Is It My choice, Or Is It Yours?

[wdomburg]

I don't have a real stake in the HD wars yet, since I don't own an HDTV. On the other hand I <i>do</i> own an HD-DVD player. Why? My living room DVD player died and HD players were well into the "eh, what the hell?" price range, especially considering the seven free movies I ended up with.

Even before circumstance dropped a player in my lap, my money has been on HD-DVD for a number of reasons:

1) Price - Future ecomony of scale is meaningless unless adoption is wide enough for it to kick in. And I don't write off incremental costs. Retooling production lines is more than just the cost of equipment - time, training, packaging and so forth all come into the mix. And because existing production lines can be converted more easily to HD-DVD, it means they can be more responsive to market expansion than Blu-ray can.

2) Compatability - There isn't a current Blu-ray player on the market that supports the current Blu-ray standard. Studios are stuck with the option of crippling their discs with the limitations of the old standard (including workarounds like implementing PiP as a completely seperate video track, thereby doubling storage requirement) or by putting out discs with special features that can't be viewed in a large portion of the installed base.

3) Freedom - There is no region encoding in HD-DVD. This means you don't have to jump through hoops to view discs purchased outside the United States like you do with Blu-ray.

The only real advantage that Blu-ray has is storage, and that simply doesn't matter. Television resolutions aren't going anywhere for the next few decades, movies aren't going to suddenly exceed eight hours, the human race isn't going to evolve an improved hearing range. Sure there are corner cases (tv on dvd being the most common) but you don't optimize for corner cases. Would you buy a GMC Savana (passenger van) as a commuter car?

There's the secondary use argument - e.g. as a storage medium for computers - but I think the potential market there is actually fairly limited. Low cost flash memory (in the form of SD and USB frobs) has already largely displaced DVD as a casual storage medium (more convienent and reliable) and external hard drives are displacing optical media as a backup medium (more convienent, reliable, cost effective; far higher capacity than the 50GB discs you can actually write to today or even the 200GB discs that will theoretically be available someday).

I can see a possible market in the HD camcorder market, where the relatively low cost of high capacity discs (7.5GB for 8cm blu-ray) could spur adoption.

All that being said, I think BD <i>does</i> have a credible chance to win. They have a large install base and a lead in software sales. They have a large untapped install base and increased HDTV sales over the holiday season coupled with advertising promoting the blu-ray capabilities of the console may yield increased software sales to existing owners. Even taking the Paramount/Dreamworks deal into account they still have a slight edge in studio support.

The HD camp isn't likely to stand still though. Assume aggressive pricing throughout the holiday season (and not just on "Black Friday") and increased advertising. Additional hardware is in the pipe from several other manufacturers, including several value brands. Don't forget Toshiba's huge presence as an optical drive manufacturer in the laptop space. They're projecting five million units in 2008, which should help to balance out the advantage Sony currently enjoys with their bundling scheme. Although there are portable blu-ray units as well, fewer models are offered and none (to my knowledge) at the price point Toshiba is pushing. Blu-ray also lacks a <i>writer</i> in a notebook form factor.

Personally? I'm not making any substantial investment in building a media library in either format for now. If a title I want is available in a dual DVD/HDDVD disc (or package), I'll probably pick it up. Otherwise, plain old standard definition for me.

[Shane]

I can't wait for you to read my take on the issue. Its scheduled to be published Monday.

- Shane

[Shane]

... and here it is:
http://www.hdtvmagazine.com/articles/20 ... lu-ray.php

[Richard]

Or my take...

HD DVD or Blu-ray: My Choice is...?
http://www.hdtvmagazine.com/articles/20 ... ice_is.php

[free2speak]

Thankfully it isn't your choice. I vote HD DVD with the same perfomance for less money. The cost of BD is not just the disks. The BD player itself is significantly more expensive for basically the same performance as HD DVD.

[free2speak]

Dale -- today it's 200 Gigs Blu-ray vs 50 Gigs HD DVD --

Where did you get these numbers? The last I knew it was 50GB BD, and 30 GB HD DVD. I also want you to show me real examples of the extra 20GB is actually used for a superior BD experience. We watch 2-3 hour long movies. HD DVD can hold 4 hours of HD per side so why do I need more for a movie player? I watched King Kong on HD DVD last night and it was great at over 3 hours long. You keep trying to justify spending more for BD for the possibility that the extra capacity will be a big bonus in the future. Well I am looking at now, and HD DVD has a complete standard specification. Blu-Ray is still a work in progress, and next gen BD may not be fully compatible with first gen because of this. Consumers don't care about any of the technical arguments you make. They are looking for a good price. There not checking the BD storage capacity.

[Dale]

Dale -- today it's 200 Gigs Blu-ray vs 50 Gigs HD DVD --

Where did you get these numbers?

http://www.engadget.com/2007/02/28/51gb ... -official/

http://news.softpedia.com/news/TDK-200G ... 2753.shtml

And I have been to pressing plants with both capacities running. The 200 gig is ahead of of the curve in terms of players.

I also want you to show me real examples of the extra 20GB is actually used for a superior BD experience.

For starters 3D is one application. But let's assume 3D is no more popular than it was in the late 50s and so doesn't fly. It is impossible to say if any other things will fly but it is equally impossible to say they won't.

We watch 2-3 hour long movies. HD DVD can hold 4 hours of HD per side so why do I need more for a movie player? I watched King Kong on HD DVD last night and it was great at over 3 hours long. You keep trying to justify spending more for BD for the possibility that the extra capacity will be a big bonus in the future. Well I am looking at now, and HD DVD has a complete standard specification.

Movies are but one thing delivered to customers by disk. Another becoming popular is a season of programs--13 hours of HDTV. That is certainly a capacity user. Now, it could be anything since we must rely upon innovation. Every part of our markets rely upon innovation. This nation relies upon innovation and I have been in meetings in Washington where there is genuine fear of crippling innovation with the enactment of certain laws governing this or that. The point is that innovation is given top marks for moving our economy forward. I will not come against anything that allows today for future innovation tomorrow with such a litttle cost as we find between HD DVD and Blu ray today. I understand that there are those who do not want to worry over the future as long as the results they want now at a cheaper price are at hand. I won't even question that but I will call upon the leadership of our nation to exercise more foresight.

As far as quality from capacity is concerned, I don't think there have been claims suggesting a superior image and audio quality due to capacity. Some might make that claim for the greater data rate in Blu ray, but that is also a mute point to most. The reason I chose capacity as the leading value is because it is something the opposing side doesn't have. To think that no one is going to come up with an appealing use for that capacity is to short the creativity history of humanity.

I do appreciate that HD DVD is cheaper today? It was designed that way in order to lower the cost of entry, i.e enable existing pressing plants to produce a high def format without a large investment. This was not a trivial amount of money either, so I am in sympathy with that strategy...except that the big and smaller pressing plants have now invested in both technologies, So that point is mute. The higher cost of the disk pressing is a factor. to the public there has been no difference in the cost of a Blu ray movie over that of one in the HD DVD format. The potential use of 150 Gigs of capacity for next to nothing is the reward. The argument that the HD DVD format and feature-set is completely set in stone under strict licensing controls does make all the players conform. That is a good point until you consider that also means that future innovation for this format is foreclosed upon. The BD licensing approach, where some features may not be in every player, is not any more regretable than having a car with ala carte extras. In most all other products where price governs you have models with full features and those with ala carte features. According to some this price stratification should end and people should pay for features which they may never use. If those features come free of all cost I happily retract this last comment. I still say that freezing a format at its present level of development can prove to be regrettable. Anytime you close a door on innovation, stagnation is not far behind. I would be against, of course, a player that would not play the basic thing for which it was purchased, such as the movie. I think the 'region free' feature of HD DVD is compelling and I would like to see it a part of BD.

Those who make the point that you confuse the buyers when you sell players that won't play all of the features on a disk might consider other products with similar circumstances. Something as simple as a packet of seeds for your garden has a color coding scheme that tells you when to plant in your part of the country, if you can at all. It's worked for years and any simple color coding scheme can telegraph instantly enough infomration to a buyer that they understand immediately what works for them. This may look like a big issue for people who have little experience in solving similar problems.

One reader on our forum said that a choice for HD DVD was short sighted. I don't know if that is a fair criticism. I think it is right, and certainly just as nobel, to buy whatever you can now for your family's enjoyment at the lowest cost you can find. But having said that, let's remember that the lowest advertised price tag you see may not be the lowest price in the category...if, that is, you give any consideration to the long run. We always have to gamble something on the future if we are to make the right decision. Let me tell you a bit of the history of HDTV that lends weight to the importance of being visionary. I have as an independant been part of the HDTV movement for 25 years. HDTV was never a "given" but it was a threat. It was a threat because some thought that the public could be easily won over to it by some maverik upstart on cable or satellite. The old entrenched could see their audience draining away. That would leave those unmovable bricks in no position to quickly respond. So, the US broadcast community went to work to find a standard for HDTV. Along the way dozens of people came up with fix-up plans for the old NTSC standard. Not much innovation had taken place in 50 years since NTSC color standard was advanced. In fact, there was hardly any progress at all due to the rigidness of the standard as legally imposed by the FCC. But when HDTV was brought to the surface fellows like Yves Faroudja looked around at the modern techniques and technologies and said he could by using them all make NTSC look nearly as good as HDTV, at least as we then knew it. It was still a 480 i source Faroudja was working with but with lots of care in component selection and the obeying of his own mantra: "follow all of the rules". This near-to-HDTV signal would match the best commercial displays being made at the time. NBC, Sarnoff, Philips, Thompson and Zenith formed an extremely powerful coalition to introduce still-another compatible NTSC fix-up approach that would develop about 500 lines of resolution on a widescreen. It was a two stage thing that eventually used a little more bandwidth to effectively complicate things at the FCC. It was still the far cheaper way to go to get close to HDTV and to boot it had the biggest company in the world - GE - behind it. So, why go further on to HD if you couldn't see any more what these guys were delivering to a commercial display of that era? It was a very challenging question. Why, indeed, should we take this completely incompatible road to HDTV? With these fix ups we didn't have to retool the entire industry--just apply some low cost re-tooling and it would be done deal. With true HDTV the entire infrastructure of broadcasting and cable was going to be made irrevokably obsolete. So, why did we push on past those attractive fix-up compatible NTSC offers and move into the unknown?


With the introduction of these fix-up approaches our band of true HDTV believers dwindled world wide to about 400 hundred. I was among them. I said in my publication to them that we will not profit the nation if we take the short road to satisfaction for it will leave nothing for future innovation. The NTSC fix-up was the last of the innovative possibilities for that standard and not the beginning of a new era. It was far cheaper, of course, and extended the benefit of a more immediate gratification (no need to tool up for it or even get the FCC into it) but its clearly end-of-the road story. We somehow prevailed and the courage was again found and the American public has its HDTV to show for it. We started out with plenty of headroom ahead with a completely new standard. We launched with 720p or 1080i and have already progressed to 1080p with fantasticlly innovative displays capable of reproducing it. We have given hope to still higher quality which is already in development in Japan. Someone asked why we didn't start with 1080p? Were we just doing that so manufacturers would have two steps to sell the unwitting public? No such conspiracy existed. In fact, the goal was always 1080p but at the time when standard was hammered 1080p 60 frames was beyond the bandwidth limitations imposed by the FCC (6Mhz).

Had we not stepped up to HDTV none of the innovations we have today would exist. We would never have had the display revolution that we have today and we would not have the excitement which true HDTV produces in the public.

My analogy is imperfect, of course, because we all know that picture quality is not at stake with either of these two formats. What is at stake is capacity and the future innovations it invites. That is the heart of my anology, my premis, my argument.


I am not making this appeal to the general public. I appeal only to the leaders who understand the value of looking beyond the present when making decisions that effect the landscape of the future. I appeal to the leaders who understand that it is our responsibility (goes with all leadership) to make choices that may not be popular but are right for the greater good. Thank goodness there are millions of people who have enough dispossible income to act on such insight.

With either player sold the cost will come down until parity is reached. When I bought my first JVC progressive scan DVD player it was $230. That same player today is under $50. I think we can all recall the high price of our first VCRs and now you can buy one of most all brands for under $40.

Some say, "Well, the patent license is too high for Blu ray and it will fail. We have to go with HD DVD." How does it make sense for a licenser to charge so much that they never realize royalties because the business fails? The licensing is not fixed in price anyway and will conform to market realities. Also, these basic patents are not where the big money is made--though some money to be sure. Where the big money is made is from fabrication patents--process patents that innovation (more than invention) produces. These manufacturing patents come after the main product goes into high mass production. So, if we, the consumers, find that Blu ray licensing costs are artificially high and trouble the market we have to band together as a people to demand an adjustment. It's easy to do--just boycot the products and they will be all ears. The manufacturers are not villians. They are doing business as they understand it should be done and they also make mistakes. They look to their customers to tell them of those mistakes and how to remedy them. I suppose there are a few who just think money, money, money, but most of the presidents of these huge consumer electronics companies are engineers by trade. That fact has proved frustrating to those coming out of business schools. Engineers do think differently but they do want to please with what they have engineered for you.

Some say we don't even need a single format in this DVD game because its too late anyway or it is destined to linger around as two formats for years and years. I talked to the VP of Best Buy's television division the other day on several matters. I brought up this issue and asked him his opinion: "Does it make any difference if we have one or two formats in the high def DVD market?" He shot back with the full force of his 25 years in consumer elctronics that two formats is a complete dissaster and exclaimed that we have to come to just one formagt or lose the initiative. He is banking on the fact that the consumers will make a cearly defined choice in due time but he warns that if that fails the interest in either format at the retail level will fade and something new will come to fill the void. His warning was stern and firm and my recommendation to take the long view and to choose Blu ray is equally as firm--not because it is cheaper on the surface today but for the reason already disclosed. Will the format we put our focus upon get better? Will the format in which we do not put our focus get better? What has been your experience in consumer electronics?

[free2speak]

"Movies are but one thing delivered to customers by disk. Another one which is becoming popular is a season of programs--13 hours of HDTV. That is certainly a capacity user. Now, it could be anything since we must rely upon innovation. Every part of our markets rely upon innovation. This nation relies upon innovation and I have been in meetings in Washington where there is genuine fear of crippling innovation with the enactment of certain laws governing this or that. The point is that innovation is given top marks for moving our economy forward. I will not come against anything that allows today for future innovation tomorrow with such a litttle cost as we find between HD DVD and Blu ray today. I understand that there are those who do not want to worry over the future as long as the results they want now at a cheaper price are at hand. I won't even question that but I will call upon the leadership of our nation to exercise more foresight."

Yeah ok it might take a few HD DVD to give a whole seaon of whatever, but again it wouldn't cost much. There you go again impying some big change coming in the the future, but we are talking about movie players. Each player can fit the longest movies today on a disk so again no advantage for either. I am a 30 year computer professional so I know a little about how innovation works. I can tell you HD DVD is good enough for now and the future for watching movies. Sony BD 3D couldn't care less, and 99% of people will agree with me. HD DVD HDi technology already works better than Sony BD Java.

Please don't tell me you are providing "leadership of our nation". This is Blue-Ray; not Red, White, and Blu-Ray. Our choice of movie players is hardly a national security choice.

There are no 200GB BD players available today. Again 2010 future technology that may or may not happen does not interest me. I am watching HD movies now.

I am a visionary! I started planning for HDTV the day I read about the new standard. I purchased an HDTV one year before Comcast delivered HD cable to my house. I am waiting for the market to catch up. But I also don't see a huge jump beyond HD quality video and audio so why should I pay more for BD to watch my movies? HDTV isn't even established yet so it is the future standard, and both Blu-Ray and HD DVD can fill the need for HD content. Hey if you had something to do with establishing HDTV then I thank you. But please don't tell me your Blu-Ray over HD DVD choice is the same. The quality is the same for both formats. Both formats can deliver audio and video to the limits of human sight and sound. If Blu-Ray disappeared tomorrow no movie lover would notice because all of the movies would be on HD DVD. The same could be said of the opposite scenario. Blu-Ray is not a life or death choice for anyone.

My consumer electronics experience is pretty rich. I was into stereos (quadrophonic) and TV's as a kid. I am also a photographer. I joined the Air Force at 19 so I learned mainframe computers then went through the entire PC networking revolution. At home I used Amiga personal computers which taught me everything I needed to know about audio, video, computer graphics, and multi-media. Amiga's were ten years ahead of the PC in 1987, and Amiga lost so the market doesn't always make the choices based on performance. I started watching Star Trek the Next Generation with my stereo system before surround systems were available. Today I have an excellent home theater which cost me dearly. I owned Nintendo 64, and Xbox. I currently own the Xbox 360 for HD gaming. I don't have a Wii because it isn't HD. I am one of the few that actually understands most of the technology around me, and I can even program a VCR. I don't as a matter of course go looking for bargains. The Toshiba HD-A2 is the least expensive piece of equipment I own by far. I watched the format war for years now. I also read reviews for the HD-A2 which said it was a good player. In fact the HD-A2 had over 120 positive owner reviews on a major retailer's website; no other player had more than 50 reviews so obviously the HD-A2 is popular. When I found out about the $98.87 HD-A2 with 5 free movies at Walmart I decided it was too good a deal to pass up. Even if I rent HD DVD movies from Netflix for the next 2 years the HD-A2 was worth it. I have a pretty good future technology sensor (not to say I know which format will win), and it is definately not going off. From what I can see either format will be ok for me. I don't see either format coming up with something entirely new that will make buyers of the other regret their choice.

Consumer Reports just recently reviewed both Blu-Ray and HD DVD players. CR verdict? Both Blu-Ray and HD DVD players are excellent. Winner? According to CR they picked no winner. The fomat war is a draw. I think CR made the correct choice because it is too early to tell which format will win.

[Dale]

You make my point and we are not far apart. It is clear that without leadership there is not going to be a winner. That deadlock can not go without a consequence in the consumer electronics industry. My goal in these posts is to make us aware that two formats will not play. We need to get to only one format -- either is fine with me as it is with you. I don't blame you for buying into the low cost box with all the free movies. You could pitch it tomorrow and it would not have been that much of a loss. But its a vote for a format. I am very willing to accept HD DVD as the victorious standard and forego the value of added capacity if only we will all come to the same conclusion. We need to for the best results.

You are right about the non-importance of all of this HD peripheral equipment business to our nation. Having been in television and motion pictures for so many years I do appreciate how people value their home entertainment. They spend a great deal of their money and now quality time with it and so I don't want to be too casual when acting in their interests. But it is not a life or death situation and I certainly don't take it that seriously despite my tone. I might add that it was reported at the DisplaySearch conference in October of this year at Universal City that 75% of the HD owners whom DisplaySearch had surveyed were happy with standard DVD quality. So, it's not that big of a deal even if both HD formats fizzle out. At the same time I don't see a business reason for the studios to stop releasing in both formats (or all three for that matter) I don't think anyone is predicting a big retreat in the HD markets nor any reason for the studios to not release at least the blockbuster movies. Small and "interesting" films might suffer from a stunted installed base and a divided one at that. I personally fear that because I like those well crafted films more than I do the big CGI extravaganzas. But those lower budget movies look fine on my dedicated home theater in an upconverted standard DVD format. So our pain is slight even if they fail to have HD support.

What I have tried to do in this series of post is to rally leadership from within our readers around one highly visible point so we could unite over it. To bicker endlessly over some peformance characteristic is proving to be non-productive. You and I have already agreed that there is no superior image or audio benefits in either format. I think what we don't agree on is the necessity to end up with one clear winner. The only handle I can see, with all other things being equal, to grab hold of is capacity. I choose it as the winning card because I can't find anything else more universally appreciated. The entire basis of moving away from standard DVD technology to an HD version is capacity. You said you didn't care about the added capacity and think it over rated. Perhaps you do represent the values of your generation, but how can we know? I don't represent anyone other than those who see capacity as a key to a big win. I understand that it is your generation which is just now moving into the over-all HDTV markets. They have, say social researchers, economy on the mind. They will be much more aware of cost than of technology. I do think that the older members of the HD corp will take a more circumspect view of things and acquire Blu ray unless unexpectedly preempted by some mad dash by the public to HD DVD. Then it won't make any difference.

Under any circumstance I will sleep well knowing I did what I could to realize a single format. Everyone in authority tells me that a dominant single format is crucial to the lifespan of the high def DVD category. Frankly, Internet 2 is coming also at the speed of light and who knows what will be at the end of your wire in 2 to 3 years? Will a spinning disk be only a quaint artifact and relic from the later part of the 20th century and the first decade of the 21st century? I am not the only one asking that question.

Yes, I did have something to do with getting HDTV to your home. I am proud of my accomplishment and thank you for your note of appreciation. For further information please do a Google search on my name -

Dale Cripps

Founder and Co-publisher
HDTV Magazine (1998 to present)
Publisher; HDTV Newsletter (1985 to 1996)
Founder; Academy of High Definition Television Arts and Sciences
Contributing HDTV Technical Editor; WideScreen Review
Technical Editor Wiley Press book; HDTV for Dummies
Consumer advisor and contributing editor; Highdef.org Magazine
Charter Member Academy of Digital Television Pioneers
Life Member Society of Television and Motion Picture Engineers (SMPTE)
HDTV Consultant to US Goverment, Government of Taiwan, Government of Japan, MCA Universal, Corning Glass
Published 60 articles on HDTV over the last 22 years
Programed and sponsored four international conferences on HDTV

[free2speak]

I agree there would be a benefit to a single standard.

I purchased the HD-A2 with a couple movies, and I went to pay for it. The clerk asks me "You want the HD DVD version"? "Yes" I exclaim. The poor guy is selling Normal DVD, Wide DVD, Blu-Ray, and HD DVD to consumers that may not know the difference. That is unfortunate for consumers. I hold Sony and Toshiba equally responsible. They could have saved a lot of money, time, and resources if this had been done in a co-operative way. But no greed ruled the day, and here we are today.

Yes some movies may not get the exposure to large numbers of customers because of exclusive studio deals. I don't want any studio, or director to dictate my choice. If Spielberg wants me to use Blu-Ray maybe he can subsidize my purchase, and if he feels really strong about it he can buy me a 60" Sony Bravia HDTV too.

You know I found your article because someone on another website was using it to justify his Blu-Ray purchase, and of course every HD DVD buyer was an "idiot" in his opinion. This is where you making a choice now is dangerous. Blu-Ray is no sure thing. Sony depended on PS3 to get more players out there, but PS3 is trailing far behind Wii and Xbox 360. The PS3 numbers may grow some worldwide, but it looks like they will still be in 3rd place at the end of this generation. Movie watchers are not going to buy a $399 PS3 for movies. The PS3 artificially inflates the early numbers for Blu-Ray, but in the end people will buy more inexpensive movie players than expensive game consoles. If you take out PS3 numbers the Blu-Ray doesn't own the market. In the end the market will decide.

If HD DVD fails I will buy a Blu-Ray years from now for a lot less. I won't subsidize Sony's BD technology. They chose this path, and they knew full well what the cost would be. If a few tech and gamer types want to pay a higher price for similar performance so be it. These same type of people can justify $6000 for a game PC with the latest tech. But I see the extra money as a huge waste in most cases. I did my share of early adopting. But I don't chase specifications anymore because if you are always worried about tomorrow's product you miss great products that are available now, and you are constantly disappointed because someone else got a new feature for $5 less. I look at the core function of whatever device and see if it meets the needed standard for that device everything else is gravy.

I Googled you Dale. Hey you are famous. I don't fully agree with all of your points, but I admit you and Richard are well informed. I also don't think you are biased like some of the fanatics I read. I appreciate HDTV and other HD media from a user point of view. But I am also a tech person so HD just builds on the other experience I already have. I am very excited about HD. I want more, and I want it now!

I purchased the Harry Potter movies on HD DVD today. Take that Warner Brothers.