Lessons From the HD Format War

mlimber writes "The New York Times' Freakonomics blog asks a panel of experts, 'Is the battle between HD-DVD and Blu-ray really over? What can we learn from it?' The panel suggests, among other things, that Sony achieved a Pyrrhic victory because high-def DVDs will be outmoded before they reap enough profits to make up for what they (and Toshiba) paid out for both product development and bribes to win the support of content providers."

Comments

Lesson #1

[morari]

No one really cares.

Re:Lesson #1

[jollyreaper]

No one really cares. Agreed. Doesn't really matter what source it was ripped from, so long as the torrent's seeded. :)

What I learned

[Naughty Bob]

The lesson I draw is that content providers are wholly opposed to consumers interests, and that open, collaborative standards are the only healthy way forward.

Re:What I learned

[RingDev]

content providers are wholly opposed to consumers interests I wouldn't go quite that far. I would say that content providers are wholly interested in making a profit, and the consumers have a strong interest in getting the greatest possible value for their money.

-Rick

Re:What I learned

[gstoddart]

The lesson I draw is that content providers are wholly opposed to consumers interests, and that open, collaborative standards are the only healthy way forward.

Of course, it should be noted that the media companies who will be giving us content on these things are not going to participate in "open, collaborative standards" -- it's just not done.

There will be one, if not two, iterations of the "next next generation" of this technology before you get one that gets adopted as widespread as DVD was. The amount of people with next-gen displays is too small, and too many people are now leery about the next "new hotness" that they'll stay away even more now.

I'm not saying you don't make a good point. Just, they're not really looking out for your interests here, and they figure they can get everyone to buy a new generation of technology every time they think it's due. Once they come up with the next direction, they'll still change it to &^%& often.

Cheers

Re:What I learned

[Cajun Hell]

I would say that content providers are wholly interested in making a profit,

This isn't clear. With music, DRM is just about dead now: the content providers are really focusing on creating usable/buyable products. That is, they are trying to maximize their profit, rather than, say, Apple's or Pioneer's.

With video, though, DRM is far from dead. They are still trying to lock people into using specific players and monitors. This is perhaps a move to maximize profits, but not necessarily for the content providers. When you have big players like Sony, who sells both media and the equipment to view that media, things get complex. It looks like there's an effort to maximize profit for the equipment manufacturers and proprietary software companies, rather than the content providers.

It's accepted that you can now listen to music on whatever you want. (If I sell MP3s or CDDA/wav, I don't have to worry about who can buy it.) But with movies, there's still a fight over what customers should be allowed to watch the movie on. They're still acting like they don't want a free market in playback devices, even if that costs them content sales revenue.

When the content providers start moving to maximize their own profits (or the profits of their content division, in cases like Sony), you'll know it. It'll be about selling bytes to as many consumers as possible, instead of limiting their sales to the subset of movie watchers who have bought the "right" player products.

Re:What I learned

[ccguy]

Sony, who sells both media and the equipment to view that media, things get complex.

You are forgetting the equipment to _copy_ the media and the _blank_ media. Basically with 100% sony stuff you can make a copy of a DVD you buy from sony pictures and still hear them complain about piracy and them not getting enough money.

Re:What I learned

[DrgnDancer]

While there may be an argument that the "Music Industry" is at least partially redundant, and that the ability of everyday artists to sell themselves in a brave new digital world will eventually weaken or even kill the record company's strangle-hold, I feel this is much less likely with movies. There are two points to consider:

1) While it is possible to make a pretty good audio recording in a basement with a laptop, and possible to make a studio quality recording for a few hundred bucks of rental time in a studio, it is nearly impossible to make a movie with anything less than hundreds of thousands of dollars. That's for an independent film made on a shoe-string. For a studio quality movie, you're talking a few million minimum. People don't have the money to make video "content" without the backing of large studios. This isn't going to change, these expenses aren't (mostly) going to be affected by technology. They're related to the inherent expense of getting a lot of people and equipment together in one place, feeding them, paying them, making costumes for them, etc. Even if Apple announced tomorrow that it was offering free Power Macs with Final Cut Pro to movie producers, and special effects costs dropped to zero over night, it would still cost millions to make a good movie. Studios are more than middle men, they financiers.

2) Unlike music, which existed before the modern age, and has business models that could survive an EMP taking out every piece of electronics on the planet; movies are a whole cloth product of the "middle man" era. The studios "own" movie making in a way that the record industry can never "own" music making. I can go to a local bar an see a decent unsigned band, I could learn to play an instrument and make my own music if I wanted. I could never do this with movies (at least beyond the "slightly edited home video" level"). Even "independent" film makers are the owners or employees of studios, just smaller studios. The entire process of making movies, from the production to the distribution is tied to the studio model.

I just don't see "content" being separated from the "middle man" in this particular industry. At least not any time soon.

shhhh

[clusterlizard]

Yeah, Brian, so now that the war has ended, go and buy that hd-dvd player you've been wanting! Don't forget to pick up a car load of hd-dvd movies while you're out!

simple

[ILuvRamen]

If someone would have made a cheap combo player fast enough that could play both formats, they could have both been making profits instead of one losing money and the other probably still losing money from so many bribes. It's sort of like a betting on a drag race and then spending $20,000 to upgrade your car while the other guy spends $25,000 and the bet is only $1000 so that's all you win. By the time they start turning a profit on blu-ray, the next format will be released.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

What?

[longacre]

Is the battle between HD-DVD and Blu-ray really over?

January called, it wants its question back. Also, streaming video is the future, but the distant future. Until the cable companies begin delivering libraries of 1080p on-demand content through their set top boxes, Blu-Ray will pull in plenty of cash.

Re:What?

[Gulthek]

just because some over zealous luddites want 1080p content does not mean the bulk of the Tv viewers do.

That word doesn't mean what you think it means. In fact, it means the exact opposite of what you think it means.

Also, everyone I know who has seen real HD content (either HDDVD or Bluray) agree that DVD pales in comparison. My wife and I bought 'Hot Fuzz' on HDDVD and watched it about 3/4ths of the way through when we ran into disc corruption problems. While we, of course, got the disc replaced, to finish the movie we flipped it over to the DVD side. A huge drop in quality was quite apparent. Ditto for a straight up DVD version of the movie.

Re:What?

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

While we, of course, got the disc replaced, to finish the movie we flipped it over to the DVD side. A huge drop in quality was quite apparent. Ditto for a straight up DVD version of the movie. I don't know about that title specifically, but there is a lot of suspicion that the studios have been releasing deliberately crappy DVD versions recently. Some people are convinced that the recent Harry Potter sequels and the recent Pirates of the Caribbean sequels look significantly worse on DVD than the first movies in each franchise do - despite having the benefit of new and improved mastering systems.

The conspiracy theory is that the studios have been doing that specifically to boost the perceived improvement of the HD releases of the sequels and figuring that the people who are DVD-only will never notice the difference because comparing different movies is subjective anyway.

Re:So does anyone buy Blu-Ray DVD players?

[ivan256]

More standalone BluRay players sold than standalone HD-DVD players. Not counting the PS3 at all. So, yes.

As for downloads, they are currently a fantasy. Downloads could succeed if there were an outlet for downloaded movies similar to online MP3 stores. Download from a vast library covering a huge portion of recorded video, and keep the file to watch as many times as you'd like essentially forever... But no such thing exists on a large enough scale. Most content that is available is for limited time use and a restricted number of viewings, and the availability of titles is small. BluRay has nothing to fear from download competition until this is worked out, and there is no sign of progress.

Lesson #2

[Anonymous Coward]

The merits or flaws of either side can be overcome by paying people off

Early Adoption

[DrWho520]

1) If you have not figured it out yet, early adoption can bite you is the ass. (Just wait for DR-DVD v2 to render every player but the PS3 obsolete.)
2) If you shell out enough cash to content producers during early adoption, the market never has a chance to affect the outcome.
3) Giving away the razors (PS3 compared to vanilla BR-DVD player) and selling the hell out of the blades is still a viable business model.

The only thing that remains to be seen is whether on-demand streaming content will come to market soon enough and be enticing enough to defeat BR-DVD before Sony sees a return on its investment.

Re:Lesson?

[yo_tuco]

"a better example would be wal-mart and netflix"

An even better example:

• Disney (Buena Vista)
• Fox
• HBO
• Lionsgate
• MGM
• New Line Cinema
• Paramount
• Sony Pictures
• Universal Studios
• Warner Bros.

Will it ?

[aepervius]

When I was young, the number of people which did not have a TV was very small, and mostly it was due to economic reason. Now I don't have one, I know a few people which don't have one (colleagues, friends). Mostly due to lassitude reason (nothing worth to watch), some of us due to more ideological reason. Me I just did not watch it anymore. Entertainment ? I get a better quick "just" hanging out with friends. it is as time consuming but far funnier. Films/series ? Download or rent from video-club. Information ? TV is more biased than any other source, and nowadays the net fulfill that better than Tv will ever do. And I see an increasing number of people joining our rank. TV don't cut it. Internet replace it. TV might never totally disappear but it is getting less relevant as the central "point" of the family.

So when you say QUOTE "There will be one, if not two, iterations of the "next next generation" of this technology before you get one that gets adopted as widespread as DVD was. The amount of people with next-gen displays is too small, and too many people are now leery about the next "new hotness" that they'll stay away even more now." ENDQUOTE
Well I disagree. I think new generation teck will NOT bring anything more than DVD brought us. And if it will, it will be at a great loss of liberty (DRM) from a format which for all purpose can be considered to be DRM free so cracked it is... No what i think is that next generations will increasingly go toward the net and drop tv more. IMHO on the "film" playing device field, DVD is the last usable format, and HDDVD/Bluray was the last war. Unless a leap in TV teck happens (3D for example) there won't be any incencitive to really enhancethe format more.

Re:Will it ?

[gstoddart]

Download or rent from video-club. Information ? TV is more biased than any other source, and nowadays the net fulfill that better than Tv will ever do. And I see an increasing number of people joining our rank. TV don't cut it. Internet replace it.

I don't disagree that within some segments of the populace, the TV is trending down. But, more people have TVs than have computers and broadband connection, let alone the savvy to use them for that. It's going to take a long time for that to tip over.

Between the media companies trying to make sure you'll be able to do less on your PC, and the sheer advantage TV has in terms of installed base, we might eventually get where you're describing, but I see that as being a slightly longer term view than what happens with TV and formats.

Well I disagree. I think new generation teck will NOT bring anything more than DVD brought us. And if it will, it will be at a great loss of liberty (DRM) from a format which for all purpose can be considered to be DRM free so cracked it is... No what i think is that next generations will increasingly go toward the net and drop tv more.

Well, again, I don't think that any new format is going to catch up to DVD in terms of installed base. But, I also don't see as wholesale a shift towards internet as a medium. It's gaining, but a lot of people can't afford computers/don't know anything about them. The TV has such an overwhelmingly huge install base as to put it way out front in terms of what any new technology will have to catch up to.

I don't see that we're fundamentally disagreeing -- I see your vision of moving towards the internet being a more central part of everything happening in parallel to whatever is happening in the TV world. A lot of people in North America still live and die by their TV, and a computer isn't even an equation.

In either case, the media companies will try to assert greater control over how we use the stuff they sell us. They're going to try to reap as much payment from every time we're exposed to it as they can. And, they're going to try to tell us what it is we really need next so we'll be good little consumers and go out and buy their stuff.

Unless a leap in TV teck happens (3D for example) there won't be any incencitive to really enhancethe format more.

Never underestimate the ability of a marketing department to try to convince us we need the next incremental change as much as we need air. :-P But, since I'm ignoring the whole HD thing, I agree 100% with that statement.

Personally, I find myself moving away from both the TV and the internet as forms of entertainment as time goes on.

And, if either of us could really meaningfully predict how technology will evolve, we'd be getting paid too much money as consultants to post our WAGs here. ;-)

Cheers

Re:So does anyone buy Blu-Ray DVD players?

[CambodiaSam]

As great as that sounds, I'm not downloading anything other than rentals.

I rarely watch movies more than a couple times, but for music or some movies, I'm buying it on physical media. Why? Because like most of the populace, I don't have a server or the organizational skills to keep up with a media collection. Hard drives die, Windows needs to get reinstalled (again), or other catastrophic events tend to reduce my collection of MP3s and videos. If I have it in the closet on a disc, at least I can pop it in again whenever I want. Plus, I don't have to fight the DRM restrictions as fiercly.

In my own fantasy utopia (at the risk of getting Trolled), I would buy a license for the bit of media that I want and the distributor would allow me unlimited playing rights on any device. If I lost a copy of the media, I could download it again. After all, I own the license, right?

But no, media companies are obsessed with reselling the same content as many times as possible to the same people. How many special basement-THX-director's-cut-lost-hidden-import-bootleg versions of Blade Runner do I need?

Outmoded?

[GroundBounce]

CD's were outmoded 10+ years ago but are still the dominant format for music distribution. Likewise, standard DVD's will be around for a long time to follow. The large installed base of players and other equipment will ensure that any format that gets widespread adoption will remain in use (and presumably profitable) long after it is technically outmoded.

So annoying...

[wamerocity]

I get really annoyed every time this gets brought up with the claims that any benefits Bluray gives will soon be overshadowed by HD download services. HD download services are great, except I see a few problems with it.

1 - Heavy DRM - Yes Bluray has DRM too, but you can TAKE IT WITH YOU. The technology is still prohibitively expensive to start making portable bluray players, and in dash bluray players for cars, but there is NO HD download service I'm aware that lets you burn the files and keep them forever to watch. They are mostly rental services - basically you download them on your Apple TV or computers, watch it in a 24 hour period and its gone. In time, those devices will be made cheaper, and will become reasonably priced.

2 - Downloadable content doesn't look nearly as good a trueHD stuff does. I realize that for many people it doesn't matter, because the majority of TV's that were purchased early on (and therefore a big chunk of the ones in households) are only 720P. But 1080 displays are becoming the new standard and fewer 720 displays are being made. a 3GB 720 file doesn't offer much more clarity than just a standard DVD. Yes I know, many people are going to shout that DVD's are GOOD ENOUGH. Fine. VCR tapes were GOOD ENOUGH too. So are YouTube videos for some people. Big whoop. Watching low quality 720p on a 1080 display just doesn't look as good as a true 1080 picture with 25-35Mbit quality.

3. To get a decent quality picture, you need to have download a big file, and that requires fast internet connections. American download speeds are pitiful compared to the rest of the world. If you wanted to download a 5GB movie, that's going to take you SEVERAL hours to complete, as opposed to just driving a few miles to the nearest blockbuster r RedBox (which WILL be getting bluray discs inevitably)

4. Bluray adoption has taken off faster than DVD adoption did. I somehow doubt people are going to give up on buying discs they can KEEP and watch OVER AND OVER, with a download service that offers inferior quality, short watching time, and long waits to watch. But who knows, maybe in 2 years from now I'll be eating those words, but I doubt. Anything you can say about HD downloads applies to SD quality movies as well, and DVD sales aren't really being eaten into like people predicted it would downloadable content. Begin modding me down...NOW!

Re:So annoying...

[D4MO]

1. The rental services will come, quicker than bluray in dash players for cars. Until then, renting\buying DVD's that you can TAKE WITH YOU and will work in all that hardware that people have already invested money in will remain the status quo for some time. Expect amazon to build a kindle for movies.

2. Yes they are GOOD ENOUGH. TruHD does look better, but not BETTER ENOUGH. People don't really care. I don't really care if I watch Lost at 480p, 720p or 1080p, and I'm not mr.average.

3. There are solutions to this: The 360 will allow you to play the move while it's being download. Sky+ allow you to record a program via your phone, so expect ways to tell your provider to start content delivery so it's there when get home. Also expect them to be Tivo like and pre-deliver content based on your preferences. The top 20 rentals may already be downloaded. Episodes may already be download as soon as they are reldased. I hope to be just sitting there and a message pops up on my TV - "Latest episode of Top Gear ready for viewing". I imagine the content delivery will come from caching service on ISP's own network too. Downloading 5GB is already faster than buying from an online store and waiting for it to be shipped. Alternative is to get in the car and go to a store that may not even have it, and anyway I couldn't be bothered getting off the couch when I can order it with my remote.

4. Adoption for new tech is much faster now than in 1995, the lauch year of the DVD. Most people didn't have internet connections then. Information flows faster, people are more informed. The movie ownership facility will come too, just like MP3 stores today with no DRM.

New physical media and new hardware for digital distribuion will have a very short lifespan.

(Why can't I just download new 360 games? Because MS doesn't want to sour releationship with retail channel who are pushing the hardware, god damnit.)

Who cares about HD movies? We need data storage.

[200_success]

This format war was fought through movie studios, but interestingly most consumers don't really care what discs their movies come on. Whether on HD-DVD and Blu-Ray, the movies play essentially the same way. Hell, DVDs are good enough for movies -- the resolution is good enough, and the run-time of a DVD is longer than the length of time that you can sit still on your butt.

On the other hand, DVDs will soon become obsolete as a data storage medium. Remember when an entire OS came on a CD-ROM, and you could back up your hard drive onto a couple of DVD+-R? Now operating systems come on DVDs, and only sane backup medium for most consumers is another hard disk. For that, I'm glad that the higher-capacity Blu-Ray standard won, and hopefully Blu-Ray burners will be cheap enough by the time the need arises.

I wouldn't be surprised if Blu-Ray movies never replace DVDs, but Blu-Ray burners become standard on computers.

Re:So does anyone buy Blu-Ray DVD players?

[MozeeToby]

I just don't buy that people are going to download HD content. You can't really compress it any more than it is on the disk without having lossy compression, which kind of negates the whole "HD" concept. I think people tend to view downloads differently from disks. They expect to be able to go online, find a movie, download it and watch it almost immediatly. I have a 5 Meg connection, which I will grant is pretty typical right now (yes there are people with more, but there are a lot of people with less). In reality, my 5 meg connection actually gets about 1.5 megs/s on a good day which means that for a 20 gig movie, it will take just about 4 hours to download, which means that I can't start watching the moview for about 2-2.5 hours. And that assumes current usage by everyone else thats sharing my cable bandwidth. If you have every household suddenly downloading 100+ gigs a month in movies, the current infrustructure will collapse. You'll be begging the ISP's to manage the data and bandwidth which will just give the the opportunity to manage for everything else while their at it. Ask yourself, do you really see every household in america paying for a 15 meg connection ($100+ in my location) just so they can watch movies? Or do you think that the telcos will suddenly decide to upgrade thier infrustructure, not just to your neighborhood but also to every rural area in the US (still more than 45% of the population). Throw in the fact that you physically have the disc. That you can take it easily to a friends house or let them borrow it. Not to mention how few people are really prepared to buy/build/maintain a dedicated media server in their home. I just don't see HD downloads as viable withing the next 5 years, probably not for the next 10 with the speed the infrustructure is being upgraded.

SECAM

[PCM2]

Interestingly, SECAM is still currently used by Iran, Syria, North Korea, Cambodia, Vietnam, Rwanda, Libya, most of the countries of the former USSR ... and France. Coincidence? I think not! Note that one of the first benefits of the U.S. military action in Iraq has been to liberate the country from the grip of SECAM and migrate it to PAL. I rest my case.

Digital downloads? How?

[SmallFurryCreature]

Tell me please exactly HOW digital downloads are going to happen. There is a reason a new disc was needed for HD, movies take up a LOT of space. Even recompressed a HD movie is several GB, how are people going to download this when there are plenty of ISP's that limit you to several GB per month? That's right, thanks to our ISP's we could MAYBE just download a SINGLE movie before being cutoff. What about the speed? What if I got only a work laptop? Meaning I can only leave it on for a couple of hours when I am home? Do you think your average ISP connection is fast enough for that? Where do I store it all?

Oh sure DESKTOP HD's are getting bigger all the time but what is a blue-ray or HD-DVD movie, 40-50 GB? That means a large HD can only hold 10 movies. Not much if you consider how many DVD's movie BUYERS got. Some people I know got large enough collection to stretch the capacity of pro-sumer level NAT storage, how the fuck are they going to find enough computer storage to store all this in HD?

Then offcourse you need to hook up this storage to the TV, how is this done?

Oh yes, there are solutions and workarounds a plenty, but I don't see any it being adopted anytime soon, just as MOVIE projectors BEFORE VHS were NOT popular.Oh right, some of you younger ones may not know this. No VHS did NOT mean the start of the movie rental business. It was available LONG before. You could always just rent a projector and some movies and real enthousiats had their own setup. But it was far to much of a hassle for the general public.

VHS made it easy NOT just to record your own shows, but to simply pop down the corner rental story, rent a movie and watch it.

This lead to a huge boom in the industry for a bit with countless stores opening.

It lost its luster a bit, partially because many more TV channels became available all catering to their own crowd. Simply watching whatever the tube feeds you after all is still easier.

But watch HD movies from a PC, that is a lot of hassle, NO, we on slashdot CANNOT judge this. People who compile their own kernel are naturally going to be a bit more inclined to be tech savy then those whose VCR has a blinking clock.

iTunes? iTunes is a joke, its sales are pathetic if you consider the market it operates in. Do the math, how many BILLIONS of consumers does it reach and how many SONGS (SONGS! Not full albums) has it sold? iTunes is the biggest online store, but compared to offline sales it just doesn't compare.

There have been several attempt at on-demand and download services and THEY ALL FAILED.

Don't get me wrong, it is OBVIOUSLY the future, but the future ain't here yet. At the moment we just don't have the tech to handle that amount of content without a shiny disc to put it on.

What people tend to forget is how slow things really change. DVD's didn't replace VHS for years. LP's sold for ages beside CD's. Digital download has been a dream for as long the internet came into existence and it just isn't ready yet. Just ask youtube why they don't serve all their vidoes in HD. Their servers, would choke and it would mean you would have to pick your movie now if you want to watch it over the weekend.

And then their is that shiny Blu-Ray disc in a store or rental place, you can pick it up, slot it in and watch it. No PC whining, no ISP complaining, no harddisk screaming for mercy. It just works.

I think downloads are going to have to wait a bit until those parts of the world who are willing to pay for their content can get their downloads as easy as a disc.

LaserDisc?

[tgd]

Why do people always call that out as an example of a "lost" format war?

They were available for 20 years with virtually every movie released on them that anyone would want to own. (Keep in mind they predated the VHS/Beta "war"). The only thing that took them out was a new technology two generations removed which offered significant savings to content producers.

What I learned from the format war

[hudsonhawk]

I learned that the kind of insane balkanization of consumer products that we see with gaming consoles is spreading to other areas. That the us vs. them rhetoric that was once only found in the realms of religion and politics is now bleeding into online flame wars about which corporate-backed digital movie format is better.

Nobody will learn a damn thing

[EmbeddedJanitor]

Electricity wars (AC vs DC), tape wars (VHS vs BETA, 8 track vs cassette) or HD Format wars are nothing new and if nobody learnt then, why should anyone learn this time around?

Re:Quality and Marketing

[squiggleslash]

A Blu-ray or HD DVD movie generally weighs in at around the 10-15G mark, when compressed with VC-1 or MPEG4, the two decent codecs both formats support. So the answer to the "Who's going to stream 40G" thing is "Not many."

Now, you probably are about to question that. "If that's all, then why do some movies come on dual layer Blu-ray discs" you may ask. And you'd be right. And the answers are:

1. Most movies come with several sound tracks, including, usually, a Dolby TrueHD track, two or three regular Dolby 5.1 track (one for each language), plus the director's commentaries, etc.
2. Early Blu-ray movies were compressed with MPEG2.
3. Some movies are more than two hours long.
4. Most HD DVDs and Blu-ray discs have some extras on them

Now, if you want, you can halve the video data just by putting out 720p instead of 1080p. That's what Apple is doing with AppleTV. The vast majority of people who own HDTVs do not own TVs that are either large enough or close enough to their seats to see any significant difference between 1080 and 720. Indeed, the majority of LCD TVs for under $1,000 have only 768 lines. So this compression is actually more than acceptable. Restrict yourself to a single Dolby 5.1 soundtrack, and bearing in mind the Internet does its own extras - you don't need to send them - you can deliver HD content over the Internet in nice, easy to swallow (well, easier to swallow) 4-6G pieces.

Apple needs to market the hell out of AppleTV. Microsoft has Xbox Marketplace, with HD content, and now's the time for them to market the hell out of it too. Amazon needs to upgrade their Amazon Unbox system and do the same with HD TiVo.

And bear this in mind: virtually all the content delivery companies - Comcast, Dish Network, et al - are experimenting with video on demand systems of their own. My new Dish Network VIP622 (an HD DVR) does VoD over the Internet. Meanwhile, a DVR will get you high quality, widescreen, movies watchable on terms you're happy with from outlets like HBO and Cinemax - things you'd not have considered in the past as being a better option than DVD, because DVD's quality was so superior to NTSC.

Against this background, a format whose players are currently not even viable, and are stupidly expensive, is going to have severe problems making headway.

Re:So does anyone buy Blu-Ray DVD players?

[Cal Paterson]

Firstly, paragraphs make things clearer.

Secondly, 720p can be done at about 2000kbps with x264, and easily lower than that. A 720p feature length could be done between 2gb and 3gb, and easily than that. Pirates are forging the way in this respect, as a quick google will show. The rest of your conjecture is of even lower quality than your "20gb" number.

Re:What's going to replace Blu-Ray?

[shmlco]

"People like to hold things in their hands."

Actually, I'd say that "some" people like to hold things in their hands. Look at music. Some people may want CDs and covers and liners, while others are perfectly happy having their entire music collection in MP3 on their iPods. Some people print photos and then stuff them in albums and shoeboxes. Others use iPhoto and show people their pictures on their iPhones.

I, myself, am in the later category. In fact, I'd be more than happy to have ALL of my music and nearly ALL of my books and movies in digital formats. It's much, much, much easier to move a couple of terabyte drives than 50 boxes of books, CDs, and DVDs.

Bad comparison

[daBass]

Are they really that similar?

- AC vs. DC: Cheaper and better system won
- VHS vs. BetaMax: Cheaper, worse system won
- 8 Track vs. Cassette: cheaper, better system won. (though 8 Track was so retarded, it would have been hard to lose in any case)
- BR vs. HDDVD: More expensive system won, without a real technological/quality advantage.

So what could have been learned? What sony should have learned looking at the first three is "the cheaper always wins" and they should have packed up and left. Instead, Sony made a more expensive system and clobbered Toshiba with marketing. And won.

Re:Bad comparison

[suggsjc]

- AC vs. DC: Cheaper and better system won

I thought they got over their differences and started a band?

Re:Bad comparison

[slashqwerty]

You need to view it from the position of the content producers since they are really the ones picking what format they will distribute on.

- VHS vs. BetaMax: Cheaper, better system won. VHS was 'better' because the quality dropped with each copy.
- 8 Track vs. Cassette: Cheaper, better system won.
- BR vs. HDDVD: More expensive, better system won. BR is 'better' because it has an extra level of content protection.

Re:Bad comparison

[olman]

- VHS vs. BetaMax: Cheaper, better system won. VHS was 'better' because the quality dropped with each copy.

Puh-leeze.

VHS is the better product. Why?

Because you could record an entire movie on a single tape right from the beginning. Most people do not view system where you have to change tapes mid-taping as "better".

DVD is "Good Enough"

[dotwaffle]

Let's look at the history of media, shall we?

People moved from watching on TV to watching the VHS because you could watch it when you want.
People moved from watching on VHS to watching on DVD because you didn't have to bother with rewinding etc, and it didn't degrade over time. (ish - most people believe their CD-Rs will last for ever, let alone DVD-R)
People moved from Analogue to Digital (in the UK) because Sky and Virgin (was NTL was whatever) gave you more channels and it was free-ish.

Why would people move from DVD to BluRay? Seriously - why? My mum watches Sky TV in a low bitrate MPEG-2 from Sky TV and can't see the difference on her 42" TV versus the crystal clear analogue signal, versus one of the HD-DVDs I have.

People don't care about quality - as long as it's "good enough". Why else would people dump CDs - the ultimate in digital formats of the 20th century, for crappy 128kbit MP3s?

Well, negating the "that's all that's available" and the "they're all that they can pirate" arguments at least.

DVD is good enough. It'll be here for a long while yet. And when it does die - we'll have storage nodes in every DSLAM to handle digital downloads of all the big films.

Let the flamewar begin.