Audioholics Blu-ray sour grapes

[bluflu]

LOL! Check out mistake #7.

http://www.audioholics.com/news/edit...e=000220090728

7. HD-DVD, the Betamax of Our Generation

What's left to say... except that the MPAA and associated studios are responsible for one of the most money-driven decisions in the consumer electronics industry since VHS beat Betamax. In the Blu-ray vs. HD DVD war, there was an early winner - and it wasn't Blu-ray. With a completed spec (including Internet-downloadable content), no region encoding, and the choice to not implement the restrictive BD+ and ROM-Mark copy protection, HD DVD quickly became the apparent "completed" format. Blu-ray, however, offering much more copy protection and region-encoding, better catered to the bloated, old-school, restrictive, tactics that were desired by the studios. Over time, money flowed... then it flowed more... then the Blu-ray marketing machine unleashed a veritable tidal wave of marketing and obliterated the competition.

Now this may sound like sour grapes, but considering the following facts:

* HD DVD was the first player to market by 3 months
* HD DVD was a completed spec and had Internet connectivity out of the gate, almost 2 years before Blu-ray released BD-Live (Profile 2.0) players with Internet features.
* HD DVD came to market at just $499. The Samsung BD-P1000 hit the market at $999.
* HD DVD discs cost less to manufacture and used existing disc presses, slightly adapted; disc manufacturers could switch their plants almost overnight to manufacture HD DVDs.
* HD DVD was region-free

... it's pretty clear that Blu-ray won simply by buying and promising its way to the top. This was done through studio deals, full-out marketing at the retail store level and through claims made with the PS3 which bumped up sales figures even though most PS3 users at the time had no intention of using the gaming box to play Blu-ray movies.

OK, this does sound like sour grapes, but the bottom line is that the HD DVD vs. Blu-ray debacle was an interesting study showing us that the best format (or in this case the better format that got to the finish line first) doesn't necessarily win. Keep this in mind the next time you notice a format war brewing. Those of us that lived through the 80s remember VHS vs. Betamax and are acutely aware that Betamax tapes were smaller, better quality and sported advanced audio capabilities which far exceeded that of VHS (or "Alpha" as it was known to insiders) - which was rushed to market.

I think they're just upset that Blu-ray.com's own Dustin C. beat them in the subwoofer contest. See the list of contestants at the end of the video.

https://www.blu-ray.com/news/?id=3179

[Anthony P]

Originally Posted by bluflu

LOL! Check out mistake #7.

not just bitter but also extremely ignorant

[supersix4]

Guess they forgot to mention the charged within 3 dollars of blu-rays so they made a "cheaper" product and charged more. Guess that guy didn't think about his statement.

[bluflu]

"* HD DVD was the first player to market by 3 months."

Nevermind how to make it first to market, HD DVD had to circumvent Blu-ray which was first under development.

---

"* HD DVD was a completed spec and had Internet connectivity out of the gate, almost 2 years before Blu-ray released BD-Live (Profile 2.0) players with Internet features."

It helps that HD DVD really only had one hardware manufacturer (anything Toshiba did was the standard). Nevermind how pip or Internet (things people still don't use much) were somehow better than Blu-ray's higher capacity and higher bitrate 1080P standard. I did love it when the best selling Blu-ray player put a damper on HD DVD's main selling point with a firmware update. Plus I like my scratch resistant, no need to boil discs.

---

"* HD DVD came to market at just $499. The Samsung BD-P1000 hit the market at $999."

Now they know the difference between desperation and a bargain.

---

"* HD DVD discs cost less to manufacture and used existing disc presses, slightly adapted; disc manufacturers could switch their plants almost overnight to manufacture HD DVDs."

Like Supersix4 said, HD DVD discs cost about the same or even more to buy than most Blu-ray discs.

---

"* HD DVD was region-free."

It's not all bad. Region Codes allowed certain movies to be released on Blu-ray ahead HD DVD, "Shoot Em Up" and "Hairspray" for example. I'm sure there whould have been more to come hadn't HD DVD gone belly up.

---

"Over time, money flowed... then it flowed more..."

Somebody forgot to include HD DVD's $150 million dollar payoff.

---

"the choice to not implement the restrictive BD+ and ROM-Mark copy protection."

Sorry, but security can be a good thing as long as it works. It helps keep honest people honest.

---

"... it's pretty clear that Blu-ray won simply by buying and promising its way to the top. This was done through studio deals, full-out marketing at the retail store level and through claims made with the PS3 which bumped up sales figures even though most PS3 users at the time had no intention of using the gaming box to play Blu-ray movies."

Reads like typical unsubstantiated FUD. What about the increased 2:1 Blu-ray disc sales shortly after the PS3 was released, or people like me who knew about both formats from the beginning but chose to wait for the PS3 for its Blu-ray capabilities.