Blu-Ray Attacks Microsoft, Microsoft Bites Back 300
QT writes "Ars Technica has been following this week's next-gen DVD dramas closely. First, there's extensive coverage of the
reasons why Microsoft backed HD-DVD, which was primarily inspired by mandatory support for
copying discs to computers. The BDA, however, countered with an attack on Microsoft's reasons, and
Microsoft returned fire. Richard E. Doherty, Microsoft's head of the media entertainment technology convergence group, said that 50GB Blu-ray disc are in fact many years away. Is
MS playing games, or is Sony misrepresenting just how far along BD-ROM really is?" From the article: "HD DVD is proven to deliver 30GB capacity today, with the potential to deliver even greater capacity. The 50GB claim for BD-ROM discs is unproven and will not be available for many years to come, based on discussions with major Japanese and US replicators. Replicators not only do not have test lines running, they cannot even pre-order the equipment to begin evaluating this disc. They cannot judge the cost of these discs, or even whether they can be manufactured at all. Major replicators can mass manufacture 30GB HD DVD discs today and it's well understood that these discs will cost significantly less to manufacture than the lower-capacity 25GB BD discs."
We previously discussed this topic when the announcement came out.
HD DVD sounds better to me (Score:5, Insightful)
Let's just ask Hugh Hefner (Score:5, Insightful)
Sorry, but I just wanted to pre-empt those that are inevitably going to claim that. At any rate, if the article (re: Microsoft) is true, then Blu-Ray probably won't succeed because HD-DVD is already here. I'm still pulling for Blu-Ray, for a variety of reasons, but realistically I realize that most consumers are going to see "HD-DVD" and think "Ooooh... a DVD that will play HD" (fallacy notwithstanding) whereas people will see Blu-Ray and think "What the... what's this crap?"
Alas, at this point it's still all speculation. Perfect for
It's painfully obvious... (Score:5, Insightful)
Seems pretty reasonable (Score:5, Insightful)
Reminds me of something .... (Score:4, Insightful)
Given the history of Sony's formats (Score:5, Insightful)
VHS vs Beta revisited? (Score:5, Insightful)
What will push Blu-ray? Playstation 3. Microsoft's support of the other team should come as no surprise, but in the end I expect they will support it.
Typical /. wang-swinging and pedantry (Score:2, Insightful)
The only criteria.. (Score:5, Insightful)
Blu-ray lost my vote when they decided to build in functionality to allow the movie industry to actually disable your player if they chose. To restore your disabled player you would have to send it in for 'repair'.
not likely (Score:2, Insightful)
The ability to view porn in more private circumstances was hugely transformative for the average joe. So the availability of porn made a major difference for videotape buying decisions.
The internet was another dramatic transformation. Not only was human contact at point-of-purchase no longer necessary, but also tiny slices of the market (some rather bizarre) could be specifically targeted and exploited by porn merchants.
But it's hard to imagine Blu-Ray/HD-DVD having any such effect on the porn market. In fact, to really take advantage of better resolution, etc. would probably require production budgets that porn makers just don't have.
No, the main beneficiaries of this in terms of product are the movie studios. Second and third are video games and TV (not necessarily in that order). Between them, they are the important players in determining the succeeding format.
Re:Standard Microsoft Methods: Cry Wolf (Score:5, Insightful)
Either way, I end up smiling at somebody else covered in egg.
Re:It's painfully obvious... (Score:2, Insightful)
Kudzu, not behemoth (Score:5, Insightful)
Sony's tech support on their 2,000k dollar fragile-as-crystal notebooks is an exercise in pain. Yet Sony has been the most agreeable publisher I've had the pleasure of working with. Their notebooks are terrible. But their PDA's were the best on the market.
In case you haven't noticed, both companies have their shoddy construction problems in certain areas. Sony's flagship PlayStation was known for a short lifespan and needing to be propped up at funny angles. Microsoft's Windows had to be rearchitected and rebuilt (the latest delay of Vista) because the XP codebase was just crap.
On the other hand, both of their gaming divisions delivered respectable platforms this past generation. Sony's PS2 was a cheaply built little machine, but it had good development tools, good adaptability, and a realistic price point. The Xbox had some great features like XBL and a HDD.
Yet with all of this, the debate over Blu-Ray vs HD-DVD seems like an argument over which Japanese DoCoMo handset is better to sell in New York: Both are incompatible with the current generation of televisions (even cutting edge ones), so what's the point? They're so DRM emcumbered that you can't get a better-than-DVD signal without re-upgrading your home theater system to a "trusted" one.
While HD-DVD requires managed copy ability, companies can still veto it by offering the service for some ridiculous fee.
Ironically Blu-Ray not taking off is better for Sony's PS3. That will ensure lower piracy rates due to the lower availability of duplicating hardware. We also know that it isn't "many years" away, as the PS3 will ship with it. And while the PS3 ship date is optimistic, it will ship within 1-2 years.
Both companies have vested interestes in the technology. What, you think Microsoft is pushing this for consumers? What company do you think is providing the mandatory managed copy software? What, did you think you could copy that HD-DVD to Linux?
I'm surprised about something (Score:5, Insightful)
HD-DVD MUST allow you to make AT LEAST ONE COPY. This is something that current DVD's don't even let you do (legally.) For this reason alone, i am switching my support from Blu-Ray to HD-DVD (and I suggest that the consortium advertise this. say "blu-ray wont even let you do what you want with the content you own!"). Besides, if it can be shared at least once, theres nothing that says we can't create some software to let us copy it more than once...
Re:Seems pretty reasonable (Score:3, Insightful)
As for the copy protection aspect, rest assured that no next-generation DVD will be able to reach the market until it's full of DRM and copy protection. The MPAA will see to that. If Blu-Ray emerges as a winner, it will be because it's been DRMed to the hilt. In that respect, I have no reason for hope.
Re:Seems pretty reasonable (Score:5, Insightful)
See a pattern here? HD-DVD has been trying to one-up BluRay for quite a while. Now it seems that, instead of playing catch-up, they're just going to pretend BluRay doesn't exist.
I mean, I guess that's one way to try and beat your competitor. But something tells me it'll fail once the market sees what's what (read: forget all this back and forth about Microsoft and Sony; when you (don't) see 50 GB dual layer discs sitting on the shelf at Wal*Mart you'll know who was telling the truth and who wasn't).
Re:HD DVD sounds better to me (Score:5, Insightful)
If they make those hybrid discs they're gonna cost as much as it would to buy both the DVD and the HD release. Why? Because that's the way it's done in the eyes of the movie industry.
When I first heard about the mandatory "managed copy" feature for HD-DVD I thought "yeah, right" but I have to admit there was this tiny little bit of hope somewhere in the more naive parts of my brain. No more:
Jordi Ribas, director of technical strategy for the Windows Digital Media Division, told me that while the feature is mandatory, the studios will have the option of charging for it
Buy HD-DVD, much better than Blu-Ray, get two, pay two!
Oh, and I no longer trust Ars's coverage since they had the two page HD-DVD ad disguised as article on their frontpage (yes, they added a disclaimer later but I don't read Ars for press releases disclaimer or not)
Microsoft is pro-Consumer, just more pro-Microsoft (Score:5, Insightful)
I mean, Microsoft created the hardware commoditization... had they not licensed a compatible MS-DOS to Compaq (and instead went back to IBM to re-negotiate), the commoditization of PCs wouldn't have happened. They historically were willing to support any hardware platform, not support the monopolization... they haven't tried to lock in a single video card.
Even where they attempted to monopolize markets (DirectX 3D vs. OpenGL), it was arguably pro-consumer... while OpenGL was the better API, MS's API was able to be supported by more hardware manufacturers, while OpenGL was more complicated and required more power...
Microsoft has recently moved in an anti-consumer direction, but ONLY for their own stuff.
Look, I love iTunes and iTMS, but that said, the Microsoft WMA "standard" does support competition in both the player (hardware) market and competition in the music "retailer" market...
While they aren't generally friendly to standards, and compete like dogs against any perceived threat, their default is generally to bring prices down for customers... just not THEIR prices.
Their aggressive tactics DEFINITELY involved non-innovating and swooping in when the leader falters, bundling with their OS monopoly, and generally engaging in tactics that would be cutthroat for a small company, and at times criminal for a monopolist.
That said, they aren't an anti-consumer company, beyond the fact that their actions destroy the competition.
In fact, they have generally been the MOST resistant to limiting user actions, contrasted on the OS side with IBM's OS/2 and Apple's Mac OS (Classic OR X)... you could replace the default shell, and until Win95, some companies did, and other easy to tweak aspects of the OS.
I think that the MS bashing needs to focus on where they are abusive... They also piss off enthusiasts for the same reason Wal-Mart pisses off upper-middle class consumers... If you appreciate quality things, then you HATE the low priced player that puts the company that makes higher quality stuff out of business.
As a enthusiast, I hate that MS's push to lower prices for computers (without lowering their prices) has pushed out good technology and replaced it with crap... however, as a purchaser of computer hardware, I do appreciate how much prices have dropped, and I realize that it was a combination of Microsoft and Intel pushing EVERY OTHER component to commodity status... just like I appreciate the myriad of Linux players doing the same thing to the OS component, and OpenOffice/StarOffice pushing productivity software to commodity status.
Alex
Re:It's painfully obvious... (Score:3, Insightful)
Plus, last I read, HD-DVD doesn't have anything even in the lab that is bigger than 30 GB, whereas Bluy-ray has a prototype of 100GB. MS ought to screw off. They are supprting it for two reasons. One is the whole console war, and the second is HD-DVD will use Micorsofts own codec [geek.com] whereas Blu-ray will not. MS just has their panties in a wad.
And to all those who think this is a propietary Sony product, they should read this FAQ [blu-ray.com]. Sony, HP, Pioneer, Hitachi, TDK, Samsung, Philips, etc. were all in on the process. In fact it was TDK that made the 100GB version. HD-DVD is a very shallow replacement and will only require a new replacement in just a few years time. Blu-ray has potential, not just as a media disk, but also as a storage disk. With people having full hard-drives over 250 GB now, would you rather back that up on 9 HD-DVDs, or 3 Blu-rays. Shutup and die MS and Intel.
What's the point? (Score:3, Insightful)
Microsoft does not always do things for money (Score:4, Insightful)
If Microsoft "followed the money" they would just support the OpenDocument format instead of waging war on office suites.
If Microsoft did anything for reasons other than emotion, they would be a very different company. Very little of what Microsfot does makes sense outside of the context of a strong agressor aiming to kill competition at all costs - not all gains.
Re:Let's just ask Hugh Hefner (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Given the history of Sony's formats (Score:4, Insightful)
So in reality they are responsible for two of the most ubiquitous formats around, and they did have a hand in the DVD as well (DVD was a compromise between the MMCD & Superdensity disk). In reality, Sony(along with Phillips), have produced the most prevalent formats around.
Re:Seems pretty reasonable (Score:4, Insightful)
As far as movies on BluRay or HD-DVD. Again, you simply don't understand authoring then. NTSC DVD movies are 720x480 = 345,600 pixels. NTSC HDTV movies are 1920x1080 = 2,073,600. See the difference? What's more, at those high resolutions you'll want a higher then normal bitrate for the video to keep the quality up. Heck, for my money, I'd rather have a movie that had too much bitrate (BluRay) than too little (HD-DVD).
With BluRay, disc authors can fit everything on one disc. They can put on all the commentaries they want, all the documentaries, and it won't span 2 or 3 or (God forbid) 4 discs. And as a per-layer capacity comparison goes, BluRay wins that hands down. It takes HD-DVD two layers (30 GB) to get just 5 GB over what BluRay can do in a single layer (25 GB). And Sony has tech demos of eight (8) layer BluRay discs that can hold 200 GB. I know, I know, "but what will they do with all that space?".. who cares! At least it's there so it can be used.
Picking a limiting media (HD-DVD) just makes no sense to me. Why would you want to limit content creators? Why would you want to force content creators to sacrifice quality (bitrate) just to fit everything on a single HD-DVD? It's silly.
Now if you wanna actually discuss how much space a movie can take, I can provide you some real numbers for real movies. I promise you tho, the capacity you get from BluRay really will go to good use. It's not a simple matter of movies just taking half a disc and the rest going to waste.