Both formats are ridiculously expensive compared to DVD.
  • SirLamer - Sunday, January 6, 2008 - link

    I want Blu-Ray to win out. Its specs are much better and thus serve long-term storage interests. Also, Blu-Ray stuff cost more now because they need a new machinery set to build the stuff but, once built, the components are cheaper to make. This is true in particular of the discs. So, again, looking long-term, the consumer will benefit most if Blu-Ray wins out.

    Also, the change in technology that Blu-Ray makes is inevitable if progress is to be made, so putting that off in the name of immediate cost savings is very short-sighted, in my opinion.

    Anyway, I express my desire by buying only Blu-Ray discs. I own a PS3 and that's what I use to play them. The reality is that I don't really need to own every movie that I like, and I do quite fine when restricting myself to the Blu-Ray library. However, I am confident that Blu-Ray will win out and eventually the HD-DVD titles will be available on Blu-Ray, which makes this choice a bit easier.
  • madpear - Sunday, January 6, 2008 - link

    http://digg.com/hardware/HD_DVD_vs_Blu_Ray_Why_nob...">http://digg.com/hardware/HD_DVD_vs_Blu_Ray_Why_nob...
  • BansheeX - Sunday, January 6, 2008 - link

    I'm afraid I have to agree with you on this, although some the DailyTech bloggers seem more impartial than most. This is pure damage control from an avid HD-DVD supporter. Consider the following quote:

    [quote]backing one or another just doesn't make any sense unless you really hate all of the movies in one of the columns.[/quote]

    First of all, this statement seems to imply that HD-DVD exclusives will not show up on blu-ray if only blu-ray wins. This is completely and utterly false. There are implications of a single format winning that go beyond immediate content comparisons. That is an extremely short-sighted way of looking at it as a consumer. If dual format were to persist as the norm, it is very likely that the resulting confusion will keep it out of the mainstream. Supporting dual format is the worst thing you can do at this point. With player choice, software sales, and player sales in blu-ray's favor and 70% of the studio content, this is the golden opportunity for HD-DVD backers to lay down their arms and accept a simple, prosperous future of 25gb single layer recordables, a PS3 all-in-one hookup, and higher bitrate films. This is a major fifteen year format that you will be investing a lot of money in. There is no reason to undercut its capacity benefits for short term cost grievances. Players will continue to drop in price as DVD did, DRM will be cracked as it was on DVD, and most of all, the endless bickering between both camps will come to an end. I urge everyone to vote blu-ray with your wallets in the coming year to make this future possible.
  • Anand Lal Shimpi - Sunday, January 6, 2008 - link

    I wouldn't exactly call myself an avid HD-DVD supporter, I don't really prefer either standard at this point because of this ongoing war. I've got hardware from both sides obviously since we test with both and I've got an equal sized HD-DVD and Blu-ray collection (mostly movies I test with), I have no vested interest in either side winning, I'm merely trying to advocate for the consumer here.

    My point was this: there's no good solution for consumers today. Backing a single format with hopes of the movies you want to watch coming out later on isn't very consumer friendly.

    If I want 1080p content today and I like movies in both of the columns (e.g. Bourne and Casino Royal), my only option is to support both formats. I've got no problems doing that if universal players are the norm, but they aren't.

    What happens long term is obviously important, but consumers today are losing out because they basically have to buy into both formats if they want the best movie selection out there. That, in my opinion, is ridiculous.

    Take care,
    Anand
  • lopri - Sunday, January 6, 2008 - link

    Anand,

    Don't kid yourself. I know you've been building your home theater, and I could easily see where you're coming from. You probably wanted to have your home completely digitalized for future, like you can control any part of your home from any other part. Both with wired and with wireless. XBox360 serves perfectly as a media extender and I'm sure you were presented by MS/Intel how they plan to usher us into the future of digital life. Or maybe you were invited to Mr. Gates' home and fancied to mimic the environment where he spends most of his time.

    Strong backing from MS/Intel for HD commoditization? How about strong backing from all major Hollywood productions as well as all major consumer electronics (sans Toshiba). You very well know that Toshiba was about to drop the HD-DVD at one point in the past. Who dragged Toshiba into HD-DVD and used it as a shield? Answer that and now try talking about who the 'player' is. And what the real motive of that player was/is.

    Your judgment is being impaired because your digital home project is slightly screwed by HD-DVD's demise. This is unfortunate because even though this is your personal blog, everyone on the net could/can see your blog posts from today/yesterday. It's a serious blow on your credibility as you can see from the replies in this very thread.

    "I'm merely trying to advocate for consumer here" sounds just as empty as MS or Sony speaking the same sentence. I did actually laugh .
    So you go on to say:

    "What happens long term is obviously important, but consumers today are losing out because they basically have to buy into both formats if they want the best movie selection out there. That, in my opinion, is ridiculous."

    Hmm.. Then yet in other post you emphasize how infant the HD market is at this stage. That is indeed correct. How many titles are out there in either format? That's right. Just about 400 titles. I know 'Today' is important, but 'Tomorrow' is just as important, especially tomorrow holds a lot more (by order of several magnitudes). Before that number grows with either format, wouldn't it be better to have one format and growing the number of titles? You might have missed a few movies until now, but you don't want to miss thousands of movies in the future, do you?

    I am sorry but I believe you were lying when you said "I'm only caring about consumer interest". Maybe you could elaborate on this if I'm wrong. If I'm not wrong, it means a lot to me because you've gained a lot of trust from me (and likely from many others) with your hard work and objective views throughout the life of AnandTech.
  • pi3point1415 - Monday, January 7, 2008 - link

    Lopri, I don't know where you're coming from with that pointlessly long rant, but your second to last paragraph actually reinforces Anand's thoughts.
  • kmmatney - Sunday, January 6, 2008 - link

    uhh..what was your point?
  • Shadowself - Sunday, January 6, 2008 - link

    Then you should realize the only way to break this is to strongly support ONE format.

    Blu-ray clearly has the momentum now and has for some time. Blu-ray media has outsold, in the U.S., HD DVD media for the last 53 weeks solid.

    Everyone should get behind one format and stop buying the other.

    Any thought that one format winning completely will not result in all major films being put out on the winning format is just plain stupid. If HD DVD dies and no new titles are released on HD DVD then you can guarantee all major titles -- even those previously release exclusively on HD DVD -- will be issued on Blu-ray. To even imply otherwise is pure FUD.

    Stand up for the future and advise readers to do the same. If everyone does as you suggest and buys either nothing or both then this "format war" just drags on and on. Then you can say the same thing as is in this article today again a year from now. How is that helping the consumer? Answer: It is not.
  • mindless1 - Sunday, January 6, 2008 - link

    I agree, everyone should support HD DVD.

    The idea of higher bitrate is great, now show it really happening and that we'll see the difference or will there just be more room on a disc for commercials?

    What about the future cost of recordable discs? What about longevity of the higher data density media?

    What about the cost of higher data density blanks? What ABOUT the cost of the player? The grand idea that a paper spec makes one superior doesn't actually equate to a real advantage while the actual pricing is already a real advantage.

    What will help the consumer is $150 and less players. The future is about on-demand content through your cable provider, people aren't necessarily looking to pay a premium for the traditional hassles of physical media, just as they aren't anymore for physical audio CDs. Combine that physical media hassle with extra cost and it becomes all the less appealing.
  • mindless1 - Sunday, January 6, 2008 - link

    I agree, everyone should support HD DVD.

    The idea of higher bitrate is great, now show it really happening and that we'll see the difference or will there just be more room on a disc for commercials?

    What about the future cost of recordable discs? What about longevity of the higher data density media?

    What about the cost of higher data density blanks? What ABOUT the cost of the player? The grand idea that a paper spec makes one superior doesn't actually equate to a real advantage while the actual pricing is already a real advantage.

    What will help the consumer is $150 and less players. The future is about on-demand content through your cable provider, people aren't necessarily looking to pay a premium for the traditional hassles of physical media, just as they aren't anymore for physical audio CDs. Combine that physical media hassle with extra cost and it becomes all the less appealing.
  • mindless1 - Sunday, January 6, 2008 - link

    I agree, everyone should support HD DVD.

    The idea of higher bitrate is great, now show it really happening and that we'll see the difference or will there just be more room on a disc for commercials?

    What about the future cost of recordable discs? What about longevity of the higher data density media?

    What about the cost of higher data density blanks? What about the cost of the player? The grand idea that a paper spec makes one superior doesn't actually equate to a real advantage while the actual pricing is already a real advantage.

    What will help the consumer is $150 and less players. The future is about on-demand content through your cable provider, people aren't necessarily looking to pay a premium for the traditional hassles of physical media, just as they aren't anymore for physical audio CDs. Combine that physical media hassle with extra cost and it becomes all the less appealing.
  • Mithan - Sunday, January 6, 2008 - link

    The scope of the article wasn't about standing up to support somebody.
  • JonathanMaloney - Sunday, January 6, 2008 - link

    Which is why we should all build HTPCs with those LG BD / HD-DVD combo drives in 'em! ;)
  • daniyarm - Sunday, January 6, 2008 - link

    This isn't a fanboy site, you are just an MS hater. There has been plenty of news about Wii, that it's beating both 360 and PS3. And about PS3, what news do you want to hear, how it miserably failed as a gaming platform, that it is really hard to write games for and that's why all the games out for it totally suck?!

    Have you been reading any sort of news about BR and HD-DVD? Neither is dominating, because 60% is not domination, it's a very close lead. And when you compare it to DVD sales, both are losing by a mile.

    HD download will never take off in this country as long as we continue to have one of the worst high speed internet accesses in the world. We are amongst third world countries, look at internet access in Japan and Europe. Several countries have T1 lines in most homes. Tokyo is running fiber for 100Mb access. Half US still has dial-up. You can't stream 20GB hi-def movies even over DSL. We are at least 10 years, maybe even 15, away from streaming HD into every home.
  • rudy - Sunday, January 6, 2008 - link

    It's not as easy to run high speed to most places in the US as it is other countries which are only as big as 1 of our states. I would love a fiber connection to the door of every home in America as much as the next guy but that is just a ton of money especially give how spread out Americans live.
  • Frallan - Monday, January 7, 2008 - link

    Well check Sweden out:

    45.65 km² Per person compared with US of A with 30.4 km² per person.

    It isnt about how spread out the ppl live its about how the market is regulated. As long as you keep allowing telecoms to have close to monopoly you will not see fast cheap access...

  • PandaBear - Saturday, January 5, 2008 - link

    You sir, are just mocking right?

    AFAIK this whole war is Sony vs. the rest of the world. I am not sure why does it matter because each format will only last 5-10 years, and the way it goes and wasted the life of the technology, they will both lose out a whole generations worth of profit.

    If I am an ASIC/platform OEM solution provider, I sure as hell won't spend billions to R&D a cheap solution just to find out that the format lost. It is the standard that let consumer feel confidence to buy and a producer feel confidence to R&D and publish titles.

    The way it goes right now people will just torrent their HD contents and Hard Drive based solution (with pirate contents) will dominate.
  • MrPickins - Sunday, January 6, 2008 - link

    Sony vs the whole world? LMAO

    Educate yourself:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_corporations_...">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_corporations_...
  • MadBoris - Saturday, January 5, 2008 - link

    There is plenty of money to be made but people want to make more money than the other guy, that is what it amounts to.

    The fight with both standards is insuring that neither takes off and succeeds. It would be foolish for anyone to build up a library in any format unless you already have a dual format player, even then it's still risky.

    It's a real shame because all they are doing is hurting everyone, themselves financially and consumers who would like to go HD.

    Movies should come with both formats and the consumer decide instead of being force fed. At this rate we might as well wait to the next HD specs and disc technology, if this keeps up we can just skip HDDVD and bluray entirely. It's lack of adoption is not the consumers lack of desire it's caused by the greed.
  • kilkennycat - Saturday, January 5, 2008 - link

    ... remember the incompatibilities of DVD+R, DVD-R with the first-gen DVD-Video players?? Now all DVD-players are multi-format and include all CD-variants too.. The first to market with a sub-$250 multiformat stand-alone HD-player and the corresponding $150 "ROM"-drive stands to make a fortune. Some silicon-integration magic and appropriate mass-production mechanics is all that is required.

    With heavyweights like M$$ trapped in HD-DVD land by the Xbox360, the HD-DVD camp ain't likely to cave in very soon. M$$ would have to offer trade-in rebates on all current Xbox360 drives. Probably inevitable anyway, but the replacement drive for the Xbox360 would have to be dual-format to placate existing owners of Xbox360s and HD-DVD media.
  • BansheeX - Sunday, January 6, 2008 - link

    DVD-R/DVD+R is a horrible analogy in predicting a dual format outcome. Those formats were recordables and were first of all never vying for content so you had no content exclusivity to worry about. If you only had a DVD-R burner with no DVD+R support, it wasn't exactly a huge boon to stick with buying DVD-R disks. DVD+R had superficial advantages nowhere near the likes of exclusive content, and since the disc structure was almost identical, dual format was easy and relatively inexpensive for manufacturers to implement. That's not true for BD/HD-DVD though. The disc structure differences are major and require completely different lens apertures. You also have 7 million people with PS3s and counting who are unable to play exclusive HD-DVD content. Dual format commercial content will also be perpetually confusing for consumers and eliminate the potential of repeating DVD's financial success.
  • Cogman - Saturday, January 5, 2008 - link

    There is a problem with what you are saying, those different DVD standards where set by the same cooperation. Here we have 2 warring groups, they are not likely at all to come out with a Hybrid HD/Bluray player (betamax).

    Microsoft does have a fair portion invested in HD, but the failure of such would not mean the death of the Xbox 360. They where smart and didn't require you to buy the extra HD decryption module with their console thus allowing them to still sell their Xbox.

    As well, Microsoft doesn't have a lot of investment in the movie industry (that I know of) so really, it is almost completely out of their hands what happens what happens in the format wars. They might be able to bribe their favorite companies, but they can't control everyone.
  • BZDTemp - Sunday, January 6, 2008 - link

    As I see it there are two reasons Microsoft has decided to go HD-DVD.

    1. Sony is Blue Ray and anything that's anti Sony and especially anti PlayStation is worth putting money into if you're Microsoft trying to conquer the living room.

    2. The longer the HD format war runs the better for Microsoft. Remember they are not really a hardware company and what they really want is for the world to give physical media and all use WMA files delivered on-line. The further was goes on the better the chance people will just skip physical HD media and instead become users of something Microsoft hopes to have more control over.

    Just like all the other companies Microsoft want to make money. The only major difference is that we are all paying our Microsoft tax so they have a war chest enabling them to go for the long term gain.
  • MadBoris - Saturday, January 5, 2008 - link

    Quote - "There is a problem with what you are saying, those different DVD standards where set by the same cooperation. Here we have 2 warring groups, they are not likely at all to come out with a Hybrid HD/Bluray player (betamax)."

    LG and Samsung already have dual format players available at local stores.

  • Samus - Sunday, January 6, 2008 - link

    dual format players cost like $1000 bucks. You can have two seperate BD and HD players for like half that.
  • Odeen - Saturday, January 5, 2008 - link

    I've resolved not to buy another piece of media, nor another read-only media player until I can get a unit that plays HD-DVD, Blu-Ray, SACD, DVD-A (and outputs SACD and DVD-A in native format on HDMI), upsamples DVD's to 1080P, and plays CD's, MP3 CD's and MP3 DVD's - i.e. until I can have ONE box that plays ALL the shiny discs I have.

    So far, I don't believe any high-def video players support high-def audio, and Oppo players, which do no not support high-def video, decimate SACD back to PCM.

    I don't care which format wins. In fact, I hope NEITHER format wins as competition is good for me, the consumer. But I want combo players.
  • SilentSin - Monday, January 7, 2008 - link

    Actually I thought the PS3 already does all that, minus HD-DVD playback. But, now that I research it, it looks like SACD support has been dropped from the newest PS3 models (What the hell for?? That can't be connected in any way with the PS2 chips they removed...no idea).

    Would be interesting to see if you could get an xbox360 HD-DVD drive running on a PS3 linux distro. Couple that with an older PS3 model and you'd have a truly universal media powerhouse.

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now