Is It My choice, Or Is It Yours?

[Dale]

In consumer electronics every penny added to the total cost of the industry impacts the end markets to some measured degree. There are libraries of books and papers on this subject should you be interested in a bibliography. A dual high def DVD player will never be as cheap as a single standard player if for no other reason than the unavoidable payment of patent royalties. So each dual player will have an added cost beyond its cost to phsyically produce/market it and every movie will bear that dual royalty if it caters to each side of the market (HD DVD and Blu ray) which does not buy a dual format machine but rather retains one or the other. The marketing costs are increased with dual formats just as they are today. Mark Cuban's HDNet channel has done well by advertising the competive formats and as long as one side wants to beat the other competitive marketing costs can be expected. When one format gives up we are in the world I seek for us--lower total cost and a tighter focus on consumer satisfaction with content.


In 1986 HDTV was being touted in international engineering circles as the next single electronic world-wide production standard. The idea of HDTV being a home appliance had not yet occured to the industry. Since it was the Japanese who had done the primary work on HD their choice of 1125/60 for the operating paremeters was placed in nomination before the international standards bodies with a loud cry that it was time to rid the world of the plethora of production standards that cost us endless conersions for final distribution into a vast sea of technically diverse markets. It made perfect sense to reduce the complexity and cost of distribution through a focus upon a single standard for electronic production. The 1125 (total scanning lines top to bottom with 1920 samples upon each line) was a 60 field interlaced system, thus the /60. This system would transcode with equal conversion costs to the 525 line world as well as to the 625 line world. The US formally supported the Japanese parmeters but the Europeans reacted differently. Europe had industry to protect and Japan was, with its chosen paremters, already far ahead in development. Europe jumped up and said "no way" for 1125/60 and "we want 1250/50"! It was a stalling technique and strategy designed to give Europe time to catch up to Japan's level of high def development. I can't tell you how close that divisive and protective step came to sucking the spirit and life out of the HDTV movement. Support for the movement visibly collapsed in the hearts of its promoters and vitriolic articles were written by the hundreds about the short sightedness that had led to the division and the certain death of HDTV. What looked like an attainable and reasonable technical goal of acheiving one production standard in order to remove costs imposed by two major world standards was crushed by a political decision from the European Commission (now the EU).

Since active scanning lines are the most important number when it comes to producing an imager the global engineers sought to come up with a common image format that would work between the two high def standards. The numer 1080 came out of those negotiations and the 1080 active line chip became usable for both 50 and 60 Hz worlds. Why was that done? It was done to reduced the over-all cost for the start up of the HDTV era. It was done for all of the reasons that a single standard claims are its virtues. But the important thing to remember is that it was done. A decision to have one cost for development rather than two motivated it all. When the vote at the international standards setting level was made for the 1080 X 1920 as the common image format it was celebrated by the international engineering community as a triumph over the forces of stupidity.

Why do we want two systems that will invariably impose their cost upon the whole when we consumers can make (we don't benefit from patent royalties) a decision for one? We cannot do that without leadership, however, and that is what I am trying to effect here.

[pmalter0]

Dale,
It is too late for your concern now. We do have two HD media formats. And HD-dvd, at least, has extended economies of scale to consumers with under $200 players. I think that competition between the formats actually helped lower those prices. I still don't believe it is more expensive to produce 100,000 Blu-ray and 100,000 Hd-dvd than 200,000 Blu-ray. And if we stop bad mouthing the different formats and celebrate the competition, we can all benefit from lower prices of disks that competition can bring.

[HD Addict]

Dale:

When the vote at the international standards setting level was made for the 1080 X 1920 as the common image format it was celebrated by the international engineering community as a triumph over the forces of stupidity.

Why then was it only recently that the HDTV industry implemented the 1080p image format, when it was obviously the basis for getting the the whole idea of HDTV production off the ground ? Was it presumably the "give them the diluted product now and save the delicacy until later" ? or was it due to having to pursue continuing research and development to gradually attain the 1080p plateau ?

My Sony GWII (1080i) is nearing its 5th anniversary and I am continually plagued by the fact that it is not leading edge technology, despite the fact that I am still quite pleased with its HD PQ.

Incidentally, I appreciate you and your colleagues offering this HD-DVD v Blu-Ray topic for discussion. I have learned a lot more conveniently here in the four pages published than anywhere else I could have sought. Thank you.

[Rodolfo]

After witnessing the effort that Dale has done and gave up on this thread, it confirms what I always thought about this subject, as follows:

1) Although the industry is expecting the consumer to choose, it is not expecting the consumer to be uniform on its choice in the short term under the current conditions.

2) It could not be expecting the consumer to make the decision based on technical knowledge, due to the complexity of the matter for even those that know.

3) It could not be expected that the few consumers that have the technical knowledge and made their intelligent choice, would create sufficient inertia momentum so the other 95% of mass consumers would follow that choice blindly.

4) Promoting the idea of uniformity on the choice under the current conditions is not going to get people behind, and help a format being established, which I believe was the intention of this effort.

5) If the subject would have been opened as looking for opinion it would have served a better objective, as long as the opinion is offered with respect and with a constructive approach, which is usually very difficult on the Internet with people with no names.

6) As with the examples I mentioned on my other posts (of Disney for some parents, internet features now, 1080p/24fps at some point, vision, etc), the many reasons people might have for liking one format over the other is a matter of personal choice based on what is important at any given moment for each person.

7) Because absolutely all of those elements are a constant moving target due to competition and maturity of specs, media, software and hardware (not to mention people), it is not possible for such individual decisions to be used as helping elements that could be applied to other consumers consistently, and much less under the transformations time imposes to those elements.

8) If one is to choose a format for any feature in particular, there will be a line full of people criticizing that choice, and asking for reasons and sources justifying that position just for the sake of expressing their freedom of speech. The same people a minute later would try forcing their choice to the rest, removing the freedom of speech.

9) Many people that did not yet buy either format would do the above because they love to do that as a sport in the Internet, but people that already bought one format would probably impose a stronger force upon the rest, mainly to justify and protect their already spent dollars as the best, even if they are not convinced yet.

10) Universal players created for backward compatibility with earlier formats fill a need to play some of the legacy content most people still have at home, such as CD, laserdisc, DVD, etc. Formats that performed a purpose on their prime.

11) Universal players

[Dale]

You are fortunate, indeed, to believe so many things that build to your conclusions. I was more the skeptic throughout my career and so I made more than 55,000 phone calls, sent endless emails, and travled millions of miles to gain my education. I was fortunate to have been tutored by the best the industry has ever produced. I write from that experience and if I didnt have that background why should I try to lead anything in this business? As far as critical mass is concerned, we are not even out of the prototype stage. You hold up subsidized devices as evidence that we are in full stride with mass production. How many households the world over do you think are candidates for owning a high def DVD player now? in five years? in ten years? When you gear up to produce in those numbers you are out of the prototype shops and into real mass production. We have time to make a choice and that is why I am suggesting it now, though we will not have much time. And, if we miss it you are then as right as can be. We will enjoy the format of our individual choice and both will continue to court our affections until we are tired of it all and turn to online distribution recorded locally on nearly unlimited solid state and magnetic space. And, of course, for those who are not at all contented with today's HDTV in image or politics they can look forward to Ultra HDTV. I really don't care which format is chosen I just know from many years of experience that we are better off with better engineering and marketing that comes when we have one and not two contenders.

By the way, out of England is coming still another red laser high density format that is still cheaper to produce than the blue laser versions. As long as the format war is not won the door remains open for a lot of newcomers. So, there we end on a positive note.

http://hometheater.about.com/b/2006/05/ ... he-way.htm !

[Dale]

The one Blu-ray machine I saw working as forming and stamping out 18,000 finished BD copies per day with a 16,000 copy good yield

Is this a typical yeild?

It is typical today and with increased QC in raw materials this is anticipated to improve.


How does this compare with HD DVD? That is reflected in the pricing data below.

$1.50 to $2.00 each

What is the price difference?

Why are some $1.50 and others $2.00? Are they different capacities? What capacity were they pressing? Is this what they sell them to the studios for?


The price difference represents different quantities with the lowest price being the lowest expected price for very high quantities using present state-of-the-art pressing systems.

What does an equivalent HD DVD cost?

In a fully mature DVD environment (recall that this environment can be cheaply converted to press HD DVD) the pressing price quoted on the web is about $.48 each (no packaging but includes printing on disk). I have heard prices as low as $.33 but cannot back that with documentation. Dual layer HD DVD has not been quoted to me or on the web so I cannot give you an accurate figure. Perhaps someone monitoring this thread will assist.

Let's end the needless controversy and get on with serving the public with a tight focus on one outstanding format.

So why would you be choosing the more immature format (your words)?

In all, this is a good article with a lot of good information on Blu-ray behind the scenes, but you come to the conclusion to support Blu-ray based only on this information, without adequately comparing it to the same information about HD DVD. It's like you're choosing one without seeing (or showing us) the other.

Good information, but unconvincing.

- Miller

The problem this market has had in deciding is that there are no other great comparisons in the formats that set one clearly apart from the other unless you personally treasure the picture-in-picture or being able to connect to the Internet (don't you do that now with your computer? and how often have you called upon that service which is more for market feedback to the movie distributors anyway). Price is a temporary feature that gets wiped out when either is commoditized. While I am aware that not everyone treasures, or even cares about capacity, a great deal of it comes at so liitle a price that I find it the compelling reason to choose one side over the other. I share with most the view that having one format will offer general benefits to the whole and so that argument remains with me to the end. No one has yet convinced me that the total cost to industry/consumer is going to be less with two formats marching off into the sunset. So, capacity is the most universal attribute I can find with which Blu ray has more than a distinct edge. Player cost is not going to be any different once the big commodity producers get hold of it. I think there may be some little favorites in terms of features on one side or the other that sway people today, but once a decision is made in the marketplace to pursue one format all features can be carried over to the other format in one way or the other. The higher pressing cost? If you have no faith in manufacturing engineering then that difference remains forever and what you buy with the difference is capacity and we know that no one knows what that will be used for, thus, how we will evaluate it will differ. My longevity in the business has shown me that every bit of capacity that has been created as been filled commercially. When the CD came out the talk was the same -- who needed so much data space? Then the DVD came out and the industry said, thank God, we can back-up using them. Now the world of video/computing is upon us and the storage "crises" finds a solution with higher capacity high def DVD formats. If the greater good was served with two formats I would accept that willingly. I have not seen evidence to support that view and so I take it that the greater good is served by coming to one format and the only common value leading the parade which I understand easily is capacity. I do not see myself loosing picture quality or audio quality in this decision and, as I have said before, the features the public wants can be incorporated in the winning format.

[miller]

So what you're saying is that Blu-ray is the better choice eventually because manufacturers will be able to get costs down and innovators will find a use for the extra capacity. We have a word for that in the computer industry ... it's called "Vapor-ware". I'll put my money down when I'm certain it's going to happen.

If I want something this Christmas, HD DVD is the better choice. That's the way I read it anyway.

- Miller

[akirby]

Unless you can show me a HD-DVD player that will play Gran Turismo 5 when it comes out in a few months, looks like I'll be going Blu-Ray.

[Dale]

So what you're saying is that Blu-ray is the better choice eventually because manufacturers will be able to get costs down and innovators will find a use for the extra capacity. We have a word for that in the computer industry ... it's called "Vapor-ware". I'll put my money down when I'm certain it's going to happen.

If I want something this Christmas, HD DVD is the better choice. That's the way I read it anyway.

- Miller

Yes, that is exactly what I am saying. When working at the level of public policy you must remain devoted to acting in support of the greater good. How you spend your money today is, and has always been, entirley your business. You only need to serve one good--yours. You are not out to shape public policy. I support public policy (NGO type) and only asked--not demanded--that you (all readers) assist me in serving the greater good, at least as I have presently interpreted it. But clearly and unarguably your vote with your dollars for another policy or direction is every bit as good as is mine. I do want it understood that I am working with the longer view of building up a decisive momentum for one of the two formats (and if my action causes a reaction so that the HD DVD winds up victorious, I am just as successful and happy. I am firmly against two formats forever competing in the marketplace more than I favor a specific format). My article--the one that started this thread--has been picked up and will, I am told, be published in other magazines, newspapers, and blogs to help further this cause. Two publications--a professional one going to thousands in the motion picture and television industry, and a hollywood beat consumer magazine have already run it. That megaphone effect is the advantage I have coming from being a voice in the HDTV movement for 25 years. You and I do differ a bit in our approach. Nothing wrong with that. You put your money down, as you noted above, after the fact and I bet on the fact happening. I was five million dollars down at one time in the HDTV movement about the time everyone was calling it an impossible risk (relating to your vapor ware idea). The entire HDTV movement would have died (the obit was already written) without outside confidence being expressed in it. You might have felt aking to the chorus who sang the song that HDTV was just too much cost in money and bandwidth and due to a lack of consumer interest and knowledge it would never happen, so by a bigger NTSC set. But what you call vapor ware in the computer business we call foresight in the television world. Remember that the laser for the first CD cost $10,000 each! Now they are pennies and yet when first under consideration no one could imagine how you could reduce the cost to make it work in a consumer product. Leadership has to step lively into risk to advance anything.

My work may or it may not sway the movement in one direction and even if it goes "my way" I doubt that you shall be hurt by your investment in HD DVD for this Christmas. Please do have a Merry Christmas and don't let me stop you. Either format will be supported for years to come due to the already large installed base. So,nothing for you is lost and maybe something for all is gained.

[Dale]

It is a huge world we live in and it is possible to have two systems that actually reach most of the volume needed to realize efficient mass production. But it is not too late in the present game to make a choice and insure efficient mass production as well as revise licensing prices. Once a product species (that is common to all the public) is crowned with a format king the patent pool for it is reviewed and managed by private and government oversight committities whose duty it is to insure that licensing prices are consistant with historical precident. The head of the Philips HDTV initiative was quoted in my HDTV Newsletter as saying that the general specifications and their patents/licensing, while good for keeping some working in the inventive companies, are not the source of richness for those companies. The manufacturing, process patents that arise during the mass production engineering phase is where real money is made. Making a choice may not be as crucial as it once was, but to say that a choice would not be welcome runs counter to my findings.


Many have said to me in here (or in a back channel) that capacity is a non-issue, but the HD DVD group has just certified their triple layer method to give them 50 Gig capacity. If capacity is not important to the market then why does HD DVD seek all of it that they can get?

For the person who asked me what evidence was there that the exclusive features offered by HD DVD were not in high demand let me point out that close to half of the high def DVD market put money down on the format that does not have those features. _Dale