Slashdot Mirror


Why Microsoft Won't Have Blu-ray on the Xbox

Ian Lamont writes "Ever since Toshiba stopped production of HD DVD players, many Xbox 360 owners have been wondering when Microsoft will offer some sort of Blu-ray option for the Xbox 360. The answer: Probably never. Microsoft's product manager for the Xbox 360 has told Reuters that Microsoft is not in talks with Sony or the Blu-ray Association. Why not? The Industry Standard points to HDi, an obscure Microsoft technology that was part of the HD DVD interactivity layer. HDi may be dead on physical media, but it could potentially be applied to other Microsoft HD-compatible technologies such as Xbox Live Arcade and Windows Media Center, and be part of a long-term play to own a big share of the market for HD content delivered over the Internet."

78 of 395 comments (clear)

  1. The reason is simple... by New_Age_Reform_Act · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Have you ever seen Microsoft Office for Linux (w/o any emulator like Wine)?

    Nobody is ever going to support a product from a direct competitor (or backed by a direct comepetitor) . Microsoft & Sony are direct competitors.

    --
    "The New Age. The New Beginning."
    1. Re:The reason is simple... by fructose · · Score: 4, Funny

      So that's why we can't get iTunes on a PC. Oh, wait...

    2. Re:The reason is simple... by Kelz · · Score: 2, Interesting

      In the console market. Sony makes a crapload of other things, and Microsoft's presumably main business is it's OS and Office software. Always seems weird to me that companies can get so huge as to be direct partners with a company in one division and direct competitors with the same company in another.

    3. Re:The reason is simple... by LBArrettAnderson · · Score: 3, Interesting

      OS X is much more of a competitor to Windows than Linux, and last time I checked (on friday), my work computer (an iMac running Leopard) had a current version of MS Office on it.

    4. Re:The reason is simple... by tmcfulton · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Apple just didn't want to miss out on 85% of the computer market. If Microsoft didn't have a near-monopoly, there wouldn't be iTunes for PC.

    5. Re:The reason is simple... by AJWM · · Score: 3, Insightful

      OS X is much more of a competitor to Windows than Linux,

      No. You can't (legally or easily) load OS X onto your generic or HP, Dell or Lenovo PC. OS X only runs on Apple hardware, therefore it does not compete with Windows in the non-Apple hardware space. Linux does.

      --
      -- Alastair
    6. Re:The reason is simple... by ergo98 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      No. You can't (legally or easily) load OS X onto your generic or HP, Dell or Lenovo PC. OS X only runs on Apple hardware, therefore it does not compete with Windows in the non-Apple hardware space. Linux does.

      I don't think many people buy hardware based upon the binary "Apple or non-Apply hardware?" decision point. OS X absolutely is a competitor to Windows, regardless of whether it implicitly binds additional decision points.
    7. Re:The reason is simple... by Geoff · · Score: 2, Insightful

      So you're saying Microsoft wouldn't put out a product on a competitor platform, like, say, Microsoft Office on Mac OS X?

      --

      Computers are useless. They can only give you answers. -- Pablo Picasso

    8. Re:The reason is simple... by AJWM · · Score: 2, Insightful

      OS X absolutely is a competitor to Windows

      Only in the initial purchase of hardware, which is not the context of the discussion. The great(n)-grandparent post wondered why Microsoft would create a version of Office for Mac but not for Linux.

      Once the Mac sale is made, making Office available for it increases the potential pool of Office sales without hurting Windows sales. Making Office available for Linux could have a severe impact on Windows sales. If it were possible to install OS X on a (non-Apple) PC that might otherwise run Windows, Microsoft might well reconsider making Office available for it (especially if this could cut into the pre-install market, but Jobs is unlikely to ever allow that).

      --
      -- Alastair
    9. Re:The reason is simple... by ChocolateNinj4 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      But the difference is that Apple is still pretty much a hardware company. They make their money by people buying their hardware, not using their software. They don't care if you buy a Mac then install Windows on it, or buy an iPod and install a different OS, because it doesn't really hurt their business. Also, the whole iTunes on Windows/MS Office on OS X argument isn't really the point--that is looking at the possibility of Microsoft using Blu-ray on the 360 from Sony's perspective. In that case, it's good for business because you show users of the competitor's product that your product is good, too, perhaps getting them to switch to your product to use more of your other good products. The difference is that for iTunes, Apple doesn't need Microsoft's permission, they just have to make the program and make it available. Then maybe some people on Windows will use iTunes and say "Hey, I like the way Apple does stuff" then possibly switch to a Mac the next time they buy a computer. (And yes, that is unlikely, but iTunes is also Apple's main money-making program, and so having it on Windows is making them money.)

    10. Re:The reason is simple... by mweather · · Score: 5, Insightful

      And Microsoft wants to miss out on 100% of the HD movie market? They're not dumb enough to think downloadable content is going to be a competitor any time soon. And if consumers buy separate blu-ray players, they'll buy the cheapest one: the PS3. And that cuts into 360 game sales.

    11. Re:The reason is simple... by tempestdata · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I think what he was trying to say was, companies bow down and embrace competitor's products when it makes financial sense. Just like Apple didn't want to miss out on 85% of the computer market, Microsoft may not want to miss out on % of the HD movie market.

      --
      - Tempestdata
    12. Re:The reason is simple... by pabrown85 · · Score: 2, Informative

      No, but it's indeed why we can't get in on Linux.

    13. Re:The reason is simple... by Dragonslicer · · Score: 2, Interesting

      The difference is that for iTunes, Apple doesn't need Microsoft's permission, they just have to make the program and make it available. But does Microsoft need Sony's permission to sell a Blu-Ray drive for the XBox? My understanding is that Sony is a major member of the Blu-Ray group, but that they in no way own the Blu-Ray market. Can Sony stop Microsoft from going to Samsung and asking for a Blu-Ray drive that connects to the XBox?
    14. Re:The reason is simple... by dl_zero · · Score: 2, Insightful

      No, but I have seen Microsoft Office for Mac Os...The only reason they don't sell it for linux is because they figure people who use Linux are smart enough to use openoffice. They know some Mac owners will be stupid enough to pay for an office suite because, well, they are Mac owners...

    15. Re:The reason is simple... by Frantix · · Score: 2, Informative

      M$, windoze... I'm sure you can fit more acrimonious spelling in there. Wow and just when I thought everyone was moderately mature here.

      As far as I know Office has been there for a very long time and part of their way of securing the original Mac OS before it's release.

    16. Re:The reason is simple... by node+3 · · Score: 2

      OS X is much more of a competitor to Windows than Linux,

      No. You can't (legally or easily) load OS X onto your generic or HP, Dell or Lenovo PC. OS X only runs on Apple hardware, therefore it does not compete with Windows in the non-Apple hardware space. Linux does. You can't say "no" about what someone says, and then change the scope of what they said.

      OS X very much *does* compete with Windows. When people buy a computer, the question is "PC or a Mac?" which, as it applies to the OS, is "Windows or Mac OS X?". An absolutely miniscule number of people who buy a PC, also ask themselves "Windows or Linux?".

      The original scope was not how much of a competitor Mac OS X is with Windows "in the non-Apple hardware space". It was not qualified in any way at all, except for the implied scope being "on people's computers". Likewise, Linux on some random non-PC hardware also competes with Windows. In fact, any computing solution for which a person could also have reasonably chosen a Windows PC competes with Windows.

      Linux is a great OS, but to fail to realize that OS X is the number one competitor with Windows right now makes me think you're spending too much time swimming in frigid, herring-filled waters. That is, unless you change the scope to something favorable to Linux, like, "on non-Apple hardware" or "on headless servers" or "on the Eee PC", or ...
    17. Re:The reason is simple... by Fishchip · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Informative my ass. HD!=HD-DVD. Are Microsoft and Apple offering HD-DVD downloads? Or just downloads at a res greater than standard DVD? This little kerfuffle is about HD-DVD vs Blue-Ray, physical media. Still, for fucksake. A standard online format won't matter in terms of whether it's HD-DVD or Blu-Ray until Joe Consumer can download this media and burn it to a physical disc which he can use in his home HD setup, involving a sleek black box with a tray disc loader as opposed to a PC. I personally have a PC hooked to my HD TV so I really don't care what format I download, as long as I have codecs for it and my video card scales it so it doesn't look like epilepsy central on my TV. Right now, yes, in terms of projected continued success in physical media, Blu-Ray will have 100% of the market for hi-def DVDs.

    18. Re:The reason is simple... by mweather · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Nintendo entirely missed the point, and they're going to pay dearly for it. This isn't a battle over video games. It's a battle over home entertainment and computing. They've won the video game war, but at the cost of everything else. I don't know which device will be the heart of the living room when the war is won, but I know video games will be one of it's least important roles.

    19. Re:The reason is simple... by mweather · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Downloads are a novelty that will require multi-billion dollar infrastructure investments to make feasible on a large scale. Blu-Ray will outgrow DVD long, long before that ever happens. That makes Blu-Ray is 100% of the HD market.

    20. Re:The reason is simple... by zippthorne · · Score: 5, Insightful

      But Nintendo has the advantage of having never sold the Wii at a loss. They could put out an upgraded machine right now without having real losses (pro-forma "losses" though)

      In other words, they're well positioned to be the first ones out of the gate for the next generation of home theater / video game equipment, and they won't have to worry about figuring out which disk format to back.*

      Now, whether they actually take advantage of that position remains to be seen. But they've by no means screwed themselves out of anything with their design decisions regarding the Wii.

      * of course, if it takes Blu-Ray as long to overtake DVD as DVD took to overtake VHS, USB thumbdrive movies will be well within possibility. Remember, this jump was a big jump data-wise, but High definition is pretty well defined for the next decade or so: 50 gig is going to be plenty for any storage medium for some time, but it's also going to get much easier to achieve. In that sense, Blu-Ray is a disaster. We should've gone with HD-DVD as an interim format (well, it was supposed to be cheaper), knowing that it would be replaced fairly quickly by something much more durable, storable, reliable, and possibly even cheaper.

      --
      Can you be Even More Awesome?!
    21. Re:The reason is simple... by LionMage · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Wow, somebody is really playing fast and loose with the "Flamebait" moderation.

      For what it's worth, I think the parent makes a good point. Whether he's right or not, only time will tell... but I find his POV interesting. The PS3 and the Xbox 360 are both much, much more than game systems, whereas the Wii is primarily a gaming system that has a few extra features (e.g., web browser) thrown in for good measure. Nintendo focused on one core area of competency -- they wanted a big slice of one pie -- whereas Sony and Microsoft are both after slices of other pies in addition to the gaming pie.

      While gaming might be a fast growing entertainment market segment, it's not the only segment, and it's still not the biggest. Devices that play well in multiple segments are going to do better in the long run, or so Sony and Microsoft are betting. I wouldn't bet against them.

      My only point of disagreement with the parent is when he claims that video games will be one of the least important roles of a living room convergence device -- I think gaming is and will continue to be a very important role, even if a cynic might argue that gaming is just a trojan horse to get these devices into the living room.

  2. Doesn't make sense by spleen_blender · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Profit is profit is profit is profit, so why would they not take the opportunity to have an overpriced blueray disc player accessory for the 360? Doesn't seem like sensible business practices to me.

    1. Re:Doesn't make sense by jfbilodeau · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Because they want to push their own standard.

      --
      Goodbye Slashdot. You've changed.
    2. Re:Doesn't make sense by MBCook · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Development costs, testing costs, update costs (look how many updates the Blu-Ray player on the PS3 has received), shipping costs, inventory costs, shelf space costs, etc.

      I always figured that MS rushed the 360 HD-DVD so that they could have something out there to help counter the Blu-Ray install base generated by the PS3. Something to give their HDi some installed base to compete with the Java on Blu-Ray.

      It doesn't surprise me at all that they wouldn't make a Blu-Ray drive. Even without that point, an HD drive doesn't add to the console's value as much as it did when all players were $600+. As players get cheaper, the reason to buy the add-on over a stand along player drops.

      --
      Comment forecast: Bits of genius surrounded by a sea of mediocrity.
    3. Re:Doesn't make sense by spleen_blender · · Score: 2, Interesting

      But their standard is completely dead now it seems, and to keep pushing for it is incomprehensible. I mean, they have to be more intelligent than that, right?! Although, as usual I'll expect my assumptions on the level of intelligence of others to be sadly disproven.

    4. Re:Doesn't make sense by Actually,+I+do+RTFA · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Profit is profit is profit is profit, so why would they not take the opportunity to have an overpriced blueray disc player accessory for the 360? Doesn't seem like sensible business practices to me.

      Because one thing that Microsoft does better than almost any other company is look to the future. They seem more than willing to sacrifice $1 billion today (or $20b for Yahoo!) if they think there is a good chance of $2 billion in a few years. For example, I believe last year their video game department finally broke even (don't quote me on that). So, for 7 years, they lost money to develop a new market.*

      Selling a blu-ray player means conceding the format wars. So, even though though the optical media they were using lost, they care more about the format on the discs. So, theypass one the quick buck and hope to get their information recognized a different way.

      *Although the XBox didn't come out until 2002, implying it was only 4 years of losses, development occured in 1999, and possibly earlier.

      --
      Your ad here. Ask me how!
    5. Re:Doesn't make sense by erroneus · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Now that Sony essentially wields monopoly control over all things Blu-ray, you may have noticed that the prices of all things Blu-ray have gone up in non-trivial ways. This would seem to indicate that Sony has jacked up the cost of using Blu-ray technologies in response to their having won the HD war. Sony seems to be characteristically abusive to their 'partners' and ultimately to the consumer. Resources for Blu-ray technology didn't suddenly become scarce, it just didn't have competition and so they decided to raise the prices anticipating increased demand.

      One thing I find interesting is that for the most part, people aren't seeing High definition DVD as anything but an 'extra' at the moment. It's not a base-line functionality requirement for entertaining your family. DVD is still the base-line and few people feel motivated to buying the new stuff yet.

      Meanwhile, Microsoft, is definitely a much more proud operator and probably isn't willing to spend money on the new higher prices. They should have allied themselves with Sony from the beginning to lock in a more affordable rate. They are arrogant, however, and didn't feel the need to do anything but do the opposite of whatever Sony was doing. They gambled and lost. I'm unsure which side of that to be happy for... but I have to say that if Microsoft won its bet on HD-DVD, it would have been better for the consumer. Most of us in the tech community knows and understands how abusive Sony is. Most of us knew to fear what Sony would do if they won. Now it has happened and the fall-out has just begun.

      I would not be surprised to find that Sony will attempt to further leverage their Blu-ray victory for further control of the video media market in ways that are likely to be found illegal in many countries. I would not be surprised to find a new coalition of HD-DVD-interested companies form to create a new, open, set of technologies to compete with Blue-ray and bring that rampaging giant down. (I can't get images of Ultraman and Mecha-Streisand out of my head now... damnit!) I guess it all depends on whether or not Sony knows where to draw the line on its abusive behavior... but I'm going to bet that they don't know how to stop.

    6. Re:Doesn't make sense by The-Bus · · Score: 4, Interesting

      You're right. Profit is profit. The simplest answer is that having a Blu-Ray drive available for the Xbox 360 is simply not profitable. The initial HD DVD drive sold relatively poorly. I believe sales were about 500,000. There's no reason to think a Blu-Ray drive would sell any better.

      Sure, it makes them money, but it doesn't make them enough profit. Otherwise, they would've done it.

      --

      Small potatoes make the steak look bigger.

    7. Re:Doesn't make sense by ergo98 · · Score: 5, Interesting

      But their standard is completely dead now it seems, and to keep pushing for it is incomprehensible.

      HD-DVD is indeed completely dead, and Microsoft has stopped manufacturing the HD-DVD add-on (more correctly they no longer Toshiba to make it for them). Microsoft knows that HD-DVD as a physical format is dead.

      However XBox Live! isn't dead, nor is traditional DVD. The former has great future potential (it, and similar services like iTunes movies, aren't something I'm interested in because the bitrate is going to remain far too low until the end-to-end infrastructure of the internet is dramatically improved, but it's good enough for a lot of people), and the latter is easily good enough for most consumers.

      So no, their "standard" isn't dead. DVD is easily going to be dominant until the next generation of game machines, possibly even to the one after that. And then there comes a point where optical media doesn't even matter anymore.

      Really this is all rather silly. Microsoft barely supported HD-DVD. Why do people think they're going to rush and support Blu-ray, especially given that the technical requirements of Blu-ray guarantee that such an add-on would be very pricey: How can you compete with Sony that is already selling a full game machine with Blu-ray at less than the cost of a competing companies stand-alone, no-game-machine-included players.
    8. Re:Doesn't make sense by MBCook · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I saw that. I say... wrong. The prices went up. That's economics. There are two resons.

      1. The closest substitute good (HD-DVD players/software) is now gone
      2. Development

      People were pushing the players at a loss (Toshiba, et. all too, from my understanding). Now that the pressure is gone, the prices have moved from the dumping range to the "possibly sustainable" range.

      I've seen people complain about the new players being more expensive than the old ones, but that always happens when the new players have more features (BD-Live and all it's costs like Ethernet, flash storage, etc) than the old ones.

      They're not "leveraging a monopoly", they are just not competing at/near a loss anymore. You can't leverage a Blu-Ray monopoly, because there is no market share for it right now. DVDs will be the "monopoly" in the video market for a few years yet.

      I would not be surprised to find a new coalition of HD-DVD-interested companies form to create a new, open, set of technologies to compete with Blue-ray and bring that rampaging giant down.

      Sarcasm: Yes. That worked so well the last time. I'm sure they'll try it again with yet another incompatible format.

      --
      Comment forecast: Bits of genius surrounded by a sea of mediocrity.
    9. Re:Doesn't make sense by 93+Escort+Wagon · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Because one thing that Microsoft does better than almost any other company is look to the future. I disagree. Microsoft has consistently been late to the game. They were late to figure out how big the world wide web would be, and they didn't see the possibilities of "convergence in the living room" until their competitors started moving that way - THAT'S when the XBox was born. They want Windows to be everywhere, and eventually realized the popular game consoles presented a big problem for them.

      The one thing Microsoft does do better than almost any other company, though, is to throw truckload after truckload of money at these missed opportunities. But very few other companies have the cash on hand to do that. Also, it still remains to be seen if it'll even work - remember, as popular as the 360 is among the hard-core gaming crowd it's still selling far less than even the PS2, and not outselling the PS3 anymore.

      --
      #DeleteChrome
    10. Re:Doesn't make sense by AJWM · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Years later, Xbox is pretty much the center of the console market.

      No it ain't, unless you're defining that market as the subset of the real console market focused on games that could as easily by played on a PC. Probably the real center of the market (in unit sales) is the Nintendo Wii with its innovative controller. (Just checked online; February '08 sales for Wii were 432,000 vs Xbox 360's 254,600).

      The games available for the Wii are attracting people that would never consider your traditional console games (especially not first-person shooters). There was something in the newspaper recently about bowling leagues of all things built up around the Wii's virtual bowling game, made up of the kind of AARP crowd that Xbox doesn't cater to.

      --
      -- Alastair
    11. Re:Doesn't make sense by Locutus · · Score: 5, Interesting

      But their standard is completely dead now it seems, and to keep pushing for it is incomprehensible. I mean, they have to be more intelligent than that, right?! The fact that they lost this one does not mean they will be willing to chance the loss of their position in the market with Windows. They exist only because Windows exists and believe it or not, Blu-ray is a platform threat to Windows. Also remember that Microsoft only "supports" products which are Windows platform lock-ins. They tolerate others doing things on their platform only until those vendors products become a threat or start enabling capabilities on other platforms. One thing about Blu-ray Microsoft despises is its menu system is implemented in Java and every Blu-ray device ships with embedded Java in it.

      Check this out and look for the word "pawn" in it:
      http://antitrust.slated.org/www.iowaconsumercase.org/011607/3000/PX03096.pdf

      So thinking that Microsoft will do what the market asks and help a potential threat to their existence is asking a very lot of Microsoft. They've never done this without either a way to own or destroy the cross-platform capabilities or a way to force their own product(s) onto the market. Microsoft's profits in a market sector have been traded many many times for protection of the Windows platform. Again, Microsoft exists only because Windows exists and without that, over 60% of the profits go away very very quickly. If Blu-ray is seen as a platform threat, Microsoft will not support it without some plan to eliminate the platform threat. And I think the threat has more to do with Java being the Blu-ray spec than Sony's ownership or creation of the spec. IMO.

      I find it hard to believe they think the distribution/network is mature enough to jump on a network distribution mechanism instead. But they may feel that they can slow the adaption enough with disabling or stalling the Blu-ray devices on their platform(s). Xbox is the obvious one because they attempted to leverage it for promoting HD-DVD. They knew they couldn't embed it in the Xbox because the price increase would have given PS3 more leverage. We should soon start to see see how they will try to stall Blu-ray on Windows as the devices start moving to PCs.

      LoB
      --
      "Anyone who stands out in the middle of a road looks like roadkill to me." --Linus
    12. Re:Doesn't make sense by xtracto · · Score: 2, Informative

      Howdy shit yeah, now that Sony has a monopoly over Blu ray, just sharing that monopoly with

      * Acer Corporation
      * Alpine Electronics Inc.
      * Asahi Kasei Microsystems Co., Ltd.
      * Ashampoo GmbH & Co. KG
      * Bandai Visual Co. Ltd.
      * BASF AG
      * Basler Vision Technologies
      * BenQ Corporation
      * B.H.A. Corporation
      * Bose Corporation
      * B&W Group
      * The Cannery
      * Cheertek Inc.
      * Cinram Manufacturing Inc.
      * D&M Holdings, Inc.
      * Daewoo Electronics Corporation
      * Daikin Industries, Ltd.
      * Daxon Technology Inc.
      * Degussa
      * Eclipse Data Technologies
      * Elpida Memory, Inc.
      * ESS Technology Inc.
      * Expert Magnetics Corp.
      * Fujitsu Ten Ltd.
      * Funai Electric Co., Ltd.
      * GalleryPlayer Media Networks
      * GEAR Software
      * Hie Electronics, Inc.
      * Hoei Sangyo Co., Ltd.
      * IMAGICA Corp.
      * INFODISC Technology Co., Ltd.
      * Infomedia Inc.
      * Intersil Corporation
      * Kadokawa Holdings Inc.
      * Kaleidescape, Inc.
      * Kitano Co., Ltd.
      * Konica Minolta Opto Inc.
      * Laser Pacific Media Corp.
      * Lauda Co. Ltd.
      * Lead Data Inc.
      * LEADER ELECTRONICS CORP
      * Lenovo
      * Linn Products Ltd.
      * LINTEC Corporation
      * M2 Engineering AB
      * MainConcept AG
      * Mitsumi Electric Co., Ltd.
      * Must Technology Co., Ltd.
      * MX Entertainment
      * Netflix Inc.
      * NewTech Infosystems Inc. (NTI)
      * NEXAPM Systems Technology Inc.
      * Nichia Corporation
      * Nikkatsu Corporation
      * NTT Electronics Corporation
      * nVidia Corporation
      * OC Oerlikon Balzers AG
      * Omnibus Japan Inc.
      * Onkyo Corporation
      * Online Media Technologies Ltd.
      * Ono Sokki Co., Ltd.
      * OPT Corporation
      * Orbit Corp.
      * Origin Electric Co., Ltd.
      * Osmosys SA
      * Pinnacle Systems
      * PoINT Software & Systems GmbH
      * Pony Canyon Enterprise
      * PowerFile
      * Primera Technology, Inc.
      * Quanta Storage Inc.
      * Realtek S

      --
      Ubuntu is an African word meaning 'I can't configure Debian'
  3. Slashdot Polls by ke5aux · · Score: 5, Funny

    I guess the recent poll was wrong then. "who cares" was not the correct answer.

  4. Correction! by Cadallin · · Score: 5, Insightful

    No monopolist is ever going to support a product from a direct competitor. Plenty of other companies do so. Toshiba, Sony, Panasonic, and Samsung all directly compete in many of their core markets. Yet they also often adopt and support technologies developed by one another. The difference? None of them are monopolies and accustomed to monopolistic control in a market.

    1. Re:Correction! by Sawbones · · Score: 4, Insightful

      No monopolist is ever going to support a product from a direct competitor...The difference? None of them are monopolies and accustomed to monopolistic control in a market.
      That's just a bit of hyperbole there, don't you think? Microsoft was part of the list HD DVD backers - who's members contain more than a few direct competitors (Corel competes as directly as possible with Office). Nothing is quite as cut and dry as you're making it out - after all, sony still makes computers that run windows, don't they?
      --

      Ad in classifieds: Pandora's Box (no box) $5
  5. Microsoft going against the Apple trend? by jfbilodeau · · Score: 4, Funny

    Apple would have called it iHD so Microsoft had to call it HDi

    Dibs on PODi and TUNEi!

    -> I use my TUNEi to fill my PODi :P

    --
    Goodbye Slashdot. You've changed.
  6. HDi by gEvil+(beta) · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Can't say I'm the biggest fan of MS technologies, but I will say that I think they did a pretty decent job with HDi (all of the menus, animations, bookmarks and other interactive features on an HD DVD are done using it). I'm sure there are any number of other companies who could've done the same thing, too. But if MS wants to use this technology for downloadable videos, then I'm all for it. It'd be nice to actually have a downloadable video that has menus and chapters and the other niceties that we've grown used to.

    --
    This guy's the limit!
    1. Re:HDi by JustinOpinion · · Score: 2, Insightful

      It'd be nice to actually have a downloadable video that has menus and chapters and the other niceties that we've grown used to. Including niceties like unskippable FBI warnings and adverts...

      I agree that having additional functionality (soundtracks, subtitles, chapter icons, menu system) grouped with video files can be great... however a raw video file has the advantage of being easier to play on a myriad of devices and being under the user's control.

      I know nothing about HDi, so I don't know to what extent it locks out the user from accessing the internal data directly... but I really hate data containers that companies use to force user-hostile features (like unskippable content), and so I'm wary in this case.
  7. Live marketplace by tonyreadsnews · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Ummm, because like others have said, the war is not over. Blu-ray discs still have to compete with digital distribution. Even Gates mentioned at CES. They've partnered with quite a few places (One is Disney!) so they will likely pursue downloads through their Live marketplace, including HD content before trying to license something from a competing console.

    1. Re:Live marketplace by katorga · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Digital distribution will get killed by the ISP's and their bandwidth throttling in the US. It competes directly with their core content distribution model. Disk is still the high-bandwidth, lowest cost distribution model for 20GB files in the current environment.

      Sony's BR 2.0 spec with a hybrid digital-physical model is the best fit.

    2. Re:Live marketplace by LWATCDR · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I don't think so. The ISPs are not going to want to face Microsoft, Google, Apple, Disney, and Sony. Yes I know that it seems that it is a battle of who can buy the most congressmen but Microsoft, Google, Apple, Disney, and Sony all have deep pockets and they all feel this is a battle they must win.
      If need be Google and Microsoft both have the bucks to become the worlds largest ISPs. They both have the technology base and the motivation if the ISPs get too nasty with them.
      Also the cable companies are hated. They are hated by the public at large. Congress know this so it may be a battle that they are willing to take on since Microsoft, Apple, Google, and Disney's money is just as green as Comcast's.

      --
      See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
    3. Re:Live marketplace by Sandbags · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Digital dsitrubution is NOT a competitor. It is for reneted or short term materials, but lets face it, if my choice is to save $5 or less to download a movie instead of buying the hard copy, or risking loosing the media and also incurring the cost for it's storage.

      With physical media I:
      - can easily loan it to a friend or family member, without wasting blank media or time to burn it.
      - can move it from system to system in seconds, not hours over a network connection
      - don't need systems to be compatible for steaming or sharing, a BD player in each room costs about the same as (and will cost less than) the equipment to connect the TV to the network for streaming HD.
      - Can make electronic copies for backup (wether currently legal or not)
      - can move it off my hard drives at will without buying media and wasting hours (days) to burn it (If I want to encode it on the computer I can, and in less time than burning a DVD...)
      - don't have to buy bigger and bigger hard drives and RAID system as my collection grows
      - don't have to wait DAYS for Antivirus scans to complete, or copying to new drives as my old ones fill up.
      - don't have to back it up

      Digital distribution works fine for music, for which I can have tousands of songs on cheap hard drives, and streaming works great over even the cheapest wireless devices for stereo surround audio. It's easy to maintain and copy when your whole collection is less than 100GB (and that's a BIG collection). When a single HD movie is 20-50GB, it's not easy or cheap to maintain my own collection electronically. heck, even standard definition DVDs are hard to maintain on a sharing network.

      On-demand video? yes, digital downloads may very well replace Blockbuster. If an all-you-can-eat subscription was available (netflix size library, digitized in HD, and available to start playing within 5 minutes) and the fee was equivolent to current subscription fees ($15 per month) it might become feasable, but you still can't take it with you unless you download the entire movie before leaving... When I go on vacation, or to a friend's house, I want a few dozen good classic movies with me, and a few new ones to. Even at over 8MB downspeed, I'm looking at typing up my pipe for days to download a weeks worth of movies, and hundreds of GBs to store them on. Also, my laptop, even if it had that much storage, doesn't plug into most hotel TVs...

      Digital downloads are strong competition for HBO and other networks. Why pay $12/month per channel when you could pay $20/month and see every movie your hear desires on demand? This I see is where digital downloads will make their mark. They're obviously competition for the rental industry, provided the set top box is part of a service and not several hundred dolars by itself.

      The best solution in my mind? ...best of both worlds. A set top DVR that can record and play back live HDTV, integrates on on-demand service allowing both per-purchase options as well as monthly all-access subscriptions (hot releases cost a buck or two extra each). Also, instead of a $4 rental, offer a $14 download-to-own option, and for an additional $3 they'll send the original media to you in the mail in a few weeks so you don't have to make backup copies. The set top box should integrate a BD writer so anything you've downloaded (or recorded live) you could burn to your own media. Also integrate it into the network so movies and other content of the DVR can be shared on the network and vice-versa. Also allow an agent to run on a computer so you can not only download movies, but select which PCs they're automatically copied to, like podcasts, so you can keep the most recent, unwatched movies, as well as a few selected favorites, on your laptop and your iPhone without having to copy them there (and waste hours) when you're on the go.

      --
      There is no contest in life for which the unprepared have the advantage.
    4. Re:Live marketplace by LordNimon · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Renting an HD movie from Live Marketplace is almost ten times as expensive as renting a Blu-Ray movie from Netflix, and the downloaded movie is more compressed than the Blu-Ray version (6GB vs. 20GB). Microsoft will have to significantly lower the price of HD rentals, to about $1 each, to make it competitive.

      Plus, the Microsoft Points purchase system is way too clunky. You have to buy the points in advance, and you can buy them only in multiples of 500 or 1600. Since HD movies cost 480 Points, you're always going to have wasted Points.

      --
      And the men who hold high places must be the ones who start
      To mold a new reality... closer to the heart
    5. Re:Live marketplace by Sandbags · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Well, Steam works, but keep in mind, even big games are only 1-2GB (massive ones may be 4 or 5). Also, you only DL games periodically, tend not to share them often with family, and don't expect to start playing one 5 minutes after clicking download... Also, they have to be installed, which eliminates any traveling options (airport, car, etc) unless you DL'd them in advance. It's just not as convenient as whipping out a disk and inserting it, and the games/movies I use most would already be on my HDD as instaleld/copied items or as virtual disk images.

      This is why I say, HD video downloads work from local cable services across broadband chanels, as part of a VoD or rental service. Direct streaming for keeps, not likely a reality. If one assumed that I could start this now, purchase and download a fair number of movies over time (say 1 per month) then in 3 years, I'd need something akin to 1TB just to store those flicks on a single PC (assuming 25GB ea, fairly average for a BD movie with HD audio). If my drive crashed and I had to re-download that, over an 8Mbit connection and assuming maximum throughput, it would take 10.5 days to re-download that content! Even assuming I'd be willing to dedicate 50% of my bandwidth to that, i'd be looking at almost a month to re-download just 36 lost movies. Heck, just to DL a single new movie at 25GB would be 7 hours if my math is right... (25GB X 1024MB X8bits /8Mbit / 60sec / 60min = 7 hours.) "Streaming" a movie over 8Mbit really isn't an option, and 40Mbit connections are not available in the USA yet... ...and I'm not even talking about how to back up a 1TB data set periodically that's growing at over 250GB per year... and wait until 2011 when 4X HD is a big hit. 100GB per movie? not even if 1TB drives were under $50 would I considder that. Now lets see you Defrag that, or do a virus scan. Call me next week...

      --
      There is no contest in life for which the unprepared have the advantage.
  8. Because they don't want to, or need to by keineobachtubersie · · Score: 2, Interesting

    The media the games come on is irrelevant, Nintendo proved success is possible with an unusual format.

    Microsoft also has stated they are trying to move toward a content-download type system, so the physical media would, again, be irrelevant.

    As others have said, there may be a standalone Blu-ray player in the future, but I think MS thinks they simply don't need it. And Ballmer himself has said no Blu-ray for Xbox, of course that's not really worth much and could change with the market.

    http://www.crn.com/digital-home/206903456

  9. Good way to lose market share... by mycroft822 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    This seems like a bad idea to me. I would assume that a lot of gamers will just buy a PS3 as their BluRay player, in absence of a 360 add on, now that HDDVD is dead. At least that's my most likely course of action. If the PS3 ends up getting a decent selection of games, it is just going to cause MS to lose market share where they previously would have taken all of my gaming money.

  10. SUN vs. MicroSoft - Fight (BD-J vs. HDi) by erexx23 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    This is SUN vs. MicroSoft
    (BD-J vs. HDi aka MSJava Script)

    Java is the platform for the world wide distribution of IPTV.

    I don't think that MS will be pushing anything that competes with their version of a Java virtual machine much less include a Sony product in their 360.
    (the final offer by MS and Toshiba to prevent a format war was the inclusion of HDi... Sony and Sun walked away)

    While it makes Cents that they should, I don't think they will.

    1. Re:SUN vs. MicroSoft - Fight (BD-J vs. HDi) by TeknoDragon · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I'm surprised the OP didn't catch on to this.

      Java's inclusion in the BluRay menu system means forcing Microsoft back into implementing a Java VM on a new platform. Let's hope that none of the Sun v Microsoft legal agreement prevents them from doing so.

      Not that MS seems to be doing much to capture the developer market (and it wouldn't take much effort to do better than Sun in this regard... I even find the Apache community lacking in some aspects).

  11. Another reason... by oahazmatt · · Score: 4, Informative

    Another reason for not including Blu-Ray capabilities... Like I'd be able to hear the movie?

    This isn't a troll. I love my 360, I do. But I've used it to watch DVDs and stream videos from my laptop, and honestly, even in the most well-ventilated of spaces, the console is just too loud for me to enjoy it as a media center at all.

    --
    Those who believe the Internet is private,
    find their privates are on the Internet.
  12. So, where does this leave future Xbox 360 games? by Red+Samurai · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Microsoft may well take charge of online HD content distribution, but what about games on the 360? Surely those can't be downloaded, as you'd need tons of space, right? If they choose not to adopt Blu-Ray, then how will they keep up with the PS3 in terms of next gen games? By limiting themselves to dual layer DVDs, don't they risk being overtaken by superior offerings on the PS3? We've heard Kojima say that MGS4 can barely fit on a Blu-Ray disk, so that must mean the 360 is screwed, right? In a few years when developers start to fully utilise the vast amounts of space available on Blu-Ray disks, I can forsee the 360 being left behind and fading into obsolescence - unless Microsoft decides to act. Adopting Blu-Ray may seem counterproductive for Microsoft's business interests, but if they want the 360 to survive, I can't really see any other options for them. They're gonna have to support Blu-Ray eventually.

  13. Shooting themselves in the foot by BarryJacobsen · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I have a 360. I have the HD-DVD drive for my 360 because I want to play HD content (Microsoft clearly recognizes this market segment exists, why else create the HD DVD drive in the first place). Now instead of buying a Microsoft brand 360 Blu-ray Player, I will be buying a Playstation 3. Seems like a brilliant plan on Microsoft's part - if they wanted me to buy a competing product.

  14. I don't know... by keirre23hu · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Reading the article (yes foreign for slashdot) it says that they can use the HDi for other things. My money says they're planning some form of distribution down to the road via X-Box live perhaps? Especially now that vendors like NetFlix do online video rental.

    Of course, with HD content you have the not so insignificant issue of transferring many Gigabytes of data for any feature length content, and how many of them could you store on a stock 360?

    In any case, this is probably a boneheaded move destined to backfire.

  15. My Slashdot Biases Are Colliding by geoffrobinson · · Score: 5, Funny

    Sony vs. Microsoft. I guess Slashdot is going to have to go with Sony. We have been triangulated.

    --
    Except for ending slavery, the Nazis, communism, & securing American independence, war has never solved anything.
  16. And all I can think of... by Rod+Beauvex · · Score: 2, Funny

    is how Nintendo is just laughing their asses off at all of this.

  17. No Blu Ray in the 360 is fine by Sony by DrXym · · Score: 2, Insightful
    If Microsoft wanted to licence Blu Ray they'd go to the BDA, not to Sony. They'd then be free to implement the standard through any OEM they felt like which could even be Toshiba. After all, Toshiba and Samsung jointly own TSST that makes Blu Ray OEM drives.

    Sure if MS doesn't include a Blu Ray drive, it would mean Sony was deprived of some royalties. But at the same time it would negate the one major advantage the PS3 has over the 360 so they'd lose sales. So I think Sony would be quite happy if MS skipped Blu Ray altogether. It would be just another reason for many people to buy a PS3.

    1. Re:No Blu Ray in the 360 is fine by Sony by njfuzzy · · Score: 2, Insightful

      When it comes time for MS to make a Blu-Ray drive, they will go to the BDA for the license. However, let's face it, it's going to be Sony trying to get them to come over.

      --
      My Photography - http://ian-x.com
      The Deathlings (comic) - http://thedeathlings.com
  18. Re:they don't have much choice by jasen666 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I don't know... just because HD-DVD is dead in the consumer market, it may not stop them from using it as a proprietary system for the console. If anything, it might afford them more protection from piracy than any DRM. If no one can get HD-DVD drives to read the disks, no one can decrypt or copy them. The Blu-ray BD+ DRM has already been broken by Slysoft (AnyDVD), for instance.

    I could see a problem with production. They'd have to find a company willing to continue to manufacture the drives for them; knowing that MS might be their sole customer. They wouldn't want to get into a position of being dependent on that manufacturer and then have to pay through the nose for the hardware. So either pay more for them, or bring production inhouse. Either option more costly than Blu-ray drives.
    I'm curious to see where they go with it myself.

  19. Re:So when you want Blu-ray content... by Dorkmaster+Flek · · Score: 5, Informative

    It makes perfect sense if you realize that the PS3 is the only really future-proof Blu-ray player on the market right now. That, and the fact that it's almost the same price as a stand-alone player, plus you can play games, media, and install Linux on it.

    --
    I like to think of online DRM as something akin to a college -- you pay for lessons until you learn something.
  20. This sucks by rikkards · · Score: 3, Informative

    XBox Live is about to take a kick in the teeth in Canada. Rogers has announced that they will start capping their bandwidth this June. If you go over it will cost you $2/gig (up to $25) extra per month. Until now we have been fortunate. Not sure if Microsoft has taken something like this change into account especially with higher quality videos creating larger data costs for the end user. At this point if no Blu-Ray player is coming, I go out and buy a separate Blu-Ray player (or PS3) and rent movies than risk going over my limit. I already pay Rogers enough.

    1. Re:This sucks by rikkards · · Score: 2, Funny

      So once you go 12Gb-ish over your limit, they stop charging extra? Make it work for you and download 13Gb more porn per month.
      Yeah but that's like... paying for porn. Who in their right mind does that?

  21. Lessons Learned From "Sewer Shark" by Keith+Russell · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I don't think Microsoft cares that Blu-Ray is Sony's standard, just that it's not Microsoft's standard.

    From there, the decision to forget about a high-definition player add-on for this generation makes sense. The attach rate for the HD-DVD drive wasn't very good (typical for a console add-on), but Microsoft was willing to take that hit for the sake of promoting HD-DVD. (Not to mention keeping up with the Playstation 3 Joneses.) A Blu-Ray movie player for 360 would be just another console accessory that doesn't sell enough to justify the cost. (See also: Sega CD)

    XBox "720", if it uses an optical drive at all, will probably use Blu-Ray out of necessity. As a baseline for the platform, it will be far easier to justify that cost as upfront R&D.

    --
    This sig intentionally left blank.
  22. Based on previous history... by JustNiz · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Microsoft NEVER go with a pre-existing stadard as-is. Its like they feel the need to have their own customized version of everything for some reason. I guess they feel it gives them control of something.
    Consequently even if Microsoft licenced Blu-Ray, I'd bet they'd change parts of it somehow to make it their own in some way that would be incompatible with everything else.

  23. Re:Why blu-ray? by AbsoluteXyro · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Because standard def looks like poop after having seen so much HD content.

  24. Re:So, where does this leave future Xbox 360 games by pak9rabid · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Sure, why not. Except for lost or damaged discs, and the fact that every review is going to say the PS3 version is better because you don't have to change discs mid-game. Given the alternative, I'd rather have multiple discs than nothing at all...
  25. Um, ah, Microsoft and Corel are partners by microbox · · Score: 5, Informative

    M$ bought a huge chunk of Corel, and probably control the company these days. I'm never seen any analysis of the fallout of this deal, it was a while ago.

    --

    Like all pain, suffering is a signal that something isn't right
    1. Re:Um, ah, Microsoft and Corel are partners by michael+path · · Score: 3, Informative

      This is simply not correct. Microsoft's share was purchased by Vector Capital acquired Microsoft's share, before buying the company outright.

  26. Re:Eventually ... by Pojut · · Score: 2, Interesting

    M$


    I see what you did there. Clever.

    Rampant stupidity aside, I think that if Microsoft will integrate Blu-Ray into their consoles it won't be until the next Xbox is released.

    Not to mention there is still no garuntee that Blu-Ray will win...it beat out HD-DVD, but now it has to beat out plain vanilla DVD. Sony may have been able to win by buying out some of the movie studios, but it's real challange lies ahead: convincing folks to stop buying DVDs and DVD players (which can be had for thirty dollars) and buy Blu-Ray discs and players (whose prices have gone up, not down since there is no long any viable HD competition)

    Sony's biggest hurdle, really, will be convincing your average joe everyman that there is a significant enough difference between DVD and Blu-Ray to drop a couple thousand on a TV, a few hundred on a player, and on average pay $5-$15 more per movie. Not saying it's impossible or won't happen, I'm just saying that getting rid of HD-DVD was the easy part.
  27. Re:Eventually ... by Sentry21 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    ...but it's real challange lies ahead: convincing folks to stop buying DVDs and DVD players (which can be had for thirty dollars) and buy Blu-Ray discs and players... This is a task that electronics retailers (such as Best Buy) are in a real position to do with side-by-side demonstrations. Heck, I was in a Future Shop on Boxing Day and saw two identical televisions - identical except that one was the 1080i model, and one was 1080p - and I could tell the difference. It was subtle, but it was there. Showing someone a 1080p Blu-Ray feature next to the 480p DVD feature on the same television is going to be a pretty convincing show.

    The real trick is going to be getting the same content on both TVs, despite different sources. Perhaps downsamping the HD version, then letting the TV upscale it, would be a demonstration? Hard to say. Still, that would make a lot of sales.
  28. Re:Eventually ... by Pojut · · Score: 5, Insightful

    There's absolutely no denying that HD-DVD and Blu-Ray look considerably better than just an upscaled DVD. The question is, are retailers going to be able to convince that there is a big enough difference that warrents a couple thousand dollars to get started, as well as increased prices every time they buy movies.

    People sometimes say "well, it worked with DVD and VHS!" That's because DVD was an ENTIRELY different technology...no rewinding, perfect still images, clear and focused slow-mo, chapter selections, extra features, multiple language and audio, etc.

    Blu-Ray, even with its "internet enabled extra features", is at its core nothing more than a prettier version of DVD. It's not nearly the leap that VHS to DVD was, and as such I think it's going to be much much harder to convince folks to switch (ESPECIALLY considering how much cheaper DVD is, both for the player and the movies.)

  29. Screw Blu-Ray by Mizchief · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I'm hard-pressed to spend any money on Blu-Ray technology due to Sony's actions. The $300 million they spent to bribe Warner Bros god knows how much on others, should have been used to cut the cost of players and media, then they could have won the Format war following free market ideals instead of underhanded deals that are now requiring Sony to jack up the prices on everything Blu-Ray to make up the diffrence. I would really like to see the Justice department go after Sony for these pratices. If M$ gets hit with anti-trust violations because they included a useful web browser integrated with thier OS, how does Sony get away with out right bribery to force out the competition?

  30. Re:So when you want Blu-ray content... by jimlintott · · Score: 2, Interesting

    The problem with a PS3 as an HD player is that it lacks discreet analogue audio outputs for 7.1 sound. This means that to get the 7.1 sound you have to have a receiver that does HDMI 1.3 and have the proper codecs to decode the audio.

    My current amp has discreet analogue inputs and the BD players have the outputs. Four pair of audio cables later and I get the new HD 7.1 surround. With a PS3 I need to also drop about a grand on an amp. I consider the audio more important than the video so I wouldn't even consider the PS3 for movie playback. At this time. If I had a suitable amp I might.

  31. Re:Eventually ... by Trepalium · · Score: 2, Informative

    Yes, the Blu-ray standard supports 1080p. Finding a movie encoded at 1080p and a player capable of 1080p output is the harder part. HD-DVD and Blu-ray supports flung so much misinformation at each other, it's hard to know what is truth and what is fiction these days. Suffice to say, both standards are more alike than they are different.

    --
    I used up all my sick days, so I'm calling in dead.
  32. Too bad ! by mastergryne · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Too bad it turned that way. the prices on bluray already has gone up.

  33. DLC is not true HD by HalAtWork · · Score: 3, Informative

    The videos are only 720p, the bitrate is not high, and it's a problem to transport the videos to bring to someone else's house to watch (you have to bring your 360) much less another room in the house. You can't purchase movies and keep them, and it costs $6 to rent one. You need a Live account. The selection is not that great. Although it might be a good companion, it's just not a suitable replacement for Blu-Ray.

  34. Re:Eventually ... by Chris+Burke · · Score: 2, Insightful

    People sometimes say "well, it worked with DVD and VHS!" That's because DVD was an ENTIRELY different technology...no rewinding, perfect still images, clear and focused slow-mo, chapter selections, extra features, multiple language and audio, etc.

    While I do believe that all those features are ultimately why DVD was seen as worth the upgrade, it's also worth pointing out that it did look better than VHS without you having to buy anything but the DVD player.

    No real new features except a superior picture, and you only get that if you buy a brand new television too. That's a much tougher sell no matter how you slice it.

    --

    The enemies of Democracy are