Blu-Ray Attacks Microsoft, Microsoft Bites Back

QT writes "Ars Technica has been following this week's next-gen DVD dramas closely. First, there's extensive coverage of the reasons why Microsoft backed HD-DVD, which was primarily inspired by mandatory support for copying discs to computers. The BDA, however, countered with an attack on Microsoft's reasons, and Microsoft returned fire. Richard E. Doherty, Microsoft's head of the media entertainment technology convergence group, said that 50GB Blu-ray disc are in fact many years away. Is MS playing games, or is Sony misrepresenting just how far along BD-ROM really is?" From the article: "HD DVD is proven to deliver 30GB capacity today, with the potential to deliver even greater capacity. The 50GB claim for BD-ROM discs is unproven and will not be available for many years to come, based on discussions with major Japanese and US replicators. Replicators not only do not have test lines running, they cannot even pre-order the equipment to begin evaluating this disc. They cannot judge the cost of these discs, or even whether they can be manufactured at all. Major replicators can mass manufacture 30GB HD DVD discs today and it's well understood that these discs will cost significantly less to manufacture than the lower-capacity 25GB BD discs." We previously discussed this topic when the announcement came out.

Comments

Microsoft follows the money /PS3 problems as well?

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm not one to believe Microsoft too readily, but let's face it: MS follows the cash, and if MS thinks that there's more money to be made with HD DVD, maybe they are on to something? It's not like VC-1 isn't in both formats, so what is to gain by not backing Blu-ray?

And, has anyone noticed all of this talk about the PS3 slipping to late fall 2006 for a launch?

Re:HD DVD sounds better to me

[garcia]

I use an external HD for backups, not my DVD burner.

It's easier to replicate DVDs and store them in multiple locations than it is to have multiple external HDs. For my weekly backups everything goes to three distinct geographical locations via the Internet. I also have an external HD that gets stuff daily. If necessary (no network connections) I would burn DVDs and mail or hand deliver them. Much easier than mailing HDs. YMMV.

And I don't care how many discs my movies/tv shows come on. So I have to change it once an hour, I need to get up once in a while anyway.

I can't sit through an entire season (or usually even an entire disc) w/o moving but that's not why I'd like to see more shows on less discs. I don't like how much room my DVD sets take up in my rack. If I could get an entire season on one or two discs instead of six or more that would make me a happier camper.

Only reason MS is backing HD DVD

[ValuJet]

The only reason MS will back the HD DVD is because sony is using blu-ray in the PS3. They want that machine to become as obsolete as soon as possible. It scares MS to death that people will want a blu-ray DVD player because that is a HUGE valueadd to the PS3.

It becomes a lot easier to stomach a 500+ dollar game purchase when it will also play blu-ray dvds aswell, because people will want to watch the better quaility pictures.

It isn't that difficult to figure out why MS hates blu-ray and that is because their XBOX360 (which is really unimpressive) is still stuck on regular DVDs. If you have to buy an XBOX360 (400) + nextgen dvd player (200-300, maybe more) vs buying a ps3 (500, price is a guess, but I can't see it costing more than that. If it does its dead before it ships) people are SAVING money by buying the ps3.

well, not really but you can spin it that way.

Playstation 3...

[MosesJones]

So 50GB is miles off, of course it is because we all know that HD-DVD is so real and there are so many devices whereas Blu-ray will only be shipping in potentially the biggest selling console of 2006.

Microsoft do XBox 360, Sony do PS3, XBox 360 hasn't gone for either HD-DVD or Blu-ray. If HD-DVD was so real why didn't they pick it for XBox 360?

Its amazing how this talk of reality of Blu-ray (which I've actually seen demo'ed) over HD-DVD tends to ignore the fact that only one company (Sony) is producing a mass market player in 2006.

If PS3 wins, then Blu-ray will have significant volume in 2006 which will drive down costs and mean larger capacity disks arrive much earlier.

"Grand Theft Auto - Whole of the damned Continenal United States" anyone?

Know one of the real reasons?

[DdJ]

The Blu-Ray spec requires a fully functional Java interpreter to be embedded in every media player. You know the scripting language that DVDs use to control menus and stuff like that? On a Blu-Ray system, this is a full Java implementation with access to a TCP stack and everything.

(I saw some sessions about this at JavaOne this year.)

How could Microsoft get behind something like that?

Re:HD DVD sounds better to me

[default luser]

You are exactly correct. Witness that we still have to choose between buying the widescreen and 'adjusted for your screen' version, whereas when I first started buying DVDs, they were frequently flipper disks with both screen formats.

Yes, there were a couple reasons early DVDs were mostly flipper discs, and most of them came with both versions.

Early on the industry had not perfected the dual-layer concept, so the dual-sided, single-layer disc was common. But the industry was smart - they knew that discs that required flipping in the middle of the movie would not only piss people off, but would remind people of Laserdisc.

So, with the exception of longer movies like Goodfellas, most double-sided, single-layer early discs cut the video bitrate a little and packed a whole movie onto each side. This also gave the industry the perfect "extra" feature to sell the new DVD format: widescreen and standard on the same disc.

Witness that DTS and Dolby Digital used to be two separate disks (and still are in some cases).

I didn't like those early dual-sided discs. Some movies that hit the 2-hour mark look like shit because the video bitrate is down in the 4Mbit range. It was a compromise.

Nowadays, the number of different versions available reflect the truth about DVD:

DVD was sold to the public on the concept that it could hold EVERYTHING, including multiple 9Mbit versions of the movie, Dolby Digital, DTS, extras, you name it. But the capacity to do this was truely only available in DVD18, which was expensive to make, and still required that annoying flipping by the user.

The fact is, DVD is most consumer-friendly in the single-sided, dual-layer package (and it's also convenient that single-sided, dual-layer discs are cheaper to make these days). Thus, you have 9GB to work with, which means ONE high-bitrate version of the movie with Dolby Digital in english and spanish, and maybe DTS or a few behind the scenes extras.

I mean, SURE studios invent reasons for re-releases, but the compartmentalization of features is mostly due to the limitations of DVD. Most people don't realize this, but if you crank up the DVD bitrate to maximum, you'll eat up almost an entire layer in an hour. We need more space...and hence, the new format.

This time around, the hybrid disc looks like a winner, because you don't have to cut any corners: dual layer DVD on one side, dual-layer HD-DVD on the other. Unfortunately, the movie industry will capitalize on this killer combination, and will probably charge 20-50% more for these new features (much like a special-edition DVD today).

My hope is that BD-ROM will be out around the same time period. It may cause confusion, but the format war has to be fought sooner-or-later. With two formats on the field, artificial upcharges will disappear.