[free2speak]

I was an early adopter for CD and DVD. I never had a disk go bad because of scratching because I take care of my stuff. I have watched lot of Netflix HD DVD movies that looked scratched, but they played erverytime. HD DVD is just as tough as DVD.

BD needs a protective coating because data is written close to the surface.

[free2speak]

candive "I don't appreceiate being told I have no freedom of choice.
Someone received a BIG kickback for this one!!
I don't trust Sony period.
And it Will Cost all of us consumers in the end."


I agree.

I don't think I will let Warner Brothers force me to become a BD customer. I will stick with HD DVD until BD actually does establish a market for HD disks. I have Netflix, On Demand, and Xbox Live! for HD movies. In other words I will wait until BD players are mature and priced right with all the movies. Until then BD is just an over-priced piece of electronics which clearly did not outperform HD DVD.

[digriz]

Yeah, but i wonder how good that coating is.

[free2speak]

No way to know how good the coating is in long term use. CD and DVD have proven to be tough and long lasting. HD DVD is similar to DVD. BD coating is to add extra protection over the disk because data is written closer to the surface. Who knows how long the coating will last. If the coating doesn't deteriorate over time then I imagine BD might last as long as other optical disks with proper care.

[jplopez]

"THE WAR IS OVER"

HD-DVD is going to have to do some very high risk moves to get back in it. I don't see any indication that there is a willing to commit any more resources on a losing battle.

Blue Ray already has the more massive support and the marketing behind it. It is far more advanced than HD-DVD and has a much longer lifespan because of the potential behind its larger storage capabilities. Combined with a PS3 that will have a longer lifespan and the more deverisified product line that Sony has over Microsoft the war has turned into HD-DVD Player Manufactuers trying to get rid of its HD-DVD products before Blue Ray is the official standard. There is just simply more that can be done with the Blue Ray format cause as of now it is under utilized. Thats why the HD-DVD price cuts are happening and why this war is over. In the long run however price is not an issue.

It is unfair to compare this war with the VHS vs. Beta one. It was a different time where technology wasn't such a social application as it is today. Now we pay hundreds of dollars for MP3 Players/iPods, Cell phones with the bells and whistles (iPhone, Blackberry) and thousands of dollars on HDTV's, PC's and Laptops. This complaining about prices is irrelevant if own any type of those products I just mentioned. You have already proven you will pay out to buy these high priced items especially in this case where you would have no choices once a standard is chosen.

Yes the Blue-Ray players will be more expensive, but they will get cheaper and cheaper once the standard is chosen and a more massive production can begin. This war has gone on long enough and Blue-Ray is going to be that standard. Cause unlike all the other Technology wars out there (Game Consoles, Portable Audio Devices, Cell Phones, Computers etc.), having more than one choice is more detremental to the consumers because these formats are not the main industry at work here. It is the movie production studios who will decide the winner because no matter which side you support the movies you want in the future will be on Blue-Ray. Once the standard is chosen the customers of the losing HD-DVD format will be screwed while the current Blue-Ray customers will be pissed when all the prices drop for Blue-Ray players when they paid $1,000.00 for theirs.

Like I said, "THE WAR IS OVER", the sooner it hapens the better things will become.

[Richard233]

Why would you consider it unfair to compare this to what happened with VHS and Beta?

That happens to be the closest parallel available. The reason for the new tech comes down to the need to

get us to buy the same stuff over again. Nothing new here. How often do they release the anniversary edition or

the "now with extras we did not include before because we wanted to sell it to you later. sucker".



The prices on blu-ray and HD are what they are because of licensing fees and attempts to extract extra profit.

Once the tech is old enough for the patents to expire, they will drop down to the sub $100 prices of the current players.



The thing is, I'm happy with my old tech. A nice tube tv still beats out most LCD and Plasma TVs, for quality, durability and cost.

The only thing it does not have is the ability to be hung up on a wall and it's not quite as energy efficient. Once people start

chucking out the older TV's I'll pick one up that came in the last couple of years and have it last a good decade plus like my current,

sadly dying, one. Actually, it's just the tuner that is dying but it's cheaper to replace than repair.



Sorry, drifted a bit. The point is, I'd rather by the used DVD for about $5 and save my money, rather than pay the extra needed for the new formats.

I mean, you can buy something that came out a bit ago new at walmart for $5-$10, but the new version is $20+ with not enough stuff to make it worth

it to me. I'm far from unique, especially since I see bad tidings ahead and would rather have the money sitting for a rainy day or at least a better

opportunity.

[mpheadley]

It's slightly too early to declare Blu Ray the winner. Wait at least until Universal or Paramount jumps ship. However, I don't think HD-DVD owners such as myself will be "screwed". That is because if HDDVD does die, there will probably be bargains on the movies galore. If someone has invested in a HDDVD player, there are hdmi and component switchers out there so that we can have both HDDVD and BluRay hooked up at the same time. The HDDVD players upconvert standard DVD's which will be around for a long long time. (Do BluRay players play standard dvd's? I'm actually not sure.) I don't plan on buying high definition movies of many titles. For instance, It's almost pointless to buy an HD version of 28 days later which was videotaped in standard def. I still have many VHS titles and Laserdisc titles that I haven't replaced with DVD titles yet. Slowly but surely I'll replace all of those titles, but I'm not in any hurry. And it'll be the same way with my HDDVD titles.

[winpro00]

I agree with you mpheadley, I don't think HDDVD owners would be screwed. HDDVD still has a few major backers so it will be around for awhile still.

I have the hd dvd drive added on to my xbox 360 so I'm not too worried because I'm sure if blu ray was the definate winner, it would take much to have a blu ray add-on.

The only reason I buy hi-def movies is for action movies. I think anything other than action or nature movie is a waste of money. Do you really need hi-def for Disney animation movies?? Comedies you only would watch once in awhile... Why pay the premium when you can get the same result for about half the price?

It is all about price. How many people will spend top dollar to fully utilize hi-def??? HDDVD has a lower bottom line and can become very affortable to everyone. Where blu ray would lose money just to keep up with the market, like the PS3. Without the PS3, blu ray clearly would be in trouble.

Picture quality is the selling point for hi-def, everything else is an after thought.

[hazydave]

What steep cost? In actual retail stores, HD-DVD titles have been running around $5.00 more than Blu-Ray, at least here in South Jersey. I don't care what it actually costs the manufacturer... I just care what I have to pay.

As far as recordables... BD-Rs are running around $12.00 each. Not cheap. On the other hand, I have yet to see anyone selling an HD-R blank or drive. And I have history on this... back in '91, CD-R "gold discs" cost $50 each, and the recorder ran $15,000. How times change.

Ultimately, there is no cost issue at all. HD-DVD may have had a cost advantage initially, being able to tap into the existing DVD production infrastructure... it sure looked good on paper. But it hasn't made any difference. Add to that the fact you need five HD-DVDs for three BD discs, in multi-disc sets. But hey, in the real world, the media cost of any successful format has NOTHING to do with the cost of the final product. Any successful 5" round shiny thing will eventually cost less than a buck to make.. that's all anyone cares about with that.

[hazydave]

There's another reason HD-DVD would completely fail in the "home movies market"... DVD camcorders. For those not immersed in the world of video, 2007 was the first year that DVD camcorders outsold tape-based camcorders. And as a serious videographers, I'll tell you -- DVD camcoders suck. These use 8cm (1GB) DVDs... you get 20 minutes of ALMOST DV-quality MPEG-2, or 20 minutes of ALMOST HDV-quality AVCHD per disc. But consumers shoot clips, they don't generally edit, and they love the idea of plopping the disc into the player... they don't know how to hook the camcorder to the TV.

HD-DVD has... Toshiba. They have no significance in the camcorder market, selling primarily cheap (not Chinese-cheap, but cheap) flash-based camcorders. Every serious player in the camcorder market is either Blu-Ray or uncommitted: Sony (Blu-Ray, sells 85% of the DVD camcorders in the USA), Panasonic (Blu-Ray), Canon (uncommitted), JVC (Blu-Ray), Sanyo (Blu-Ray), Samsung (Blu-Ray), LG (Blu-Ray), Hitachi (Blu-Ray.. and showing off the first Blu-Ray camcorder).

Thing is, recording AVCHD to either format would rock! You can fit 16.5GB per layer on an 8cm BD-R.. that's compared to 12GB on a 60 minute mini-DV tape. So this is enough storage for well over an hour's worth of 1080p at better-than-HDV quality. I would buy one of these, and I've been pushing people away from DVD camcorders for years.

[hazydave]

Actually, I think Sony was (for once) smart here. The technical advantage of 25GB/layer vs. 15GB/layer is obvious, but not a deal breaker. Rather, Sony shot for everything they did wrong on Betamax. They didn't allow all the other CE companies to make Betamax players... JVC did so with VHS. They had some troubles getting studio support (sure, at the time, no one knew how powerful "the rental factor" would be); JVC cut licensing prices and made it easy to release films on VHS.

Sure, Sony had their share of bad moves, and for awhile, I was rooting against them. They didn't have 2-layer working in 2006, the first Blu-Ray films went out with a crappy Sony MPEG-2 encoder on 25GB discs... now, that's still almost 3 hours of MPEG-2 video at top ATSC (broadcast) quality, but adding in better audio, etc. it was a bad move.

Second bad move was eschewing VC-1, which would have largely solved this problem, while they got their AVC encoder up to pro standards. They did this only because VC-1 == Microsoft, and Microsoft is half of the HD-DVD group.

Third bad move: spec-of-the-month club. Blu-Ray is out. Oh, no, now it's Blu-Ray 1.0. And we're adding features to make it 1.1, or, I mean, 2.0...

Of course, you don't hear much about the fact that Blu-Ray 1.0 has twice the storage of HD-DVD, even without the mandatory net connection. So while HD-DVDs all connect online, they don't really get to download very much stuff in any useful way.

I was fence sitting, but recently, I've decided on Blu-Ray. I haven't bought a player or PC drive yet, but I expect to in the next six months. I did buy "Lost Season 3", and the six disc in that set were enough to convince me that there is STILL a real opportunity for an HD disc format, versus the often stated but rarely researched idea of downloads. To wit.. this six disc set cost me $40. To put that on hard disc.. my cheapest HD is the 1TB drive I bought for just over $200 last summer. That would be as much as $60 to store forever as a download, assuming I'm not cutting out features or quality. Plus the cost of the content. And it would have taken me 18.6 days to download, assuming full speed over my 1.5Mb/s internet connection.

In short, one blue laser disc format has a good 5+ years to become established before HD downloads are remotely competitive. Two formats will ensure that neither wins. This is also critical for small filmmakers -- I can make a BD-R with my film on it, today (well, I'd need a BD-R drive, I have everything else I need), and sell this. I can't even begin to provide a server for 25-50GB downloads... and the need for that could ensure I get out of that business. My current web site could manage 4-6 such films as downloads, but the bandwidth limits would ensure that I couldn't possibly sell enough per month to make it work. The disc just works.

[winpro00]

We are talking about MOVIES here not the wider spectrum. When you talk about data storage and data archive, blu ray is a no brainer.

"I don't care what it actually costs the manufacturer... I just care what I have to pay" -> My point exactly

Consumers what cheap stuff and they want it now. Of course over time the value of disks will go down. It happens to every product.

Companies like to see the green as fast as they can. HD DVD currently has a higher profit margin per movie disk than a BD would because for blu ray, the need of new equipment, skilled developers, materials, etc, etc.. is costing companies the big bucks.

[hazydave]

I disagree! I'm not Sony, I'm not Toshiba, nor am I Microsoft. But I think it's a fine time to declare Blu-Ray the winner.

The format war was all about who's going to win on the patent pool ownership for the HD era... it was a disservice to every consumer, regardless of which side you chose (if you chose a side). And ultimately, it's been bad for both these CE companies and the studios, because so many of us ARE watching from the sidelines, with no plans to put any skin in the game until the game's over.

So the best possible outcome for the most consumers is to declare an early victory. In this connected age, all you need is a strong enough push, and the decision gets made by the market. Until the Warner annoucement, it was by some measures a stalemate, though Blu-Ray had been looking better, Afterwards, it's looking enough like that to be the much-needed tipping point.

[hazydave]

Some of the early prototype Blu-Ray drives required AACS encoding to play anything. That was supposedly fixed long ago, so that players released in 2007 have no such restrictions. It should be pretty clear... if the player really supports BD-R/RE, than it must be capable of playing discs without AACS encryption -- as with DVD+R and DVD-R General, you can't write an encrypted disc to BD-R/RE.

Early prototypes also didn't support BD+ encryption, which would make them unsuable as regular consumer players (maybe with firmware upgrades, if available).

[mine]

Typical Microsoft response of ignorance hide in the envelope of the ubitquious "no comment." It's amazing the company is either too uninformed to make comments; or, it continues to be too aloof and arrogant to disemminate its product information to we consumers. Go buy Yahoo and continue to back-burner sloppy software operating system coming in six different flavors so porly constructed many of us like software to function somewhat like it's supposed to. And of MS' two OS's, that is hands down XP.