I really don't see your point here. HD-DVD and Blu-Ray are both basically improved DVDs. They are discs that contain video; neither format does anything strikingly different. So again, HD-DVD sounds like what it is. Blu-Ray sounds like something other than what it is.
Well, if are just talking about the technical aspects of the media, that's correct. But that's not the main factor you were saying that would cause people to choose one over the other. You were saying that name (or lack of knowledge of Blu-Ray vs HD-DVD). Yes, both *are* improved DVDs. But that's technical. You were bringing up the point that the name's would distract/confuse the consumers. I'm saying that if the name "HD-DVD" was the ONLY factor then yes, HD-DVD would win. But *with* the existence of more storge combined with proper marketing, consumers could be educated on the features of Blu-Ray and not give up anything to boot. And... I don't think a "fish" is what people think when they first hear Blu-Ray in a video store. So, I don't believe that "Blu-Ray sounds like something other than what it is." Not in the context of a video store or tech magazine. Maybe in a Bait and Tackle shop or a Fishing Trade magazine.
HD-DVD also uses a blue laser. Furthermore, who cares?
Yes, I know. But Toshiba is not pushing that term because they don't have to. They already have the DVD name. Again, if all we were going by what the naming convention is, then HD-DVD has the edge. But with marketing, pricing, technology, and name. I'd say that Sony will win format war because they have too much going for it. Regardless of the lack of a familiar name (DVD). That's not enough for Toshiba. "Come with us! We have a familar name, but less storage than Blu-Ray!"
So, "who cares (about the blue laser)" is not the question. It's what benefit does it provide the consumer that a company like Sony use a term like Blu-Ray in order to attract customers and manufacturing attention? This is just one factor in a field of many.
So, I wasn't just saying that just because Sony's media uses a blue laser that, *that* would be the end all determining factor. I was mentioning the blue laser because you said that people think of a "fish" or "rock band" when they hear the term Blu-Ray. I disagree with that. If Sony publishes in a Fishing magazine, then yes. But they wont do that. Most of the marketing will be center around technology channels.
Also note that the term Blu-Ray is the trademark. The media will actually be called BD-ROM or BD-R or something like that. It's like we don't see COMPACT DISC on all the media, we see CD. We don't see DIGITAL VERSATILE DISC on all the media, we see DVD-ROM. So, the larger terms will be trademarked on the media, but the actually media will be categorized as BD-ROM.
What's your point? HD-DVD players will do this as well. This is not a win for either format; it's to be expected.
My point is that that feature is part of the over all package. It's not a hindrance or risk if someone buys a Blu-Ray PLAYER. Yes, HD-DVD player would have that too. But why do that if you can enjoy the extra storage benefits that Blu-Ray would provide that HD-DVD does not.
Sony is using a VHS model. They are taking what's made the VHS successful. Better in the case of Beta was that the picture quality was actually more clearer. That's a technical aspect. But another aspect not related to quality was storage space on the VHS tape vs the Beta tape.
So, when the consumer thinks, which one is better. That "better" could be related to storage space on the tape. Beta was *not better* in that area because they didn't have the same amount of record time as the VHS tapes did. So, VHS was more practical.
Well, guess what? Blu-Ray is taking this same approach. They are providing the users and manufactures that more space per disc. This is a form of "better." And not related to the actually picture quality. That's another issue. Which is what Beta was trying to proove: "We ar
If a consumer can learn about CD-R, CD-RW, CD+R, CD+RW, and DVD-*...then they can learn about BD-ROM or BD-DVD, or whatever.
If we take this competition between Blu-Ray and HD-DVD in the context of ONLY name recognition... then yes. HD-DVD wins out. But in the real world...The factors involved is much broader than *just* name recognition.
Blu-Ray, the name itself attracts attention. It makes people ask, "What's that all about? What new about it? What makes it better?" Questions, questions, questions...This is good for Sony. HD-DVD sounds like an improved version of DVD. But the questions about it end there. Especially if they learn about what Blu-Ray can offer.
If you think Blu-ray sounds like a fish or rock band, that's only because you are purposely taking it out of the technology context just to find fault with it. When I heard about Sony's new media format -- Blu-Ray -- the first thing that popped into my mind was a "BLUE LASER BEAM (Especially when they have blue disc in all the PR photos)" And that was me just browsing the news casually one day...(just like consumers do). If you imagine a consumer waking around in the video section of Best Buy asking quesitons...I'd bet you that most people would not be thinking about "fish" the first time they hear the word, "Blu-Ray."
Next, if Sony wants this media format to become standard, then they need to do a little bit on their end too by making it less costly to the manufactures; overtime. They should not charge huge licensing fees for it (or they will repeat the Beta debacle). Technically speaking -- consumer use wise -- the BD-ROM offers a lot more than the HD-DVD. Storage and scalability are key features. Consumers wont mind paying a little more as long as they get to *experience* the benefits; i.e. better content packed into one disc.
On the manufacturing cost side. That's something that the big boys will have to work out. If they didn't like the deal, they wouldn't have signed up. So, I'm sure later that Maxell, Sony, BASF, Memorex, TDK, and other media brands will work out the details on the cost of the manufacturing part. That's transparent to the user for the most part. Cost will come down if more and more people use the format. Remember when a pack of 25 DVD+R's cost $65?! Today you can buy a pack of 300 for $65! So, Sony can't drop the ball on this. Play nice!:)
Back to the consumer....One of the positives of using Blu-Ray is that the players/recorders that manufactured for the market *will be* backwards compatible with all other forms of media; DVD, CD, etc...That will be the first question a casual consumer ask, "Will this new Blu-Ray PLAYER, play my old DVDs?" The answer is YES!
Think of it like this. We consumers will buy a player that has a Blu-Ray sticker on the front. What do we get? A player that can play BD-ROM, BD-RW, BD-R, BD-RAM, AND CD-ROM, CD-R, CD+R, DVD-ROM, DVD-R, DVD+R, etc....As you leave the store, you ask, "So, what's the big deal about the Blu-Ray disc?" All you know is that it has more media packed into one disc. It just works. In the future...if for some reason Blu-Ray is pulled off the market you can still use that Blu-Ray player for all your other DVD, CD media for years. No risk. Not any more than a current DVD player.
So, this debate about Blu-Ray vs HD-DVD is not as simple as Beta vs VHS or Firewire vs USB. There are a lot of other factors that differ from those other standards.
Think about the first time you see a Blu-Ray player in the stores. What will you think? What will the first thing you ask yourself (or the sales rep)? Cost? Functions? Compatibility with other formats? What? Id' say it's an easy buy. Even if there aren't that many BD-ROM on the market just yet. The players come first. Then the movies come later (and backup media like BD-R).
Anyways, who knows? Maybe someday will all go to Best Buy and get a BD-Player for all our movie/music needs.
Don't you understand that Microsoft, with its Windows OS, stumbled upon a wellspring of cash by pure serendipitous fortune?
It was a once in a lifetime gold mine. They found it, and ran with it as long as they could.
The Windows desktop market was a lock-in. A sure thing. And the reason they were able to keep control of it was because of their control and ownership of the playing field (Windows, 3.x, 95, 98, 2000, etc..)
They have NO lock-in, within the markets of cell phones, cable, PDAs, On-line sites, or gaming consoles.
They are just a player (a weak one at that, even with all their cash). Just like everyone else.
Don't you realize that people actually need a reason to buy the Xbox!!!???
In the past, you were stuck with Windows or you had no job. It was Windows or the highway. No choice = Monopoly!
I bought a PS2 because it was truly a console with a look and feel that was unique. It just feels "Sony." The fit and finish is just like any other Sony product; Walkman, CD Player, TV, DVD Player, Phone, etc...
Nintendo has this feel too, but with more of a mystical aspect; Mario/Luigi, Eternal Darkness, Rogue Leader... Even with their cartoon themes (Zelda and Mario), it's still feels "Nintendo."
Xbox seem to be going after the Gen-Xers. But more extreme in your face. But the problem is that they are competing with their own PC gaming market. I mean, why would you buy a PC for gaming if Xbox didn't release the games for the PC too? Then, if they release the same games on the Xbox for the PC, they are making the Xbox a commodity (PC clone).
It's a catch-22. MS is their own worst enemy because they are so in love with the proceeds they get from gamers that buy PCs for gaming.
Microsoft's master plan was to make exclusive contracts with all the game makers. But when that fell through, they are now trying to use on-line gaming a their catch-all- gate-keeper-toll-booth cash cow.
They hate it that they don't control the gaming market anymore.
Halo 2, 3, 4, 5. It doesn't mater. If they don't make it for the PC, they devalue the PC. If they do make it for the PC, then it clones the Xbox.
Remember, all the while Sony and Nintendo don't worry about that issue. They just make games for PC or their console.
In the end, there's no really uniqueness I see with the Xbox. I just feels like a glorified PC.
Slashdot Mirror
Well, if are just talking about the technical aspects of the media, that's correct. But that's not the main factor you were saying that would cause people to choose one over the other. You were saying that name (or lack of knowledge of Blu-Ray vs HD-DVD). Yes, both *are* improved DVDs. But that's technical. You were bringing up the point that the name's would distract/confuse the consumers. I'm saying that if the name "HD-DVD" was the ONLY factor then yes, HD-DVD would win. But *with* the existence of more storge combined with proper marketing, consumers could be educated on the features of Blu-Ray and not give up anything to boot. And... I don't think a "fish" is what people think when they first hear Blu-Ray in a video store. So, I don't believe that "Blu-Ray sounds like something other than what it is." Not in the context of a video store or tech magazine. Maybe in a Bait and Tackle shop or a Fishing Trade magazine.
HD-DVD also uses a blue laser. Furthermore, who cares?
Yes, I know. But Toshiba is not pushing that term because they don't have to. They already have the DVD name. Again, if all we were going by what the naming convention is, then HD-DVD has the edge. But with marketing, pricing, technology, and name. I'd say that Sony will win format war because they have too much going for it. Regardless of the lack of a familiar name (DVD). That's not enough for Toshiba. "Come with us! We have a familar name, but less storage than Blu-Ray!"
So, "who cares (about the blue laser)" is not the question. It's what benefit does it provide the consumer that a company like Sony use a term like Blu-Ray in order to attract customers and manufacturing attention? This is just one factor in a field of many.
So, I wasn't just saying that just because Sony's media uses a blue laser that, *that* would be the end all determining factor. I was mentioning the blue laser because you said that people think of a "fish" or "rock band" when they hear the term Blu-Ray. I disagree with that. If Sony publishes in a Fishing magazine, then yes. But they wont do that. Most of the marketing will be center around technology channels.
Also note that the term Blu-Ray is the trademark. The media will actually be called BD-ROM or BD-R or something like that. It's like we don't see COMPACT DISC on all the media, we see CD. We don't see DIGITAL VERSATILE DISC on all the media, we see DVD-ROM. So, the larger terms will be trademarked on the media, but the actually media will be categorized as BD-ROM.
What's your point? HD-DVD players will do this as well. This is not a win for either format; it's to be expected.
My point is that that feature is part of the over all package. It's not a hindrance or risk if someone buys a Blu-Ray PLAYER. Yes, HD-DVD player would have that too. But why do that if you can enjoy the extra storage benefits that Blu-Ray would provide that HD-DVD does not.
Sony is using a VHS model. They are taking what's made the VHS successful. Better in the case of Beta was that the picture quality was actually more clearer. That's a technical aspect. But another aspect not related to quality was storage space on the VHS tape vs the Beta tape.
So, when the consumer thinks, which one is better. That "better" could be related to storage space on the tape. Beta was *not better* in that area because they didn't have the same amount of record time as the VHS tapes did. So, VHS was more practical.
Well, guess what? Blu-Ray is taking this same approach. They are providing the users and manufactures that more space per disc. This is a form of "better." And not related to the actually picture quality. That's another issue. Which is what Beta was trying to proove: "We ar
If a consumer can learn about CD-R, CD-RW, CD+R, CD+RW, and DVD-*...then they can learn about BD-ROM or BD-DVD, or whatever.
:)
If we take this competition between Blu-Ray and HD-DVD in the context of ONLY name recognition... then yes. HD-DVD wins out. But in the real world...The factors involved is much broader than *just* name recognition.
Blu-Ray, the name itself attracts attention. It makes people ask, "What's that all about? What new about it? What makes it better?" Questions, questions, questions...This is good for Sony. HD-DVD sounds like an improved version of DVD. But the questions about it end there. Especially if they learn about what Blu-Ray can offer.
If you think Blu-ray sounds like a fish or rock band, that's only because you are purposely taking it out of the technology context just to find fault with it. When I heard about Sony's new media format -- Blu-Ray -- the first thing that popped into my mind was a "BLUE LASER BEAM (Especially when they have blue disc in all the PR photos)" And that was me just browsing the news casually one day...(just like consumers do). If you imagine a consumer waking around in the video section of Best Buy asking quesitons...I'd bet you that most people would not be thinking about "fish" the first time they hear the word, "Blu-Ray."
Next, if Sony wants this media format to become standard, then they need to do a little bit on their end too by making it less costly to the manufactures; overtime. They should not charge huge licensing fees for it (or they will repeat the Beta debacle). Technically speaking -- consumer use wise -- the BD-ROM offers a lot more than the HD-DVD. Storage and scalability are key features. Consumers wont mind paying a little more as long as they get to *experience* the benefits; i.e. better content packed into one disc.
On the manufacturing cost side. That's something that the big boys will have to work out. If they didn't like the deal, they wouldn't have signed up. So, I'm sure later that Maxell, Sony, BASF, Memorex, TDK, and other media brands will work out the details on the cost of the manufacturing part. That's transparent to the user for the most part. Cost will come down if more and more people use the format. Remember when a pack of 25 DVD+R's cost $65?! Today you can buy a pack of 300 for $65! So, Sony can't drop the ball on this. Play nice!
Back to the consumer....One of the positives of using Blu-Ray is that the players/recorders that manufactured for the market *will be* backwards compatible with all other forms of media; DVD, CD, etc...That will be the first question a casual consumer ask, "Will this new Blu-Ray PLAYER, play my old DVDs?" The answer is YES!
Think of it like this. We consumers will buy a player that has a Blu-Ray sticker on the front. What do we get? A player that can play BD-ROM, BD-RW, BD-R, BD-RAM, AND CD-ROM, CD-R, CD+R, DVD-ROM, DVD-R, DVD+R, etc....As you leave the store, you ask, "So, what's the big deal about the Blu-Ray disc?" All you know is that it has more media packed into one disc. It just works. In the future...if for some reason Blu-Ray is pulled off the market you can still use that Blu-Ray player for all your other DVD, CD media for years. No risk. Not any more than a current DVD player.
So, this debate about Blu-Ray vs HD-DVD is not as simple as Beta vs VHS or Firewire vs USB. There are a lot of other factors that differ from those other standards.
Think about the first time you see a Blu-Ray player in the stores. What will you think? What will the first thing you ask yourself (or the sales rep)? Cost? Functions? Compatibility with other formats? What? Id' say it's an easy buy. Even if there aren't that many BD-ROM on the market just yet. The players come first. Then the movies come later (and backup media like BD-R).
Anyways, who knows? Maybe someday will all go to Best Buy and get a BD-Player for all our movie/music needs.
DVD? What's that?
There will be NO TAKING OVER THE MARKET!!!
Wake up!
Don't you understand that Microsoft, with its Windows
OS, stumbled upon a wellspring of cash by pure
serendipitous fortune?
It was a once in a lifetime gold mine. They found it,
and ran with it as long as they could.
The Windows desktop market was a lock-in. A sure
thing. And the reason they were able to keep control
of it was because of their control and ownership
of the playing field (Windows, 3.x, 95, 98, 2000, etc..)
They have NO lock-in, within the markets of cell phones,
cable, PDAs, On-line sites, or gaming consoles.
They are just a player (a weak one at that, even with all their
cash). Just like everyone else.
Don't you realize that people actually need a reason to
buy the Xbox!!!???
In the past, you were stuck with Windows or you
had no job. It was Windows or the highway.
No choice = Monopoly!
Get it?!
Just a few points...
I bought a PS2 because it was truly a console with
a look and feel that was unique. It just feels "Sony."
The fit and finish is just like any other Sony product;
Walkman, CD Player, TV, DVD Player, Phone, etc...
Nintendo has this feel too, but with more of a mystical
aspect; Mario/Luigi, Eternal Darkness, Rogue Leader...
Even with their cartoon themes (Zelda and Mario),
it's still feels "Nintendo."
Xbox seem to be going after the Gen-Xers. But more
extreme in your face. But the problem is that they
are competing with their own PC gaming market.
I mean, why would you buy a PC for gaming if Xbox
didn't release the games for the PC too? Then,
if they release the same games on the Xbox for the PC,
they are making the Xbox a commodity (PC clone).
It's a catch-22. MS is their own worst enemy because
they are so in love with the proceeds they get from
gamers that buy PCs for gaming.
Microsoft's master plan was to make exclusive contracts
with all the game makers. But when that fell through, they
are now trying to use on-line gaming a their catch-all-
gate-keeper-toll-booth cash cow.
They hate it that they don't control the gaming market
anymore.
Halo 2, 3, 4, 5. It doesn't mater. If they don't make it for
the PC, they devalue the PC. If they do make it for
the PC, then it clones the Xbox.
Remember, all the while Sony and Nintendo don't worry
about that issue. They just make games for PC or their
console.
In the end, there's no really uniqueness I see with
the Xbox. I just feels like a glorified PC.