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.
Microsoft follows the money /PS3 problems as well? (Score:4, Interesting)
And, has anyone noticed all of this talk about the PS3 slipping to late fall 2006 for a launch?
Re:HD DVD sounds better to me (Score:5, Interesting)
It's easier to replicate DVDs and store them in multiple locations than it is to have multiple external HDs. For my weekly backups everything goes to three distinct geographical locations via the Internet. I also have an external HD that gets stuff daily. If necessary (no network connections) I would burn DVDs and mail or hand deliver them. Much easier than mailing HDs. YMMV.
And I don't care how many discs my movies/tv shows come on. So I have to change it once an hour, I need to get up once in a while anyway.
I can't sit through an entire season (or usually even an entire disc) w/o moving but that's not why I'd like to see more shows on less discs. I don't like how much room my DVD sets take up in my rack. If I could get an entire season on one or two discs instead of six or more that would make me a happier camper.
One format, please (Score:3, Interesting)
I wish the talks between the two had not broken down because I don't see this ending easily. Sony will put it in their PS3 which will tremondously help out the format, just like the PS2 did for DVDs. But of course the "official" format will not die easily, and now that they have the support of microsoft and intel, it will make it even more difficult for one format to just quietly leave the game.
Only reason MS is backing HD DVD (Score:4, Interesting)
It becomes a lot easier to stomach a 500+ dollar game purchase when it will also play blu-ray dvds aswell, because people will want to watch the better quaility pictures.
It isn't that difficult to figure out why MS hates blu-ray and that is because their XBOX360 (which is really unimpressive) is still stuck on regular DVDs. If you have to buy an XBOX360 (400) + nextgen dvd player (200-300, maybe more) vs buying a ps3 (500, price is a guess, but I can't see it costing more than that. If it does its dead before it ships) people are SAVING money by buying the ps3.
well, not really but you can spin it that way.
30 GB or 15 GB? (Score:1, Interesting)
HD-DVD is now delayed to near blu-ray launch (Score:4, Interesting)
Unfortunately, according to this article , [theregister.co.uk]
According to this [msn.com] the delay is not for technical reasons: "The consortium behind the disc wants to avoid repeating 1997's slow launch of the DVD, for which only a few titles were initially available."On the other hand, in 1997 there wasn't a competing DVD format breathing down anyone's neck.
Playstation 3... (Score:5, Interesting)
So 50GB is miles off, of course it is because we all know that HD-DVD is so real and there are so many devices whereas Blu-ray will only be shipping in potentially the biggest selling console of 2006.
Microsoft do XBox 360, Sony do PS3, XBox 360 hasn't gone for either HD-DVD or Blu-ray. If HD-DVD was so real why didn't they pick it for XBox 360?
Its amazing how this talk of reality of Blu-ray (which I've actually seen demo'ed) over HD-DVD tends to ignore the fact that only one company (Sony) is producing a mass market player in 2006.
If PS3 wins, then Blu-ray will have significant volume in 2006 which will drive down costs and mean larger capacity disks arrive much earlier.
"Grand Theft Auto - Whole of the damned Continenal United States" anyone?
Re:Playstation 3... (Score:3, Interesting)
Know one of the real reasons? (Score:5, Interesting)
(I saw some sessions about this at JavaOne this year.)
How could Microsoft get behind something like that?
Re:HD DVD sounds better to me (Score:4, Interesting)
You are exactly correct. Witness that we still have to choose between buying the widescreen and 'adjusted for your screen' version, whereas when I first started buying DVDs, they were frequently flipper disks with both screen formats.
Witness that DTS and Dolby Digital used to be two separate disks (and still are in some cases).
I seem to remember the absurdity of Jurassic park broke down to the following modifiers:
In all, I believe the origianl release of Jurassic park was available in six different combinations.
Hollywood would rather sell them to you over and over.
They will both fail. (Score:4, Interesting)
What reason does the average consumer have to upgrade?
Just ponder that one for a minute. What do EITHER of the formats actually offer?
1 - increased storage space. OK, we'll now have the ability to watch the expanded Return of the King, all 4 1/2 hours of it, without once getting up out of our seat to change discs. Since standing up every 3 hours is such an inconvenience. (not to mention the tiny number of movies which can't fit onto a current DVD)
And 2 - Full support for high-def televisions. Except that despite years on the market, penetration is TINY and still only the top couple percent of people own them.
And that's pretty much IT. (We won't even discuss "draconian DRM" or such things) Now, look at all the advantages of DVD over VHS that convinced the public to convert.
See my point? The *ONLY* way that the public will switch over to a new DVD format is if the studios force them to. (by dropping support for old DVD entirely) But since the studios won't agree on a format, even THAT won't work. Like hell the public will buy TWO new players just to be able to play all the new releases they want.
These new technologies, BOTH of them, are set to fail spectacularly. They'll end up just being proprietary formats for the various video game consoles. But unless everyone starts cooperating in a BIG way there's no chance whatsoever of them supplanting DVD as the home movie format of choice.
Re:HD DVD sounds better to me (Score:5, Interesting)
Yes, there were a couple reasons early DVDs were mostly flipper discs, and most of them came with both versions.
Early on the industry had not perfected the dual-layer concept, so the dual-sided, single-layer disc was common. But the industry was smart - they knew that discs that required flipping in the middle of the movie would not only piss people off, but would remind people of Laserdisc.
So, with the exception of longer movies like Goodfellas, most double-sided, single-layer early discs cut the video bitrate a little and packed a whole movie onto each side. This also gave the industry the perfect "extra" feature to sell the new DVD format: widescreen and standard on the same disc.
Witness that DTS and Dolby Digital used to be two separate disks (and still are in some cases).
I didn't like those early dual-sided discs. Some movies that hit the 2-hour mark look like shit because the video bitrate is down in the 4Mbit range. It was a compromise.
Nowadays, the number of different versions available reflect the truth about DVD:
DVD was sold to the public on the concept that it could hold EVERYTHING, including multiple 9Mbit versions of the movie, Dolby Digital, DTS, extras, you name it. But the capacity to do this was truely only available in DVD18, which was expensive to make, and still required that annoying flipping by the user.
The fact is, DVD is most consumer-friendly in the single-sided, dual-layer package (and it's also convenient that single-sided, dual-layer discs are cheaper to make these days). Thus, you have 9GB to work with, which means ONE high-bitrate version of the movie with Dolby Digital in english and spanish, and maybe DTS or a few behind the scenes extras.
I mean, SURE studios invent reasons for re-releases, but the compartmentalization of features is mostly due to the limitations of DVD. Most people don't realize this, but if you crank up the DVD bitrate to maximum, you'll eat up almost an entire layer in an hour. We need more space...and hence, the new format.
This time around, the hybrid disc looks like a winner, because you don't have to cut any corners: dual layer DVD on one side, dual-layer HD-DVD on the other. Unfortunately, the movie industry will capitalize on this killer combination, and will probably charge 20-50% more for these new features (much like a special-edition DVD today).
My hope is that BD-ROM will be out around the same time period. It may cause confusion, but the format war has to be fought sooner-or-later. With two formats on the field, artificial upcharges will disappear.
Dell and HP answer back (Score:4, Interesting)
http://www.channelregister.co.uk/2005/09/30/dell_
By Tony Smith 30 Sep 2005 14:04
Dell, HP slam Intel, MS' 'erroneous' HD DVD claims
Our format's better. Isn't. Is. Isn't. Is. Isn't. Is...
Backers of the Blu-ray Disc (BD) have hit back against "erroneous" claims from Intel and Microsoft that HD DVD is the superior next-generation optical disc format for PCs.
The joint Intel/Microsoft statement was said to be "not aligned" with the "vast majority" of computer industry participants, Blu-ray Disc Association (BDA) members Dell and HP said.
"Microsoft and Intel's announcement erroneously indicates that HD-DVD has an advantage in a number of areas," they claimed, pointing to the chip and software giants' statement that HD DVD offers a greater storage capacity than BD.
As The Register noted at the time, Intel and MS' claim that HD DVD's 30GB capacity is better than BD's 25GB is nonsense: the two companies conveniently ignored the fact they were talking about dual-layer HD DVD discs and single-layer BDs.
Dell and HP also challenged MS and Intel on their claim that HD DVD is the only format to allow users to make controlled copies of the content stored on the disc: that's part of the AACS copy-protection system, the BDA said, and AACS is also part of the BD spec.
BD also provides scope for hybrid discs, backward compatibility with DVD, the ability to operate in slimline drives for notebook PCs and a high degree of interactivity, all features MS and Intel claimed were only available with HD DVD, the PC vendors said.
"Dell has no doubt that BD best meets the needs of computer users and provides the type of open industry standards needed to drive innovation and growth of the format across all platforms - consumer electronic, personal computers and gaming consoles," the company's CTO, Kevin Kettler said.
"From a PC end-user perspective, Blu-ray is a superior format. It offers 67-150 per cent more storage capacity, higher transfer rates, slimline notebook compatibility, broadband connectivity and a proven interactive layer with BD-Java," added Maureen Weber, general manager of HP's Personal Storage Business. ®
Re:Microsoft follows the money /PS3 problems as we (Score:3, Interesting)
HD-DVD will allow this. People can rip the HD-DVD to hard drive, but the rip will still be DRM encoded. So to stream it to another device for playback, the playback device mfg will have to license the DRM technology from Microsoft.
The problem with Blu-Ray, from Microsoft's perspective, is that it does not rely entirely on Microsoft's DRM. It allows the movie studio to decide if they will allow the disk to be ripped to HD and streamed. With HD-DVD, all movies will be capable of being ripped. If a lot of movie studios decide to not let their movies be ripped, there will be less demand for Microsoft's MCE based computers, and less demand for Microsoft DRM licenses on playback devices. So Microsoft has backed the one format that guarantees that movies will be capable of being ripped.
Re:Given the history of Sony's formats (Score:1, Interesting)
The way you write it is the other way around. Or am i wrong?