Until a certain set of preconditions exist, none of these new video and recording formats will be able to dominate the market! Let the chicken and egg debate continue ad infinitum. Ha! Ha!, for those who fail to learn from history, will continue to make the same mistakes!
Until a certain set of preconditions exist, none of these new video and recording formats will be able to dominate the market! Let the chicken and egg debate continue ad infinitum. Ha! Ha!, for those who fail to learn from history, will continue to make the same mistakes!
I keep reading about the next generation dvd format war, but one thing is never made explicitly clear to me in these articles. I know that blue ray can hold more data, but in practical terms, will there be any difference in image or sound quality for the average 2 hour movie between the two formats?
But it's still only standard definition. Blu-Ray and HD DVD exist to provide HDTV quality and beyond.
(However. On HDTVs with decent decoders, standard DVD looks great, especially the SuperBit-type DVDs which maximize picture quality at the expense of extras. I think the DVD industry is in for a rude awakening. I think standard DVD is "good enough" for most people with HDTVs; they're gonna have to discount heavily to get people to buy into high-def DVD formats.
The big winners will be the computer folks, who get a data disc with a staggering amount of storage space compared to today's DVD-ROM/-/+R/-/+RW disc).
I keep reading about the next generation dvd format war, but one thing is never made explicitly clear to me in these articles. I know that blue ray can hold more data, but in practical terms, will there be any difference in image or sound quality for the average 2 hour movie between the two formats?
But it's still only standard definition. Blu-Ray and HD DVD exist to provide HDTV quality and beyond.
(However. On HDTVs with decent decoders, standard DVD looks great, especially the SuperBit-type DVDs which maximize picture quality at the expense of extras. I think the DVD industry is in for a rude awakening. I think standard DVD is "good enough" for most people with HDTVs; they're gonna have to discount heavily to get people to buy into high-def DVD formats.
The big winners will be the computer folks, who get a data disc with a staggering amount of storage space compared to today's DVD-ROM/-/+R/-/+RW disc).
I am sure that many of you IT pros out there, like me, have your own personal piles of dead CD/DVD drives and CD/DVD drinks coasters. I quit using CD-RWs and bought a thumb-drive - which has yet to fail on a single occasion. Since USB hard drives became available, my organisation no longer backs up anything to CD/DVD. Why not apply the i-pod philosophy to HDTV films. You go to the video shop and get a film downloaded onto your portable hard drive. No more bits of plastic cluttering up the house... no more whirring drives as they try to make sense of a scratched CD/DVD...
... i'd rather see it be a device with no moving parts. heck, sell me a dvd quality movie on a compact flash card (or similar) that i can just plug into my "movie player", which would have a monster hard drive for copying the movie to play (and keeping it there, forever, in case i want to ever watch it again!). i'd be as happy as a pig in mud. :-)
in a couple years solid state media will have more than enough room for a typical movie in the highest definition practical for the home. then the mfg's will be in a heck of a hurry to move us to the "next big thing". so, i think i'll wait this format war out, with the only exception of buying a large device for doing the nightly back-up of my network. for that, there's only one thing that really matters: max capacity.
I am sure that many of you IT pros out there, like me, have your own personal piles of dead CD/DVD drives and CD/DVD drinks coasters. I quit using CD-RWs and bought a thumb-drive - which has yet to fail on a single occasion. Since USB hard drives became available, my organisation no longer backs up anything to CD/DVD. Why not apply the i-pod philosophy to HDTV films. You go to the video shop and get a film downloaded onto your portable hard drive. No more bits of plastic cluttering up the house... no more whirring drives as they try to make sense of a scratched CD/DVD...
... i'd rather see it be a device with no moving parts. heck, sell me a dvd quality movie on a compact flash card (or similar) that i can just plug into my "movie player", which would have a monster hard drive for copying the movie to play (and keeping it there, forever, in case i want to ever watch it again!). i'd be as happy as a pig in mud. :-)
in a couple years solid state media will have more than enough room for a typical movie in the highest definition practical for the home. then the mfg's will be in a heck of a hurry to move us to the "next big thing". so, i think i'll wait this format war out, with the only exception of buying a large device for doing the nightly back-up of my network. for that, there's only one thing that really matters: max capacity.
<pre>Blu-ray uses Sun Microsystems' Java software for built-in interactive features, whereas HD DVD uses a technology called iHD that Microsoft and Toshiba have worked on.</pre>
That is most certainly the real reason why MS supports the other side. They hate Java.
<pre>Blu-ray uses Sun Microsystems' Java software for built-in interactive features, whereas HD DVD uses a technology called iHD that Microsoft and Toshiba have worked on.</pre>
That is most certainly the real reason why MS supports the other side. They hate Java.
Having learned the VHS/Beta lesson, I believe that both formats and all of the companies are losers until there is one clear winner. As a consumer, I waited until the DVD rental/Circuit City DiVx mess was cleared up to buy into DVD's. I will wait again. In fact, I am waiting until almost everything is HD before I invest in HDTV. I am usually an early adopter, Sony Betamax 1975/VHS 1978, Microwave 1975, Personal Computers 1976, DirecTV in 1994, and TiVo early 2000. I believe the majority of consumers will wait it out until there is a clear winner before investing in the next DVD format, which will delay the financial payoff for these companies. It is really too bad, they needed to work together.
The funny thing is, that I really don't care who wins or what the best format is. There just needs to be one format before I will get interested in spending my money on a product. And the main reason for this is not the investment in hardware (which is minor), it is the investment in the software (which is major).
Having learned the VHS/Beta lesson, I believe that both formats and all of the companies are losers until there is one clear winner. As a consumer, I waited until the DVD rental/Circuit City DiVx mess was cleared up to buy into DVD's. I will wait again. In fact, I am waiting until almost everything is HD before I invest in HDTV. I am usually an early adopter, Sony Betamax 1975/VHS 1978, Microwave 1975, Personal Computers 1976, DirecTV in 1994, and TiVo early 2000. I believe the majority of consumers will wait it out until there is a clear winner before investing in the next DVD format, which will delay the financial payoff for these companies. It is really too bad, they needed to work together.
The funny thing is, that I really don't care who wins or what the best format is. There just needs to be one format before I will get interested in spending my money on a product. And the main reason for this is not the investment in hardware (which is minor), it is the investment in the software (which is major).
If there's one thing I've learned from history, it's the fact that "better" does not always win the war for consumer acceptance. Owners of betamax machines and Macintoshes will certainly agree with me. :)
I believe the article touched on the one factor that will decide the issue - which format will BLOCKBUSTER support? While they're a large corporation, they're not going to duplicate their efforts for very long. They'll pick the one format that they're getting the most revenue from, and abandon the other. When this happens, we'll know which one to buy. My guess is that this will happen by Christmas 2006.
If there's one thing I've learned from history, it's the fact that "better" does not always win the war for consumer acceptance. Owners of betamax machines and Macintoshes will certainly agree with me. :)
I believe the article touched on the one factor that will decide the issue - which format will BLOCKBUSTER support? While they're a large corporation, they're not going to duplicate their efforts for very long. They'll pick the one format that they're getting the most revenue from, and abandon the other. When this happens, we'll know which one to buy. My guess is that this will happen by Christmas 2006.
I've been watching this recent development pretty closely since it broke, and I have to say that the one thing that's been a revelation is just how many advantages HD-DVD actually has.
Like most, I saw the quoted BluRay specs and figured "well, that's that". However, BluRay doesn't even have a dual layer disk that's even close to manufacturing yet - they're all lab examples. HD-DVD does, so - if you know anything about the concerns of these firms that will actually have to invest in making these disks - that's a pretty huge advantage.
Which leads to the next problem with BluRay: Cost. Building these factories (or, more acurately, retrofitting the old DVD factories) is going to cost north of a billion bucks! The HD-DVD manufacturing technology is almost exactly the same as DVD, and the numbers I've seen for the same task or retrofitting are in the tens of millions. I think that should be foremost on anyone's mind, because that money has to be made back.
I mean, I wouldn't worry about it if this were still the 90s, since back then optical disks were about the best thing going for the price. But - as someone mentioned above - flash memory is poised to outstrip even BluRay's wildest capacity dreams in about 2-3 years, and be cost competitive-to-superior. So why waste the money (as an investor OR a consumer) on a media format that's probbaly going to be eclipsed inside of 5 years? If you're going to gamble on optical media at all, it seems to make more sense to go with the cheaper, more ready to go option. That sure seem to be HD-DVD to me.
Durability? BluRay's get their capacity advantages (theoretical as they may be) from using thinner substrates and coverings. If not for some 'secret sauce' coating (and who knows who goodit will actually be) they would be much more fragile than DVDs and HD-DVDs. My DVDs already scratch too easy!
I also read that Toshiba even has a triple layer 45GB version in the lab, which cuts BluRay's 'theoretical' 50GB dual version's advantage even further.
I don't know - I may be missing something, but when compared to it's direct competitor AND with the likely direction high capacity flash is going, this sure seems to make BluRay the most over-hyped technology of the decade.
"... problem with BluRay: Cost. Building these factories (or, more acurately, retrofitting the old DVD factories) is going to cost north of a billion bucks! The HD-DVD ... numbers ... are in the tens of millions."
Can you provide some authoritative links describing these costs that we can publicly confirm with the manufacturers? You start out saying "tens of millions" for an HD-DVD upgrade, and in a later post, it's "$90+ million" - sorry, but that's close enough to nine ~ ten figures for me, and they still haven't manufactured any production discs _in_quantity_, right? Time _is_ money, so delays _do_ cost more. Even if you're precisely right about the initial cost differential, no one seems to have any problems coming up with the three billion+ bucks needed to build/update a silicon IC fab these days (even in the Third World - skilled assembly and maintenance techs cost at least as much as the robotic hardware), and the depreciation over billions of discs over upwards of a decade isn't that big a difference per disc (certainly not anywhere near $5 - $10 each). The funny thing about retrofits/upgrades is that they never quite cost as little, or work as well, as advertised. Anyone ever try to upgrade a PC between versions of Microsloth OSes without wiping everything slick on the hard drive? How about keeping up with DLLs and drivers for aging hardware? What about trying to add anything to a vehicle made in the last few years (many auto electrical systems now prevent you from substituting any 12 volt accessories, because they manage the load and exchange data over the power lines and/or fiber optics)? Now scale that experience up to an optical disc manufacturing plant, where a mote of dust rubbing against anything is like a boulder - I'll believe it when I see it.
Flash memory is going to approach the same limits in photolithography that the microprocessor and other device manufacturing processes are getting close to bumping into (somewhere around the 0.1 ~ 0.01 micron level) within the next 5 ~ 10 years. Like the PC business in general, we're starting to approach the asymptote of the basement for prices. Microsloth has demonstrated plenty of experience getting away with low-end slop with the PC masses by tossing its billions around (which used to be the PC masses' billions, BTW). That may not hack it in the wider consumer space that has a much higher expectancy of reliability - and Microsloth's track record with Swiss cheese riddled PC and embedded (DVR, cable, phone)software does not bode well for whatever is going to be fielded on HD-DVD discs (and remember, once the firmware is in a standalone player, it's baked in, no chance to send out Service Packs 1 - 99). The alignment of more content owners with Blu-ray (not BluRay, BTW) tells me that they trust Microsloth about as far as they can throw them - most of whom have already been burned by previous Microsloth failures, if not outright illegal activity (remember that not-so-little abuse-of-monopoly-power conviction a few years ago?). I'll take Java, with its time-tested built-in security model, strong programming attibutes from embedded to server apps/services, broad cross-platform professional developer community, etc., over the descendents of COM/DOM, ActiveX, DLLs, virii/worms/Trojan Horses/kiddie scripters, etc., any day.
Upper-limit capacity _does_ matter. Just ask any Betamax user, who couldn't make SLP-length recordings, how much they enjoyed the marginally higher quality of their format on the ultimately more-expensive media. If Blu-ray winds up dominating the market, I guarantee you they will have a significant cost advantage over HD-DVD in the long run. Of course, it's still a chicken-and-egg race until then, and with no clear visual quality advantage among the formats, larger capacity at roughly the same per-disk cost - guess what Joe Six-pack is going to choose, assuming equally inept marketing? I've become convinced that the weak link in consumer electronics is the 20-Somethings working in the aisles (in video stores or retail box stores), whose general lack of knowledge about anything technical is astounding (there are rare exceptions, but they soon finish engineering school and move on to much better prospects - assuming their careers haven't already been outsourced overseas). I wouldn't discount the support of Dell (HP probably only matters in terms of retail shelf space) in this equation, either. Both companies, and their other hardware partners, are going to be pumping these things out into consumers' hands like hotcakes at a flood zone relief station (been there, done that). I do wonder if my mailbox will fill with one or the other choice from AOL (and probably both!). Maybe that will be the ultimate arbiter of this race, especially since Blockbuster and Hollywood Video are going to eventually go the way of the dodo, as cable, satellite and broadband continue flattening and contracting the surface of the planet, so they may not to even get to affect the outcome of this game.
The other thing to remember about the capacity upper limit argument is Bill Gates' prophetic wild misstatement about "640KB will be more than anyone will ever need". Fitting the text of the entire Encyclopedia Britannica on a single CD-ROM was supposed to be Nirvana, too. DVDs will seem as quaint in 10 ~ 15 years as 8-inch floppies do today (at least, being a volunteer at the Computer History Museum, I can still read those, if I need to!). 30 GBs won't even back up the average laptop computer today (not that there's more than that worth backing up, once you eliminate the Microsloth bloatware - hmmm, another reason they want you to buy more, smaller-capacity disks?). 100 GBs so I can take everything on my TiVo with me? Now, you're talking. There will never be enough capacity or bandwidth, and building for that higher upper limit in the future is a better investment than a more incremental (i.e., marginally less-risky, in the relatively short-term) approach.
Anyway, that's my buck-two-eighty's worth (two cents' worth, adjusted for inflation since date of "manufacture" ;) As Dennis Miller used to say, "But, that's just my opinion, I could be wrong."
I've been watching this recent development pretty closely since it broke, and I have to say that the one thing that's been a revelation is just how many advantages HD-DVD actually has.
Like most, I saw the quoted BluRay specs and figured "well, that's that". However, BluRay doesn't even have a dual layer disk that's even close to manufacturing yet - they're all lab examples. HD-DVD does, so - if you know anything about the concerns of these firms that will actually have to invest in making these disks - that's a pretty huge advantage.
Which leads to the next problem with BluRay: Cost. Building these factories (or, more acurately, retrofitting the old DVD factories) is going to cost north of a billion bucks! The HD-DVD manufacturing technology is almost exactly the same as DVD, and the numbers I've seen for the same task or retrofitting are in the tens of millions. I think that should be foremost on anyone's mind, because that money has to be made back.
I mean, I wouldn't worry about it if this were still the 90s, since back then optical disks were about the best thing going for the price. But - as someone mentioned above - flash memory is poised to outstrip even BluRay's wildest capacity dreams in about 2-3 years, and be cost competitive-to-superior. So why waste the money (as an investor OR a consumer) on a media format that's probbaly going to be eclipsed inside of 5 years? If you're going to gamble on optical media at all, it seems to make more sense to go with the cheaper, more ready to go option. That sure seem to be HD-DVD to me.
Durability? BluRay's get their capacity advantages (theoretical as they may be) from using thinner substrates and coverings. If not for some 'secret sauce' coating (and who knows who goodit will actually be) they would be much more fragile than DVDs and HD-DVDs. My DVDs already scratch too easy!
I also read that Toshiba even has a triple layer 45GB version in the lab, which cuts BluRay's 'theoretical' 50GB dual version's advantage even further.
I don't know - I may be missing something, but when compared to it's direct competitor AND with the likely direction high capacity flash is going, this sure seems to make BluRay the most over-hyped technology of the decade.
"... problem with BluRay: Cost. Building these factories (or, more acurately, retrofitting the old DVD factories) is going to cost north of a billion bucks! The HD-DVD ... numbers ... are in the tens of millions."
Can you provide some authoritative links describing these costs that we can publicly confirm with the manufacturers? You start out saying "tens of millions" for an HD-DVD upgrade, and in a later post, it's "$90+ million" - sorry, but that's close enough to nine ~ ten figures for me, and they still haven't manufactured any production discs _in_quantity_, right? Time _is_ money, so delays _do_ cost more. Even if you're precisely right about the initial cost differential, no one seems to have any problems coming up with the three billion+ bucks needed to build/update a silicon IC fab these days (even in the Third World - skilled assembly and maintenance techs cost at least as much as the robotic hardware), and the depreciation over billions of discs over upwards of a decade isn't that big a difference per disc (certainly not anywhere near $5 - $10 each). The funny thing about retrofits/upgrades is that they never quite cost as little, or work as well, as advertised. Anyone ever try to upgrade a PC between versions of Microsloth OSes without wiping everything slick on the hard drive? How about keeping up with DLLs and drivers for aging hardware? What about trying to add anything to a vehicle made in the last few years (many auto electrical systems now prevent you from substituting any 12 volt accessories, because they manage the load and exchange data over the power lines and/or fiber optics)? Now scale that experience up to an optical disc manufacturing plant, where a mote of dust rubbing against anything is like a boulder - I'll believe it when I see it.
Flash memory is going to approach the same limits in photolithography that the microprocessor and other device manufacturing processes are getting close to bumping into (somewhere around the 0.1 ~ 0.01 micron level) within the next 5 ~ 10 years. Like the PC business in general, we're starting to approach the asymptote of the basement for prices. Microsloth has demonstrated plenty of experience getting away with low-end slop with the PC masses by tossing its billions around (which used to be the PC masses' billions, BTW). That may not hack it in the wider consumer space that has a much higher expectancy of reliability - and Microsloth's track record with Swiss cheese riddled PC and embedded (DVR, cable, phone)software does not bode well for whatever is going to be fielded on HD-DVD discs (and remember, once the firmware is in a standalone player, it's baked in, no chance to send out Service Packs 1 - 99). The alignment of more content owners with Blu-ray (not BluRay, BTW) tells me that they trust Microsloth about as far as they can throw them - most of whom have already been burned by previous Microsloth failures, if not outright illegal activity (remember that not-so-little abuse-of-monopoly-power conviction a few years ago?). I'll take Java, with its time-tested built-in security model, strong programming attibutes from embedded to server apps/services, broad cross-platform professional developer community, etc., over the descendents of COM/DOM, ActiveX, DLLs, virii/worms/Trojan Horses/kiddie scripters, etc., any day.
Upper-limit capacity _does_ matter. Just ask any Betamax user, who couldn't make SLP-length recordings, how much they enjoyed the marginally higher quality of their format on the ultimately more-expensive media. If Blu-ray winds up dominating the market, I guarantee you they will have a significant cost advantage over HD-DVD in the long run. Of course, it's still a chicken-and-egg race until then, and with no clear visual quality advantage among the formats, larger capacity at roughly the same per-disk cost - guess what Joe Six-pack is going to choose, assuming equally inept marketing? I've become convinced that the weak link in consumer electronics is the 20-Somethings working in the aisles (in video stores or retail box stores), whose general lack of knowledge about anything technical is astounding (there are rare exceptions, but they soon finish engineering school and move on to much better prospects - assuming their careers haven't already been outsourced overseas). I wouldn't discount the support of Dell (HP probably only matters in terms of retail shelf space) in this equation, either. Both companies, and their other hardware partners, are going to be pumping these things out into consumers' hands like hotcakes at a flood zone relief station (been there, done that). I do wonder if my mailbox will fill with one or the other choice from AOL (and probably both!). Maybe that will be the ultimate arbiter of this race, especially since Blockbuster and Hollywood Video are going to eventually go the way of the dodo, as cable, satellite and broadband continue flattening and contracting the surface of the planet, so they may not to even get to affect the outcome of this game.
The other thing to remember about the capacity upper limit argument is Bill Gates' prophetic wild misstatement about "640KB will be more than anyone will ever need". Fitting the text of the entire Encyclopedia Britannica on a single CD-ROM was supposed to be Nirvana, too. DVDs will seem as quaint in 10 ~ 15 years as 8-inch floppies do today (at least, being a volunteer at the Computer History Museum, I can still read those, if I need to!). 30 GBs won't even back up the average laptop computer today (not that there's more than that worth backing up, once you eliminate the Microsloth bloatware - hmmm, another reason they want you to buy more, smaller-capacity disks?). 100 GBs so I can take everything on my TiVo with me? Now, you're talking. There will never be enough capacity or bandwidth, and building for that higher upper limit in the future is a better investment than a more incremental (i.e., marginally less-risky, in the relatively short-term) approach.
Anyway, that's my buck-two-eighty's worth (two cents' worth, adjusted for inflation since date of "manufacture" ;) As Dennis Miller used to say, "But, that's just my opinion, I could be wrong."
Is there even a strong demand for next gen format?
While "Bigger is Better" does apply, and most people, companies etc will beable to benefit from more space on a single disc.
Is there really a demand for it?
When DVD's came out, it was jumping to a whole new type of technology for videos (well main stream anyways, laserdiscs ever really hit it big time)
The jump in quality was pretty noticable, as well as being able to save a lot of space.
HDTV quality video just doesnt seem that impressive to me, while i'm sure in years to come cost will come down considerably, it seems like a "nice" thing to have, but really normal DVD's - espically on high quality displays look damn good already.
Software has barely even begun to take advantage of normal DVD technology (how many software titles have you gotten that come on more then one CD, often 3-4+, but theires no DVD version, except perhaps a super deluxe edition that costs 30+ dollars more?
Having 30+ gigs on a single DVD would definately be nice for Entire Seasons of TV Programs, but really, this whole next generation of players doesnt excite me at all, factor in the potential obselecence of a format, and I have no desire to even purchase a player in the next few years.
Is there even a strong demand for next gen format?
While "Bigger is Better" does apply, and most people, companies etc will beable to benefit from more space on a single disc.
Is there really a demand for it?
When DVD's came out, it was jumping to a whole new type of technology for videos (well main stream anyways, laserdiscs ever really hit it big time)
The jump in quality was pretty noticable, as well as being able to save a lot of space.
HDTV quality video just doesnt seem that impressive to me, while i'm sure in years to come cost will come down considerably, it seems like a "nice" thing to have, but really normal DVD's - espically on high quality displays look damn good already.
Software has barely even begun to take advantage of normal DVD technology (how many software titles have you gotten that come on more then one CD, often 3-4+, but theires no DVD version, except perhaps a super deluxe edition that costs 30+ dollars more?
Having 30+ gigs on a single DVD would definately be nice for Entire Seasons of TV Programs, but really, this whole next generation of players doesnt excite me at all, factor in the potential obselecence of a format, and I have no desire to even purchase a player in the next few years.
No you dont dominate. You usually choose inferior USA engineered solutions based on what your corrupt corporation sponsored politicians are told to vote for.
Miserable failures sposored by America or large USA companies include NTSC (PAL is better in almost every regard) DVD+R (Reinventing the wheel - hence DVD-R disks are still cheaper and more widely used) and CDMA2000 for mobile phones - GSM wiped the floor with it...
Every technolgy you mention is available as a *consumer option* within the U.S. What does this mean? It means that multiple people with multiple ideas can create businesses, generate income and jobs, and grow the overall industry. No single solution is perfect for everybody, and choice is what makes America great. I definitely prefer this market to 40%+ tax payments that are used by organiations like the EU to subsidize business and eliminate competition.
No you dont dominate. You usually choose inferior USA engineered solutions based on what your corrupt corporation sponsored politicians are told to vote for.
Miserable failures sposored by America or large USA companies include NTSC (PAL is better in almost every regard) DVD+R (Reinventing the wheel - hence DVD-R disks are still cheaper and more widely used) and CDMA2000 for mobile phones - GSM wiped the floor with it...
Every technolgy you mention is available as a *consumer option* within the U.S. What does this mean? It means that multiple people with multiple ideas can create businesses, generate income and jobs, and grow the overall industry. No single solution is perfect for everybody, and choice is what makes America great. I definitely prefer this market to 40%+ tax payments that are used by organiations like the EU to subsidize business and eliminate competition.
I too have been reading up on both technologies and I'm not sure that you've gotten a good, complete picture of what is happening in this industry. First of HD-DVD did create a 3-layer disc that holds 45GB, but Blu-Ray already demonstrated a 4-layer disc that gets 100GB. In essence though, HD-DVD never claimed to have the advantage in this regard. As far as "simplicity" in manufacturing goes, the advantage initially was for HD-DVD, but several delays have caused that advantage to disappear. The main issue that is governing the decision of these companies has to do with the mode of protection. Microsoft, Sony, etc. I don't think even care whether one disc is 30GB or 50GB. What they care about is a) how easy is it for people to duplicate, b) what kind of new features can be included, c) performance in terms of throughput, d) cost of media and cost of hardware. Will HD movies do better in Blu-Ray or HD-DVD? I don't think anybody can answer that question. Even the proponents and developers of these technologies can't post specs that provide siginificant advantages. However, it seems to me that Microsoft and some Hollywood studios are intent on using their own proprietary technology and usage rights rather than having it developed using universal standards. That means that while HD-DVD may initially claim a cheaper media cost, they're fees for licensing the technology for each movie or HD-DVD content will be higher than that used for Blu-Ray. As far as flash memory is concerned, there is certainly a market for that, but it isn't even close to being price competitive. Never mind that the vast majority of people want to own their media and not "subscribe" to it or leave its control in the hands of large corporations. That is an essential "value" component that has been largely missing from this debate. In any case, it looks like the market will decide one way or another...
It looked like you were responding to what I wrote - apologies if that's not the case - so I thought I'd respond.
"... HD-DVD did create a 3-layer disc that holds 45GB, but Blu- Ray already demonstrated a 4-layer disc that gets 100GB. In essence though, HD-DVD never claimed to have the advantage in this regard."
This gets back to the lab version vs. pilot versions ready to manufacture. Both of these are lab versions, but in the case of BluRay they haven't gotten even theri dual layer disks past that stage yet. Doesn't this raise some flags for a quadruple layer disk seeing the light of day? It does for me. Besides, once you get to the 40-50GB level, larger capacities really become esoteric advantages, given what these disks will primarily be used for (buying movies and home PC backups).
"As far as "simplicity" in manufacturing goes, the advantage initially was for HD-DVD, but several delays have caused that advantage to disappear."
No, it hasn't. Those numbers I mentioned are the ones that are quoted NOW - delays or no delays. The start-up costs of the technologies involved are not subject to time factors; one (BluRay) simply costs more than the other (HD-DVD).
"The main issue that is governing the decision of these companies has to do with the mode of protection. Microsoft, Sony, etc. I don't think even care whether one disc is 30GB or 50GB. What they care about is a) how easy is it for people to duplicate, b) what kind of new features can be included, c) performance in terms of throughput, d) cost of media and cost of hardware."
I think you're sort of right about capacity not really being the driving issue for either side, but the protection technology is the same for both (AAC). The difference is HD-DVD consortium will allow their disks to e copied to HDs for video straeming purposes, while BluRay group will not. Also, for all the interactive features, M$ wants their iHD technology to win (which is on HD-DVD), and BluRay group wants BD-Java. And of course, whoever wins, the backers will get royalty payments on every disk and player made - big time money, for simply signing on a dotted line. "Throughput" - how fast data is written or read to disks - is about the same for both, I think. And cost of media and hardware will very clearly favor HD-DVD - as I said, those numbers (over $1 billion for BluRay start-up vs about S90 million for HD-DVD, total, are what's out there now).
"Will HD movies do better in Blu-Ray or HD-DVD? I don't think anybody can answer that question. Even the proponents and developers of these technologies can't post specs that provide siginificant advantages... it seems to me that Microsoft and [the] studios are intent on using their own proprietary technology and usage rights rather than having it developed using universal standards."
I can - They both deliver exactly the same product; High Def content. So there is no performance advantages for either in terms of the images you actually see. The iHD vs BD-Java contest is where it becomes more of an open question. Which one will deliver all the 'extras' better than the other? But frankly, how 'gee whiz' do the menus and easter eggs have to be? Nevertheless, these are the only "proprietary" technologies at stake. And once one is chosen - officially or by a drawn out market battle - it will become the universal standard.
"That means that while HD-DVD may initially claim a cheaper media cost, they're fees for licensing the technology for each movie or HD-DVD content will be higher than that used for Blu- Ray. As far as flash memory is concerned, there is certainly a market for that, but it isn't even close to being price competitive."
This is not true. Licensing costs are likely to be similar for iHD and BD-Java (yes, it's Java, but it's Bluray Development group Java so their will probably be a cost). But even if their is a difference, it will be miniscule when compared to the costs of actually adopting the technologies - converting the manufacturing and mastering lines and so forth. And that's precisely where HD-DVD has a commanding advantage. Especially if you believe - as I do - that optical disks are on their way out soon anyway. Flash memory prices are coming down fast, with capacities in the 16GB range coming soon (according to Samsung). These companies may have 5 years, max, to recoup their investment before the format is displaced. Making back $1 billion in that time frame is going to cost much more (per disk and player) than doing the same for $90 million, and will likely be greater than any costs related to just lisencing.
"Never mind that the vast majority of people want to own their media and not "subscribe" to it or leave its control in the hands of large corporations. That is an essential "value" component that has been largely missing from this debate. In any case, it looks like the market will decide one way or another..."
I'm not sure where you're going here - if anything, HD-DVD consortium's letting content be copied to hard drives lets the consumer have more control, not less. Yet I don't think optical disks are where this very good issue you bring up (subscription vs ownership) will be fought. Soon, every PS or PC-like device will have hardware DRM built in, and when that becomes ubiquitous THEN the s**t will be hitting the fan for all of us.
In the end, the market has a role to play, bit I'm not sure its the best place to fight over standards. Consumers should be putting their efforts towards finding the lowest cost/best quality solution, based on the ability of companies to manufacture and market a product based on a greed upon standard. The kind of fight that's sizing up now is just going to cost us all more money - in supporting two incompatible formats in essentially the same, shrinking market.
I too have been reading up on both technologies and I'm not sure that you've gotten a good, complete picture of what is happening in this industry. First of HD-DVD did create a 3-layer disc that holds 45GB, but Blu-Ray already demonstrated a 4-layer disc that gets 100GB. In essence though, HD-DVD never claimed to have the advantage in this regard. As far as "simplicity" in manufacturing goes, the advantage initially was for HD-DVD, but several delays have caused that advantage to disappear. The main issue that is governing the decision of these companies has to do with the mode of protection. Microsoft, Sony, etc. I don't think even care whether one disc is 30GB or 50GB. What they care about is a) how easy is it for people to duplicate, b) what kind of new features can be included, c) performance in terms of throughput, d) cost of media and cost of hardware. Will HD movies do better in Blu-Ray or HD-DVD? I don't think anybody can answer that question. Even the proponents and developers of these technologies can't post specs that provide siginificant advantages. However, it seems to me that Microsoft and some Hollywood studios are intent on using their own proprietary technology and usage rights rather than having it developed using universal standards. That means that while HD-DVD may initially claim a cheaper media cost, they're fees for licensing the technology for each movie or HD-DVD content will be higher than that used for Blu-Ray. As far as flash memory is concerned, there is certainly a market for that, but it isn't even close to being price competitive. Never mind that the vast majority of people want to own their media and not "subscribe" to it or leave its control in the hands of large corporations. That is an essential "value" component that has been largely missing from this debate. In any case, it looks like the market will decide one way or another...
It looked like you were responding to what I wrote - apologies if that's not the case - so I thought I'd respond.
"... HD-DVD did create a 3-layer disc that holds 45GB, but Blu- Ray already demonstrated a 4-layer disc that gets 100GB. In essence though, HD-DVD never claimed to have the advantage in this regard."
This gets back to the lab version vs. pilot versions ready to manufacture. Both of these are lab versions, but in the case of BluRay they haven't gotten even theri dual layer disks past that stage yet. Doesn't this raise some flags for a quadruple layer disk seeing the light of day? It does for me. Besides, once you get to the 40-50GB level, larger capacities really become esoteric advantages, given what these disks will primarily be used for (buying movies and home PC backups).
"As far as "simplicity" in manufacturing goes, the advantage initially was for HD-DVD, but several delays have caused that advantage to disappear."
No, it hasn't. Those numbers I mentioned are the ones that are quoted NOW - delays or no delays. The start-up costs of the technologies involved are not subject to time factors; one (BluRay) simply costs more than the other (HD-DVD).
"The main issue that is governing the decision of these companies has to do with the mode of protection. Microsoft, Sony, etc. I don't think even care whether one disc is 30GB or 50GB. What they care about is a) how easy is it for people to duplicate, b) what kind of new features can be included, c) performance in terms of throughput, d) cost of media and cost of hardware."
I think you're sort of right about capacity not really being the driving issue for either side, but the protection technology is the same for both (AAC). The difference is HD-DVD consortium will allow their disks to e copied to HDs for video straeming purposes, while BluRay group will not. Also, for all the interactive features, M$ wants their iHD technology to win (which is on HD-DVD), and BluRay group wants BD-Java. And of course, whoever wins, the backers will get royalty payments on every disk and player made - big time money, for simply signing on a dotted line. "Throughput" - how fast data is written or read to disks - is about the same for both, I think. And cost of media and hardware will very clearly favor HD-DVD - as I said, those numbers (over $1 billion for BluRay start-up vs about S90 million for HD-DVD, total, are what's out there now).
"Will HD movies do better in Blu-Ray or HD-DVD? I don't think anybody can answer that question. Even the proponents and developers of these technologies can't post specs that provide siginificant advantages... it seems to me that Microsoft and [the] studios are intent on using their own proprietary technology and usage rights rather than having it developed using universal standards."
I can - They both deliver exactly the same product; High Def content. So there is no performance advantages for either in terms of the images you actually see. The iHD vs BD-Java contest is where it becomes more of an open question. Which one will deliver all the 'extras' better than the other? But frankly, how 'gee whiz' do the menus and easter eggs have to be? Nevertheless, these are the only "proprietary" technologies at stake. And once one is chosen - officially or by a drawn out market battle - it will become the universal standard.
"That means that while HD-DVD may initially claim a cheaper media cost, they're fees for licensing the technology for each movie or HD-DVD content will be higher than that used for Blu- Ray. As far as flash memory is concerned, there is certainly a market for that, but it isn't even close to being price competitive."
This is not true. Licensing costs are likely to be similar for iHD and BD-Java (yes, it's Java, but it's Bluray Development group Java so their will probably be a cost). But even if their is a difference, it will be miniscule when compared to the costs of actually adopting the technologies - converting the manufacturing and mastering lines and so forth. And that's precisely where HD-DVD has a commanding advantage. Especially if you believe - as I do - that optical disks are on their way out soon anyway. Flash memory prices are coming down fast, with capacities in the 16GB range coming soon (according to Samsung). These companies may have 5 years, max, to recoup their investment before the format is displaced. Making back $1 billion in that time frame is going to cost much more (per disk and player) than doing the same for $90 million, and will likely be greater than any costs related to just lisencing.
"Never mind that the vast majority of people want to own their media and not "subscribe" to it or leave its control in the hands of large corporations. That is an essential "value" component that has been largely missing from this debate. In any case, it looks like the market will decide one way or another..."
I'm not sure where you're going here - if anything, HD-DVD consortium's letting content be copied to hard drives lets the consumer have more control, not less. Yet I don't think optical disks are where this very good issue you bring up (subscription vs ownership) will be fought. Soon, every PS or PC-like device will have hardware DRM built in, and when that becomes ubiquitous THEN the s**t will be hitting the fan for all of us.
In the end, the market has a role to play, bit I'm not sure its the best place to fight over standards. Consumers should be putting their efforts towards finding the lowest cost/best quality solution, based on the ability of companies to manufacture and market a product based on a greed upon standard. The kind of fight that's sizing up now is just going to cost us all more money - in supporting two incompatible formats in essentially the same, shrinking market.
HD-DVD Versus Blue Ray, a comparison to SACD versus DVD-A
I to in the past have been a Bleeding Edge consumer.
Hence, Beta, over VHS, early adoptor of MiniDisc, and the big one for me SACD versus DVD-A. I decided to jump on both SACD and DVD-A just because different studios supported different formats. Both Formats sound great to me, and I can't really tell the sonic advantages of either of the other.
But, in order to play both formats, I have a stand alone SACD and a stand alone DVD-A. The combo units were just to expensive. Now when I play these things for my friends they are astonished at the sound quality, but then say "I have never even heard of Super Audio or DVD audio"
I think this is where the HD-DVD/Blue Ray battle is going. Lets face it, there are still folks out there with VHS tape decks, who are really upset that Walmart and Blockbuster no longer carry new releases in VHS (this is forcing these folks into adoption of DVD by the way. But, Look at the number of combo DVD/VHS units at Costco or Sams, versus DVD players.
Like the earlier person stated, until Blockbuster and Netflix start supporting the formats no one will convert, or even know there is a new format/s to convert to. And lets face it, until you can get a 150 dollar unit which will play both formats the masses will not care about either format.
HD-DVD Versus Blue Ray, a comparison to SACD versus DVD-A
I to in the past have been a Bleeding Edge consumer.
Hence, Beta, over VHS, early adoptor of MiniDisc, and the big one for me SACD versus DVD-A. I decided to jump on both SACD and DVD-A just because different studios supported different formats. Both Formats sound great to me, and I can't really tell the sonic advantages of either of the other.
But, in order to play both formats, I have a stand alone SACD and a stand alone DVD-A. The combo units were just to expensive. Now when I play these things for my friends they are astonished at the sound quality, but then say "I have never even heard of Super Audio or DVD audio"
I think this is where the HD-DVD/Blue Ray battle is going. Lets face it, there are still folks out there with VHS tape decks, who are really upset that Walmart and Blockbuster no longer carry new releases in VHS (this is forcing these folks into adoption of DVD by the way. But, Look at the number of combo DVD/VHS units at Costco or Sams, versus DVD players.
Like the earlier person stated, until Blockbuster and Netflix start supporting the formats no one will convert, or even know there is a new format/s to convert to. And lets face it, until you can get a 150 dollar unit which will play both formats the masses will not care about either format.
I would tender a bet that, in the end, consumers who buy DVD for the movies will vote with their pocket books.
I'm not going to pay $5 more for a DVD that is that is marginally better. I still want my movies less than $20. Studios will choose to squeeze more in less space, as compression technology improves.
For Data DVD's, Just let them fight it out and some bi-partisan company will come up with a dual writer just like it is now.
Manage updates with the Download App
But it's still only standard definition. Blu-Ray and HD DVD exist
to provide HDTV quality and beyond.
(However. On HDTVs with decent decoders, standard DVD looks
great, especially the SuperBit-type DVDs which maximize picture
quality at the expense of extras. I think the DVD industry is in
for a rude awakening. I think standard DVD is "good enough" for
most people with HDTVs; they're gonna have to discount heavily
to get people to buy into high-def DVD formats.
The big winners will be the computer folks, who get a data disc
with a staggering amount of storage space compared to today's
DVD-ROM/-/+R/-/+RW disc).
But it's still only standard definition. Blu-Ray and HD DVD exist
to provide HDTV quality and beyond.
(However. On HDTVs with decent decoders, standard DVD looks
great, especially the SuperBit-type DVDs which maximize picture
quality at the expense of extras. I think the DVD industry is in
for a rude awakening. I think standard DVD is "good enough" for
most people with HDTVs; they're gonna have to discount heavily
to get people to buy into high-def DVD formats.
The big winners will be the computer folks, who get a data disc
with a staggering amount of storage space compared to today's
DVD-ROM/-/+R/-/+RW disc).
Why not apply the i-pod philosophy to HDTV films. You go to the video shop and get a film downloaded onto your portable hard drive. No more bits of plastic cluttering up the house... no more whirring drives as they try to make sense of a scratched CD/DVD...
Well, that my 2 cents.
in a couple years solid state media will have more than enough room for a typical movie in the highest definition practical for the home. then the mfg's will be in a heck of a hurry to move us to the "next big thing". so, i think i'll wait this format war out, with the only exception of buying a large device for doing the nightly back-up of my network. for that, there's only one thing that really matters: max capacity.
mark d.
Why not apply the i-pod philosophy to HDTV films. You go to the video shop and get a film downloaded onto your portable hard drive. No more bits of plastic cluttering up the house... no more whirring drives as they try to make sense of a scratched CD/DVD...
Well, that my 2 cents.
in a couple years solid state media will have more than enough room for a typical movie in the highest definition practical for the home. then the mfg's will be in a heck of a hurry to move us to the "next big thing". so, i think i'll wait this format war out, with the only exception of buying a large device for doing the nightly back-up of my network. for that, there's only one thing that really matters: max capacity.
mark d.
That is most certainly the real reason why MS supports the other side. They hate Java.
That is most certainly the real reason why MS supports the other side. They hate Java.
I believe the article touched on the one factor that will decide the issue - which format will BLOCKBUSTER support? While they're a large corporation, they're not going to duplicate their efforts for very long. They'll pick the one format that they're getting the most revenue from, and abandon the other. When this happens, we'll know which one to buy. My guess is that this will happen by Christmas 2006.
I believe the article touched on the one factor that will decide the issue - which format will BLOCKBUSTER support? While they're a large corporation, they're not going to duplicate their efforts for very long. They'll pick the one format that they're getting the most revenue from, and abandon the other. When this happens, we'll know which one to buy. My guess is that this will happen by Christmas 2006.
broke, and I have to say that the one thing that's been a
revelation is just how many advantages HD-DVD actually has.
Like most, I saw the quoted BluRay specs and figured "well,
that's that". However, BluRay doesn't even have a dual layer disk
that's even close to manufacturing yet - they're all lab examples.
HD-DVD does, so - if you know anything about the concerns of
these firms that will actually have to invest in making these disks
- that's a pretty huge advantage.
Which leads to the next problem with BluRay: Cost. Building
these factories (or, more acurately, retrofitting the old DVD
factories) is going to cost north of a billion bucks! The HD-DVD
manufacturing technology is almost exactly the same as DVD,
and the numbers I've seen for the same task or retrofitting are in
the tens of millions. I think that should be foremost on anyone's
mind, because that money has to be made back.
I mean, I wouldn't worry about it if this were still the 90s, since
back then optical disks were about the best thing going for the
price. But - as someone mentioned above - flash memory is
poised to outstrip even BluRay's wildest capacity dreams in
about 2-3 years, and be cost competitive-to-superior. So why
waste the money (as an investor OR a consumer) on a media
format that's probbaly going to be eclipsed inside of 5 years? If
you're going to gamble on optical media at all, it seems to make
more sense to go with the cheaper, more ready to go option.
That sure seem to be HD-DVD to me.
Durability? BluRay's get their capacity advantages (theoretical as
they may be) from using thinner substrates and coverings. If not
for some 'secret sauce' coating (and who knows who goodit will
actually be) they would be much more fragile than DVDs and
HD-DVDs. My DVDs already scratch too easy!
I also read that Toshiba even has a triple layer 45GB version in
the lab, which cuts BluRay's 'theoretical' 50GB dual version's
advantage even further.
I don't know - I may be missing something, but when compared
to it's direct competitor AND with the likely direction high
capacity flash is going, this sure seems to make BluRay the most
over-hyped technology of the decade.
the tens of millions."
Can you provide some authoritative links describing these costs that we can publicly confirm with the manufacturers? You start out saying "tens of millions" for an HD-DVD upgrade, and in a later post, it's "$90+ million" - sorry, but that's close enough to nine ~ ten figures for me, and they still haven't manufactured any production discs _in_quantity_, right? Time _is_ money, so delays _do_ cost more. Even if you're precisely right about the initial cost differential, no one seems to have any problems coming up with the three billion+ bucks needed to build/update a silicon IC fab these days (even in the Third World - skilled assembly and maintenance techs cost at least as much as the robotic hardware), and the depreciation over billions of discs over upwards of a decade isn't that big a difference per disc (certainly not anywhere near $5 - $10 each). The funny thing about retrofits/upgrades is that they never quite cost as little, or work as well, as advertised. Anyone ever try to upgrade a PC between versions of Microsloth OSes without wiping everything slick on the hard drive? How about keeping up with DLLs and drivers for aging hardware? What about trying to add anything to a vehicle made in the last few years (many auto electrical systems now prevent you from substituting any 12 volt accessories, because they manage the load and exchange data over the power lines and/or fiber optics)? Now scale that experience up to an optical disc manufacturing plant, where a mote of dust rubbing against anything is like a boulder - I'll believe it when I see it.
Flash memory is going to approach the same limits in photolithography that the microprocessor and other device manufacturing processes are getting close to bumping into (somewhere around the 0.1 ~ 0.01 micron level) within the next 5 ~ 10 years. Like the PC business in general, we're starting to approach the asymptote of the basement for prices. Microsloth has demonstrated plenty of experience getting away with low-end slop with the PC masses by tossing its billions around (which used to be the PC masses' billions, BTW). That may not hack it in the wider consumer space that has a much higher expectancy of reliability - and Microsloth's track record with Swiss cheese riddled PC and embedded (DVR, cable, phone)software does not bode well for whatever is going to be fielded on HD-DVD discs (and remember, once the firmware is in a standalone player, it's baked in, no chance to send out Service Packs 1 - 99). The alignment of more content owners with Blu-ray (not BluRay, BTW) tells me that they trust Microsloth about as far as they can throw them - most of whom have already been burned by previous Microsloth failures, if not outright illegal activity (remember that not-so-little abuse-of-monopoly-power conviction a few years ago?). I'll take Java, with its time-tested built-in security model, strong programming attibutes from embedded to server apps/services, broad cross-platform professional developer community, etc., over the descendents of COM/DOM, ActiveX, DLLs, virii/worms/Trojan Horses/kiddie scripters, etc., any day.
Upper-limit capacity _does_ matter. Just ask any Betamax user, who couldn't make SLP-length recordings, how much they enjoyed the marginally higher quality of their format on the ultimately more-expensive media. If Blu-ray winds up dominating the market, I guarantee you they will have a significant cost advantage over HD-DVD in the long run. Of course, it's still a chicken-and-egg race until then, and with no clear visual quality advantage among the formats, larger capacity at roughly the same per-disk cost - guess what Joe Six-pack is going to choose, assuming equally inept marketing? I've become convinced that the weak link in consumer electronics is the 20-Somethings working in the aisles (in video stores or retail box stores), whose general lack of knowledge about anything technical is astounding (there are rare exceptions, but they soon finish engineering school and move on to much better prospects - assuming their careers haven't already been outsourced overseas). I wouldn't discount the support of Dell (HP probably only matters in terms of retail shelf space) in this equation, either. Both companies, and their other hardware partners, are going to be pumping these things out into consumers' hands like hotcakes at a flood zone relief station (been there, done that). I do wonder if my mailbox will fill with one or the other choice from AOL (and probably both!). Maybe that will be the ultimate arbiter of this race, especially since Blockbuster and Hollywood Video are going to eventually go the way of the dodo, as cable, satellite and broadband continue flattening and contracting the surface of the planet, so they may not to even get to affect the outcome of this game.
The other thing to remember about the capacity upper limit argument is Bill Gates' prophetic wild misstatement about "640KB will be more than anyone will ever need". Fitting the text of the entire Encyclopedia Britannica on a single CD-ROM was supposed to be Nirvana, too. DVDs will seem as quaint in 10 ~ 15 years as 8-inch floppies do today (at least, being a volunteer at the Computer History Museum, I can still read those, if I need to!). 30 GBs won't even back up the average laptop computer today (not that there's more than that worth backing up, once you eliminate the Microsloth bloatware - hmmm, another reason they want you to buy more, smaller-capacity disks?). 100 GBs so I can take everything on my TiVo with me? Now, you're talking. There will never be enough capacity or bandwidth, and building for that higher upper limit in the future is a better investment than a more incremental (i.e., marginally less-risky, in the relatively short-term) approach.
Anyway, that's my buck-two-eighty's worth (two cents' worth, adjusted for inflation since date of "manufacture" ;) As Dennis Miller used to say, "But, that's just my opinion, I could be wrong."
All the Best,
Joe Blow
broke, and I have to say that the one thing that's been a
revelation is just how many advantages HD-DVD actually has.
Like most, I saw the quoted BluRay specs and figured "well,
that's that". However, BluRay doesn't even have a dual layer disk
that's even close to manufacturing yet - they're all lab examples.
HD-DVD does, so - if you know anything about the concerns of
these firms that will actually have to invest in making these disks
- that's a pretty huge advantage.
Which leads to the next problem with BluRay: Cost. Building
these factories (or, more acurately, retrofitting the old DVD
factories) is going to cost north of a billion bucks! The HD-DVD
manufacturing technology is almost exactly the same as DVD,
and the numbers I've seen for the same task or retrofitting are in
the tens of millions. I think that should be foremost on anyone's
mind, because that money has to be made back.
I mean, I wouldn't worry about it if this were still the 90s, since
back then optical disks were about the best thing going for the
price. But - as someone mentioned above - flash memory is
poised to outstrip even BluRay's wildest capacity dreams in
about 2-3 years, and be cost competitive-to-superior. So why
waste the money (as an investor OR a consumer) on a media
format that's probbaly going to be eclipsed inside of 5 years? If
you're going to gamble on optical media at all, it seems to make
more sense to go with the cheaper, more ready to go option.
That sure seem to be HD-DVD to me.
Durability? BluRay's get their capacity advantages (theoretical as
they may be) from using thinner substrates and coverings. If not
for some 'secret sauce' coating (and who knows who goodit will
actually be) they would be much more fragile than DVDs and
HD-DVDs. My DVDs already scratch too easy!
I also read that Toshiba even has a triple layer 45GB version in
the lab, which cuts BluRay's 'theoretical' 50GB dual version's
advantage even further.
I don't know - I may be missing something, but when compared
to it's direct competitor AND with the likely direction high
capacity flash is going, this sure seems to make BluRay the most
over-hyped technology of the decade.
the tens of millions."
Can you provide some authoritative links describing these costs that we can publicly confirm with the manufacturers? You start out saying "tens of millions" for an HD-DVD upgrade, and in a later post, it's "$90+ million" - sorry, but that's close enough to nine ~ ten figures for me, and they still haven't manufactured any production discs _in_quantity_, right? Time _is_ money, so delays _do_ cost more. Even if you're precisely right about the initial cost differential, no one seems to have any problems coming up with the three billion+ bucks needed to build/update a silicon IC fab these days (even in the Third World - skilled assembly and maintenance techs cost at least as much as the robotic hardware), and the depreciation over billions of discs over upwards of a decade isn't that big a difference per disc (certainly not anywhere near $5 - $10 each). The funny thing about retrofits/upgrades is that they never quite cost as little, or work as well, as advertised. Anyone ever try to upgrade a PC between versions of Microsloth OSes without wiping everything slick on the hard drive? How about keeping up with DLLs and drivers for aging hardware? What about trying to add anything to a vehicle made in the last few years (many auto electrical systems now prevent you from substituting any 12 volt accessories, because they manage the load and exchange data over the power lines and/or fiber optics)? Now scale that experience up to an optical disc manufacturing plant, where a mote of dust rubbing against anything is like a boulder - I'll believe it when I see it.
Flash memory is going to approach the same limits in photolithography that the microprocessor and other device manufacturing processes are getting close to bumping into (somewhere around the 0.1 ~ 0.01 micron level) within the next 5 ~ 10 years. Like the PC business in general, we're starting to approach the asymptote of the basement for prices. Microsloth has demonstrated plenty of experience getting away with low-end slop with the PC masses by tossing its billions around (which used to be the PC masses' billions, BTW). That may not hack it in the wider consumer space that has a much higher expectancy of reliability - and Microsloth's track record with Swiss cheese riddled PC and embedded (DVR, cable, phone)software does not bode well for whatever is going to be fielded on HD-DVD discs (and remember, once the firmware is in a standalone player, it's baked in, no chance to send out Service Packs 1 - 99). The alignment of more content owners with Blu-ray (not BluRay, BTW) tells me that they trust Microsloth about as far as they can throw them - most of whom have already been burned by previous Microsloth failures, if not outright illegal activity (remember that not-so-little abuse-of-monopoly-power conviction a few years ago?). I'll take Java, with its time-tested built-in security model, strong programming attibutes from embedded to server apps/services, broad cross-platform professional developer community, etc., over the descendents of COM/DOM, ActiveX, DLLs, virii/worms/Trojan Horses/kiddie scripters, etc., any day.
Upper-limit capacity _does_ matter. Just ask any Betamax user, who couldn't make SLP-length recordings, how much they enjoyed the marginally higher quality of their format on the ultimately more-expensive media. If Blu-ray winds up dominating the market, I guarantee you they will have a significant cost advantage over HD-DVD in the long run. Of course, it's still a chicken-and-egg race until then, and with no clear visual quality advantage among the formats, larger capacity at roughly the same per-disk cost - guess what Joe Six-pack is going to choose, assuming equally inept marketing? I've become convinced that the weak link in consumer electronics is the 20-Somethings working in the aisles (in video stores or retail box stores), whose general lack of knowledge about anything technical is astounding (there are rare exceptions, but they soon finish engineering school and move on to much better prospects - assuming their careers haven't already been outsourced overseas). I wouldn't discount the support of Dell (HP probably only matters in terms of retail shelf space) in this equation, either. Both companies, and their other hardware partners, are going to be pumping these things out into consumers' hands like hotcakes at a flood zone relief station (been there, done that). I do wonder if my mailbox will fill with one or the other choice from AOL (and probably both!). Maybe that will be the ultimate arbiter of this race, especially since Blockbuster and Hollywood Video are going to eventually go the way of the dodo, as cable, satellite and broadband continue flattening and contracting the surface of the planet, so they may not to even get to affect the outcome of this game.
The other thing to remember about the capacity upper limit argument is Bill Gates' prophetic wild misstatement about "640KB will be more than anyone will ever need". Fitting the text of the entire Encyclopedia Britannica on a single CD-ROM was supposed to be Nirvana, too. DVDs will seem as quaint in 10 ~ 15 years as 8-inch floppies do today (at least, being a volunteer at the Computer History Museum, I can still read those, if I need to!). 30 GBs won't even back up the average laptop computer today (not that there's more than that worth backing up, once you eliminate the Microsloth bloatware - hmmm, another reason they want you to buy more, smaller-capacity disks?). 100 GBs so I can take everything on my TiVo with me? Now, you're talking. There will never be enough capacity or bandwidth, and building for that higher upper limit in the future is a better investment than a more incremental (i.e., marginally less-risky, in the relatively short-term) approach.
Anyway, that's my buck-two-eighty's worth (two cents' worth, adjusted for inflation since date of "manufacture" ;) As Dennis Miller used to say, "But, that's just my opinion, I could be wrong."
All the Best,
Joe Blow
Is there really a demand for it?
When DVD's came out, it was jumping to a whole new type of technology for videos (well main stream anyways, laserdiscs ever really hit it big time)
The jump in quality was pretty noticable, as well as being able to save a lot of space.
HDTV quality video just doesnt seem that impressive to me, while i'm sure in years to come cost will come down considerably, it seems like a "nice" thing to have, but really normal DVD's - espically on high quality displays look damn good already.
Software has barely even begun to take advantage of normal DVD technology (how many software titles have you gotten that come on more then one CD, often 3-4+, but theires no DVD version, except perhaps a super deluxe edition that costs 30+ dollars more?
Having 30+ gigs on a single DVD would definately be nice for Entire Seasons of TV Programs, but really, this whole next generation of players doesnt excite me at all, factor in the potential obselecence of a format, and I have no desire to even purchase a player in the next few years.
Is there really a demand for it?
When DVD's came out, it was jumping to a whole new type of technology for videos (well main stream anyways, laserdiscs ever really hit it big time)
The jump in quality was pretty noticable, as well as being able to save a lot of space.
HDTV quality video just doesnt seem that impressive to me, while i'm sure in years to come cost will come down considerably, it seems like a "nice" thing to have, but really normal DVD's - espically on high quality displays look damn good already.
Software has barely even begun to take advantage of normal DVD technology (how many software titles have you gotten that come on more then one CD, often 3-4+, but theires no DVD version, except perhaps a super deluxe edition that costs 30+ dollars more?
Having 30+ gigs on a single DVD would definately be nice for Entire Seasons of TV Programs, but really, this whole next generation of players doesnt excite me at all, factor in the potential obselecence of a format, and I have no desire to even purchase a player in the next few years.
Miserable failures sposored by America or large USA companies include NTSC (PAL is better in almost every regard) DVD+R (Reinventing the wheel - hence DVD-R disks are still cheaper and more widely used) and CDMA2000 for mobile phones - GSM wiped the floor with it...
Miserable failures sposored by America or large USA companies include NTSC (PAL is better in almost every regard) DVD+R (Reinventing the wheel - hence DVD-R disks are still cheaper and more widely used) and CDMA2000 for mobile phones - GSM wiped the floor with it...
First of HD-DVD did create a 3-layer disc that holds 45GB, but Blu-Ray already demonstrated a 4-layer disc that gets 100GB. In essence though, HD-DVD never claimed to have the advantage in this regard.
As far as "simplicity" in manufacturing goes, the advantage initially was for HD-DVD, but several delays have caused that advantage to disappear.
The main issue that is governing the decision of these companies has to do with the mode of protection. Microsoft, Sony, etc. I don't think even care whether one disc is 30GB or 50GB. What they care about is a) how easy is it for people to duplicate, b) what kind of new features can be included, c) performance in terms of throughput, d) cost of media and cost of hardware. Will HD movies do better in Blu-Ray or HD-DVD? I don't think anybody can answer that question. Even the proponents and developers of these technologies can't post specs that provide siginificant advantages. However, it seems to me that Microsoft and some Hollywood studios are intent on using their own proprietary technology and usage rights rather than having it developed using universal standards. That means that while HD-DVD may initially claim a cheaper media cost, they're fees for licensing the technology for each movie or HD-DVD content will be higher than that used for Blu-Ray.
As far as flash memory is concerned, there is certainly a market for that, but it isn't even close to being price competitive. Never mind that the vast majority of people want to own their media and not "subscribe" to it or leave its control in the hands of large corporations. That is an essential "value" component that has been largely missing from this debate. In any case, it looks like the market will decide one way or another...
that's not the case - so I thought I'd respond.
"... HD-DVD did create a 3-layer disc that holds 45GB, but Blu-
Ray already demonstrated a 4-layer disc that gets 100GB. In
essence though, HD-DVD never claimed to have the advantage
in this regard."
This gets back to the lab version vs. pilot versions ready to
manufacture. Both of these are lab versions, but in the case of
BluRay they haven't gotten even theri dual layer disks past that
stage yet. Doesn't this raise some flags for a quadruple layer
disk seeing the light of day? It does for me. Besides, once you
get to the 40-50GB level, larger capacities really become
esoteric advantages, given what these disks will primarily be
used for (buying movies and home PC backups).
"As far as "simplicity" in manufacturing goes, the advantage
initially was for HD-DVD, but several delays have caused that
advantage to disappear."
No, it hasn't. Those numbers I mentioned are the ones that are
quoted NOW - delays or no delays. The start-up costs of the
technologies involved are not subject to time factors; one
(BluRay) simply costs more than the other (HD-DVD).
"The main issue that is governing the decision of these
companies has to do with the mode of protection. Microsoft,
Sony, etc. I don't think even care whether one disc is 30GB or
50GB. What they care about is a) how easy is it for people to
duplicate, b) what kind of new features can be included, c)
performance in terms of throughput, d) cost of media and cost
of hardware."
I think you're sort of right about capacity not really being the
driving issue for either side, but the protection technology is the
same for both (AAC). The difference is HD-DVD consortium will
allow their disks to e copied to HDs for video straeming
purposes, while BluRay group will not. Also, for all the
interactive features, M$ wants their iHD technology to win
(which is on HD-DVD), and BluRay group wants BD-Java. And of
course, whoever wins, the backers will get royalty payments on
every disk and player made - big time money, for simply signing
on a dotted line. "Throughput" - how fast data is written or read
to disks - is about the same for both, I think. And cost of media
and hardware will very clearly favor HD-DVD - as I said, those
numbers (over $1 billion for BluRay start-up vs about S90
million for HD-DVD, total, are what's out there now).
"Will HD movies do better in Blu-Ray or HD-DVD? I don't think
anybody can answer that question. Even the proponents and
developers of these technologies can't post specs that provide
siginificant advantages... it seems to me that Microsoft and [the]
studios are intent on using their own proprietary technology and
usage rights rather than having it developed using universal
standards."
I can - They both deliver exactly the same product; High Def
content. So there is no performance advantages for either in
terms of the images you actually see. The iHD vs BD-Java
contest is where it becomes more of an open question. Which
one will deliver all the 'extras' better than the other? But frankly,
how 'gee whiz' do the menus and easter eggs have to be?
Nevertheless, these are the only "proprietary" technologies at
stake. And once one is chosen - officially or by a drawn out
market battle - it will become the universal standard.
"That means that while HD-DVD may initially claim a cheaper
media cost, they're fees for licensing the technology for each
movie or HD-DVD content will be higher than that used for Blu-
Ray. As far as flash memory is concerned, there is certainly a
market for that, but it isn't even close to being price
competitive."
This is not true. Licensing costs are likely to be similar for iHD
and BD-Java (yes, it's Java, but it's Bluray Development group
Java so their will probably be a cost). But even if their is a
difference, it will be miniscule when compared to the costs of
actually adopting the technologies - converting the
manufacturing and mastering lines and so forth. And that's
precisely where HD-DVD has a commanding advantage.
Especially if you believe - as I do - that optical disks are on their
way out soon anyway. Flash memory prices are coming down
fast, with capacities in the 16GB range coming soon (according
to Samsung). These companies may have 5 years, max, to
recoup their investment before the format is displaced. Making
back $1 billion in that time frame is going to cost much more
(per disk and player) than doing the same for $90 million, and
will likely be greater than any costs related to just lisencing.
"Never mind that the vast majority of people want to own their
media and not "subscribe" to it or leave its control in the hands
of large corporations. That is an essential "value" component
that has been largely missing from this debate. In any case, it
looks like the market will decide one way or another..."
I'm not sure where you're going here - if anything, HD-DVD
consortium's letting content be copied to hard drives lets the
consumer have more control, not less. Yet I don't think optical
disks are where this very good issue you bring up (subscription
vs ownership) will be fought. Soon, every PS or PC-like device
will have hardware DRM built in, and when that becomes
ubiquitous THEN the s**t will be hitting the fan for all of us.
In the end, the market has a role to play, bit I'm not sure its the
best place to fight over standards. Consumers should be putting
their efforts towards finding the lowest cost/best quality
solution, based on the ability of companies to manufacture and
market a product based on a greed upon standard. The kind of
fight that's sizing up now is just going to cost us all more money
- in supporting two incompatible formats in essentially the
same, shrinking market.
That's my 2 bucks ~
First of HD-DVD did create a 3-layer disc that holds 45GB, but Blu-Ray already demonstrated a 4-layer disc that gets 100GB. In essence though, HD-DVD never claimed to have the advantage in this regard.
As far as "simplicity" in manufacturing goes, the advantage initially was for HD-DVD, but several delays have caused that advantage to disappear.
The main issue that is governing the decision of these companies has to do with the mode of protection. Microsoft, Sony, etc. I don't think even care whether one disc is 30GB or 50GB. What they care about is a) how easy is it for people to duplicate, b) what kind of new features can be included, c) performance in terms of throughput, d) cost of media and cost of hardware. Will HD movies do better in Blu-Ray or HD-DVD? I don't think anybody can answer that question. Even the proponents and developers of these technologies can't post specs that provide siginificant advantages. However, it seems to me that Microsoft and some Hollywood studios are intent on using their own proprietary technology and usage rights rather than having it developed using universal standards. That means that while HD-DVD may initially claim a cheaper media cost, they're fees for licensing the technology for each movie or HD-DVD content will be higher than that used for Blu-Ray.
As far as flash memory is concerned, there is certainly a market for that, but it isn't even close to being price competitive. Never mind that the vast majority of people want to own their media and not "subscribe" to it or leave its control in the hands of large corporations. That is an essential "value" component that has been largely missing from this debate. In any case, it looks like the market will decide one way or another...
that's not the case - so I thought I'd respond.
"... HD-DVD did create a 3-layer disc that holds 45GB, but Blu-
Ray already demonstrated a 4-layer disc that gets 100GB. In
essence though, HD-DVD never claimed to have the advantage
in this regard."
This gets back to the lab version vs. pilot versions ready to
manufacture. Both of these are lab versions, but in the case of
BluRay they haven't gotten even theri dual layer disks past that
stage yet. Doesn't this raise some flags for a quadruple layer
disk seeing the light of day? It does for me. Besides, once you
get to the 40-50GB level, larger capacities really become
esoteric advantages, given what these disks will primarily be
used for (buying movies and home PC backups).
"As far as "simplicity" in manufacturing goes, the advantage
initially was for HD-DVD, but several delays have caused that
advantage to disappear."
No, it hasn't. Those numbers I mentioned are the ones that are
quoted NOW - delays or no delays. The start-up costs of the
technologies involved are not subject to time factors; one
(BluRay) simply costs more than the other (HD-DVD).
"The main issue that is governing the decision of these
companies has to do with the mode of protection. Microsoft,
Sony, etc. I don't think even care whether one disc is 30GB or
50GB. What they care about is a) how easy is it for people to
duplicate, b) what kind of new features can be included, c)
performance in terms of throughput, d) cost of media and cost
of hardware."
I think you're sort of right about capacity not really being the
driving issue for either side, but the protection technology is the
same for both (AAC). The difference is HD-DVD consortium will
allow their disks to e copied to HDs for video straeming
purposes, while BluRay group will not. Also, for all the
interactive features, M$ wants their iHD technology to win
(which is on HD-DVD), and BluRay group wants BD-Java. And of
course, whoever wins, the backers will get royalty payments on
every disk and player made - big time money, for simply signing
on a dotted line. "Throughput" - how fast data is written or read
to disks - is about the same for both, I think. And cost of media
and hardware will very clearly favor HD-DVD - as I said, those
numbers (over $1 billion for BluRay start-up vs about S90
million for HD-DVD, total, are what's out there now).
"Will HD movies do better in Blu-Ray or HD-DVD? I don't think
anybody can answer that question. Even the proponents and
developers of these technologies can't post specs that provide
siginificant advantages... it seems to me that Microsoft and [the]
studios are intent on using their own proprietary technology and
usage rights rather than having it developed using universal
standards."
I can - They both deliver exactly the same product; High Def
content. So there is no performance advantages for either in
terms of the images you actually see. The iHD vs BD-Java
contest is where it becomes more of an open question. Which
one will deliver all the 'extras' better than the other? But frankly,
how 'gee whiz' do the menus and easter eggs have to be?
Nevertheless, these are the only "proprietary" technologies at
stake. And once one is chosen - officially or by a drawn out
market battle - it will become the universal standard.
"That means that while HD-DVD may initially claim a cheaper
media cost, they're fees for licensing the technology for each
movie or HD-DVD content will be higher than that used for Blu-
Ray. As far as flash memory is concerned, there is certainly a
market for that, but it isn't even close to being price
competitive."
This is not true. Licensing costs are likely to be similar for iHD
and BD-Java (yes, it's Java, but it's Bluray Development group
Java so their will probably be a cost). But even if their is a
difference, it will be miniscule when compared to the costs of
actually adopting the technologies - converting the
manufacturing and mastering lines and so forth. And that's
precisely where HD-DVD has a commanding advantage.
Especially if you believe - as I do - that optical disks are on their
way out soon anyway. Flash memory prices are coming down
fast, with capacities in the 16GB range coming soon (according
to Samsung). These companies may have 5 years, max, to
recoup their investment before the format is displaced. Making
back $1 billion in that time frame is going to cost much more
(per disk and player) than doing the same for $90 million, and
will likely be greater than any costs related to just lisencing.
"Never mind that the vast majority of people want to own their
media and not "subscribe" to it or leave its control in the hands
of large corporations. That is an essential "value" component
that has been largely missing from this debate. In any case, it
looks like the market will decide one way or another..."
I'm not sure where you're going here - if anything, HD-DVD
consortium's letting content be copied to hard drives lets the
consumer have more control, not less. Yet I don't think optical
disks are where this very good issue you bring up (subscription
vs ownership) will be fought. Soon, every PS or PC-like device
will have hardware DRM built in, and when that becomes
ubiquitous THEN the s**t will be hitting the fan for all of us.
In the end, the market has a role to play, bit I'm not sure its the
best place to fight over standards. Consumers should be putting
their efforts towards finding the lowest cost/best quality
solution, based on the ability of companies to manufacture and
market a product based on a greed upon standard. The kind of
fight that's sizing up now is just going to cost us all more money
- in supporting two incompatible formats in essentially the
same, shrinking market.
That's my 2 bucks ~
While according to the specs on www.xbox.com the Xbox360 with have a 12x DVD-ROM.
So, by the end of next year there will be more Blu-Ray enabled devices in the living room than HD-DVD devices by default.
Hence, Beta, over VHS, early adoptor of MiniDisc, and the big one for me SACD versus DVD-A. I decided to jump on both SACD and DVD-A just because different studios supported different formats. Both Formats sound great to me, and I can't really tell the sonic advantages of either of the other.
But, in order to play both formats, I have a stand alone SACD and a stand alone DVD-A. The combo units were just to expensive. Now when I play these things for my friends they are astonished at the sound quality, but then say "I have never even heard of Super Audio or DVD audio"
I think this is where the HD-DVD/Blue Ray battle is going. Lets face it, there are still folks out there with VHS tape decks, who are really upset that Walmart and Blockbuster no longer carry new releases in VHS (this is forcing these folks into adoption of DVD by the way. But, Look at the number of combo DVD/VHS units at Costco or Sams, versus DVD players.
Like the earlier person stated, until Blockbuster and Netflix start supporting the formats no one will convert, or even know there is a new format/s to convert to. And lets face it, until you can get a 150 dollar unit which will play both formats the masses will not care about either format.
Robert
While according to the specs on www.xbox.com the Xbox360 with have a 12x DVD-ROM.
So, by the end of next year there will be more Blu-Ray enabled devices in the living room than HD-DVD devices by default.
Hence, Beta, over VHS, early adoptor of MiniDisc, and the big one for me SACD versus DVD-A. I decided to jump on both SACD and DVD-A just because different studios supported different formats. Both Formats sound great to me, and I can't really tell the sonic advantages of either of the other.
But, in order to play both formats, I have a stand alone SACD and a stand alone DVD-A. The combo units were just to expensive. Now when I play these things for my friends they are astonished at the sound quality, but then say "I have never even heard of Super Audio or DVD audio"
I think this is where the HD-DVD/Blue Ray battle is going. Lets face it, there are still folks out there with VHS tape decks, who are really upset that Walmart and Blockbuster no longer carry new releases in VHS (this is forcing these folks into adoption of DVD by the way. But, Look at the number of combo DVD/VHS units at Costco or Sams, versus DVD players.
Like the earlier person stated, until Blockbuster and Netflix start supporting the formats no one will convert, or even know there is a new format/s to convert to. And lets face it, until you can get a 150 dollar unit which will play both formats the masses will not care about either format.
Robert
I'm not going to pay $5 more for a DVD that is that is marginally better. I still want my movies less than $20. Studios will choose to squeeze more in less space, as compression technology improves.
For Data DVD's, Just let them fight it out and some bi-partisan company will come up with a dual writer just like it is now.