My overall point is, the 2 techs will argue themselves into oblivion anyway.

the technology is there to provide the same content via faster and more accessible methods, Internet, OnDemand services, itunes, etc...

they're too little too late.

no sense in preferring one over the other, they both will die before maturity.

also, the technology road is littered with failed but superior products.

But then they'll just argue another point.

You know who wins?

The person enjoying what they have.

The technology is there, yes, but it will be quite awhile before it becomes mainstream.

Broadband penetration is still under 60%, and even on a cable modem, and HD movie takes an hour or 2 to download. Not to mention storage. The new 360 has a 120 GB. That's good for 2 BDs. Great! What if I want to KEEP one of the movies I download?

Eventually, I think an all digital distribution will happen, but I don't think bandwidth and storage are inexpensive enough for that to happen for 7-10 years.

As to your last point, that is true, but the question wasn't why do I think BD will survive. It was why do I think BD is better.

I think BD will survive because its heavily outseling HD-dvd currently, despite HD-DVDs headstart. Prices (outside of sales and discounts) are quickly stabilizing.

for Sony to do the same thing...<ul><li><a href="http://www.engadget.com/2006/11/06/microsofts-xbox-live-video-hdtv-and-hd-movie-downloads-for-you/">cleek</a></li></ul>

The 60 GB HDD in the PS3 is good for maybe two movies.

The 120 GB HDD in the elite probably 4.

Personally, I like to own some movies as well as rent them.

They also take an hour or two to download. I know the technology exists. I don't think its good enough to become mainstream yet.

there are many legit and non-legit ways to get movies online today.

most people do not and will not need to own movies. this will only get 'worse' as time goes on, bandwidth availability expands, current college kids graduate, computers and codecs get faster.

like it or not, you and I are in the minority. the home movie library is going the same way of the home book library.

not because they don't want to physically own what they read.

encyclopedias anymore? because they can't get at the same info online faster and at reduced cost.

Mark this post, so you can LOL at your inaccuracies later in the future.

Cheers.

Um, burn it to your beloved BRD, oh wait, can you even do that yet? Soon I'm sure (since Apple's in your camp).

Regardless, with 1 Terabyte Hard Drives becoming more affordable, this will be identical to the days when a DVD-R cost $10/ea....what are they $10 for 100 now?

You touched base earlier on technology not reaching a halt (if I was "planning on dying soon") but you write as though the current state of digital dwnloads and storage is permanent?

Nice double standard to try and make a point, no¿

I can send a DVD in the mail. Try that with an external hard drive.

If I need to burn to BD, then the disc still is a viable technology didn't it?

BTW, BD burners, though expensive, have been around in Japan for years. Toshiba is just about to produce the first HD-DVD burner.

I never said that the current state of downloads and storage was permanent. But I don't expect it to be mainstream in 3 years, either.

And optical discs will still be useful even after that for portability.

Like I said, I see it being 7-10 years before movies hit the stage music is at now. MP3s started w/ college kids in 1997 (I was in college at the time).

I also think that optical discs will remain viable for storage and transport, and that there will still be people who want to own movies. I do, and I'm only 28. That's at least 50 years, hopefully.

P.S. The 4-5 GB is for 720p movies with Dolby, not 1080p with lossless audio

It'll probably happen before long, but people want things now. Things are happening now with HighRez DVD. Not super-fast, but BluRay is practically a household name.

"the technology road is littered with failed but superior products". What about the really successful ones?:
Compact Cassette - sent 8 track packing and lasted more than 20 years providing superior sound to 8 track (and even CD when played on most up-market Nakamichi tape decks to name a few).
DVD was a huge an almost instant success offering much better performance than VHS.
Digital Camcorders are a huge success and easily bettered VHS and S-VHS camcorders. Better than Hi8 too.
HDTVs are far better than their SD or analog counterparts.
HD boxes are the same way.

DVD-Audio and SACD failed because the record companies were greedy when they didn't have to be and the marketing was poor. SACD should have won out because there were too many poor DVD-Audio offerings and you generally need your TV on the get a DVD-Audio disc to play properly.

Laserdisc was too large and didn't offer enough features to 'wow' enough people. Many of the pressings were unremarkable too.

Minidisc and DCC failed, but they weren't superior, just trying to be convenient. CD-R was already out when MD and DCC hit the stores and neither held a candle to CD-R (although MD did improve considerably). The consumers wanted their CD player to record, not start their whole collection again with a different digital technology. And so CD-R won. Mostly in the PC overall, but it still counts.

Nothing wrong with prefering one over another. I prefer vinyl over CD. Many people younger than 25 haven't even heard of vinyl, but I can still buy records in large quantities (new and old) and there are more high-end turntables available now than any time ever.

People will gladly ditch buying regular DVDs over HiRez versions, particularly if their new HiRez player still plays regular DVDs. People like to own movies as well as borrow them.

no one tranports on optical discs anymore...it's a dinosaur

will be completely lost on the avg. consumer. they can't even tell their HD TV isn't displaying HD content, and you expect them to differentiate between 720p and 1080p?

Even broadband bandwidth is still limited so that transferring 10-20 GB of information takes a couple of hours. I can't always wait that long. Not to mention not everyone has an .ftp site available.

The general population is not nearly as wired as you think they are.

If they don't realize they're not viewing HD, my guess is that they're not going to know how to download a movie from the internet, either.

My Dad is already talking to me about going HD (I told him to wait out the format war). They'd have no idea how to do this stuff.

You work in a computer dominated industry, and it has skewed your sense of the general population.

Bluray no matter how much better you feel it is. Just my opinion, but we will see, and I don't really care what the outcome will be.

Microsoft is half-heartedly backing HD-DVD because it will hurt Sony. They didn't include it in the 360 and their executives have been quoted as saying they will do a BD add-on if the market calls for it.

Microsoft's preference is exactly what pierreb is talking about. They want everything to go to digital download. The longer they can prolong the format war and keep a disc format from establishing itself, the more likely it is that they can get a foothold for their service.

<ul><li><a href="http://comcast.p.delivery.net/m/p/com/mic/index.asp">http://comcast.p.delivery.net/m/p/com/mic/index.asp</a</li></ul>

your vision of this being a US-only market is flawed. broadband penetration in the rest of the world if far superior, and digital distribution is commonplace in many countries.

same motivation as Msoft. sell content via itunes. they couldn't care less about optical storage, it's no longer relevant.

I don't think a niche computer manufacturer or a software giant are going to be major factors in an optical disc war.

The US is the only market that is even a fight.

Yes, the young demographic is the most coveted by business, but you're a fool if you think they ignore the rest of the market.

Even the 18-34 demographic is not as tech savvy as you think it is. I'm right in the middle of that market, and I'm no expert, but I know far more about this stuff than 95% of my friends.

if you think broadband adoption requires people to be tech savvy.

clearly you have no comprehension of the markets involved.

being obtuse on purpose?

and you couldn't be more wrong about what you think in this particular sub-thread.

they're the content distributors of the now and of the future. at least their model is.

I responded to a post that said Microsoft would be the reason HD-DVD wins the format war.

I responded by saying I don't think that true, because Microsoft isn't fully supporting HD-DVD.

What does any of that have to do with Apple? I never brought up Apple, and don't consider Apple's "support" of BD to be a major factor in the war.

What is your problem with me?

Show me where I said broadband adoption required people to be tech savvy. What I said is that all digital distribution will require it, and that current bandwidth and storage capacities are not capable of competing with optical discs right now.

Once again, I agree with you that it will happen eventually, I just think it will take longer than you do. Certainly long enough that HD-DVD or BD will be a viable business.

We'll just have to wait and see how it unfolds, I guess. If you're right, I won't have to buy either player, will I?

skills whatsoever. just a cable box, or FIOS, or IPTV or, or...

most 18-34 get broadband when they get TV. with it comes de facto digital distribution.

is this not plain as day for you to see? do you deny that people with no tech savvy skills have access to HD content today, with their remote, without the slightest care in the world whether it's blu-ray, hd-dvd, 720p or 1080i?

why would they care who wins a market they no longer need to participate in? is there some content not available via comcast (for example) that people would want to see?

who cares what format pirates 3 is available in, when i can watch it through my cable box whenever I want? I'll be able to watch it 5-6 times before I approach the cost of a BD or HDDVD...

this is a difficult choice how?

magazines.
And if my in-laws (who drive a Buick and a Bonneville) have heard of it without my mentioning it to them, then I'd have to say it is practically a household name.
That doesn't mean most households have one, it just means the word is out. And it is.

The post I responded to had nothing to do with digital distribution. It said that Microsoft's support would win the format war for HD-DVD. That is the point I responded to in this sub-thread. Nothing more, nothing less.

I can log onto iTunes and download a song in 30 seconds, store it indefinitely on my iPod, and it's mine to keep, along with the other 15,000 songs I can fit on there.

I can rent an HD movie for 24 hours, have no place to store it, and if I decide I'm tired and I want to finish it the next night, I sure as hell better make sure I get back to my TV before that 24 hours is over, or I'm paying for it again and watching from the beginning.

HD movie downloads are not even close to the point where music was at even when Napster was going on. There is simply too much data for it to be comparable to music with current bandwidth and storage capacities. That WILL change going forward, but I think it's going to take a number of years. In the meantime, the HD-optical discs are the best viable option.

Still it doesn't matter. Sony are a bunch of arrogant pricks who are trying to take advantage of Toshiba's honesty about not hitting their sales targets. Ironically sony hasn't come close to where they expected to be, even though their touted PS3s have a bluray drive.

Like pierreb has pointed out numerous times, having a larger share of nothing = nothing

Sony has had the exact opposite effect, try to take other peoples advances,and have only come up with dumb ideas. I think you have seen all the cards that Sony is holding, but have only seen 1 out of the Toshiba/Microsoft camp. If Toshiba would have put pressure on the movie industry to release in DVD, and HD-DVD or royalites would be raised on DVD the world would have pitched a fit, but Sony is allowed to not release on HD-DVD to help it's cause, and you think that's fair?

Is Universal releasing in BD?

How is that any different than Sony Pictures not releasing in HD-DVD? Should Disney and Fox also be forced to use HD-DVD? No movie studio is bound to pick any one format. They were free to choose, and the majority picked BD.

Personally I don't think marketing had anything to do with the death of SACD/DVD-A in the mainstream marketplace. I firmly believe it was DOA upon release for two reasons:

1) The sonic improvement over CD was not obvious enough for the mainstream that cares very little about sound quality to begin with.

2) There was no improvement in terms of convenience over CD. And with DVD-A it was actually more inconvenient to use.

Witness the spread of low bit-rate MP3s. Anyone can hear the difference between 192kps MP3 and CD. It's not subtle. 192 MP3 sucks the life out of music. Sonic anomalies left and right. But hey, I can cram 15000 of them onto my Ipod so all is good right? Most of my friends with Ipods are ripping their own CDs at 192 MP3. They can't even be bothered with switching the iTunes menu to Apple lossless.

In terms of BR/HDDVD there is clearly no convenience improvement over DVD-V so the backers are banking on the higher resolution to sell units.

I'm not a videophile by any means. To me, the improvement over 480p from DVD-V on my Panny plasma is marginal at best. Sure I can see it. I just don't care about it. Not enough to go out and buy a new player that's for sure.

Much like SACD/DVD-A these two formats will most likely survive to service the videophile niche market. But compared to DVD-V the mainstream market impact will be much less.

Ive seen many a consumer in the Best Buy row looking at the BlueRay and HD-DVD's and not knowing anything other then "Oh, these are the high definition movies". Usually followed by, "will this work in my DVD player?"

The general consumer does not know and does not care, as long as its inexpensive and works great, thats what they care about.

What makes me LOL is the claims one is visually superior over the other.

If I had a gun to your head you wouldnt be able to tell me the HD DVD versus the BlueRay on screen and these same general consumers cant even distinguish a standard DVD on a nice TV, so its really will end up being a matter of cost.

I think its the general consumer that will inevitably dictate this, beyond all marketing hype, "experts" and magazine reviews.

You can shout HD or BlueRay till youre blue in the face. Until more people adopt the technology, its no more a household name then SACD or any other less known technology is and it will stay that way as the general consumer are sheep, and always will be.