“Intel Corp. and Microsoft Corp., the leading suppliers of chips and software for most of the world’s personal computers, are throwing their support behind the next-generation DVD standard known as HD DVD,” Matthew Fordahl reports for The Associated Press. “After taking a neutral stance for months in the battle between the competing HD DVD and Blu-ray Disc formats, the companies said Tuesday they have joined the HD DVD Promotion Group that includes Toshiba Corp., Universal Studios and others.”
“The move means upcoming PCs running Microsoft’s upcoming Windows Vista operating system or Intel’s Viiv entertainment technology will come with support for HD DVD drives,” Fordahl reports. “‘We want to make sure that whatever is put out on the market is going to be as consumer friendly as possible from the price and usability point of view,’ said Blair Westlake, vice president of Microsoft’s Media/Entertainment and Technology Convergence Group.”
Fordahl explains, “Blu-ray technology can be licensed by any company anywhere in the world. Supporters of Blu-ray have claimed they have a more sophisticated technology with a greater storage capacity. HD DVD companies have pointed to the fact that their offering will be available sooner and at less cost — an argument disputed by the Blu-ray group.”
MacDailyNews Take: What a shocker! Well, maybe not so much. Imagine, Apple and Sony on the side of the better technology while Microsoft chooses to go with the cheap, second-rate “solution.” How typical is that?
The bottom line? Xbox 360 (HD DVD) vs. PlayStation 3 (Blu-ray).
[Notes: Blu-ray Disc supports the highest quality HD video available in the industry (up to 1920 x 1080 at 40 Mbit/sec). Blu-ray capacity: 50GB vs. 30GB for HD DVD disks.]
Companies supporting Blu-ray: http://www.blu-raydisc.com/Section-13469/Index.html
Companies supporting HD DVD: http://www.hddvdprg.com/about/member.html
Related MacDailyNews articles:
Twentieth Century Fox joins Apple, Dell, HP, others to support Blu-ray Disc format – July 29, 2005
Poll shows Apple-backed Blu-ray preferred by consumers over HD DVD for next-gen DVD standard – July 14, 2005
Microsoft allies with Toshiba on HD-DVD vs. Blu-ray Disc backers Apple and Sony – June 27, 2005
Apple joins Blu-ray Disc Association Board of Directors – March 10, 2005
I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it again. The winner of this format war will be decided based on xbox360 vs ps3 (as was also stated in the mdn take). If xbox beats playstation this time around, the installed base of hd-dvd players will be greater. If ps maintains its dominance, the blu-ray installed base will be greater.
Not enough people are going to rush out to buy new players right away to decide the outcome of this format war. People WILL rush out to buy the latest game console, though. Once they have the players, what movie format do you think they’ll purchase? Of course, they’ll buy the format that they player they have at home will already play.
One other wrinkle to all this, though, is microsoft is only including DVD with the first round of xbox360 (unless this has changed since the last time I heard). They plan on adding HD-DVD at a later date (xbox360II? xbox720???). That means initially, xbox games will only be dvd, therefore, will hold much less gameplay. PS3s will have blu-ray right away and their games should therefore be that much more dynamic (HD, more detail, more info, more extras) as long as they’re good games to start with. Basically, unless MS changes and has HD-DVD right away, Sony wins, and therefore, so does Blu-Ray.
since when did choosing a cost effective solution become a bad a thing? oh wait, i forgot. mac zealots are used to paying for overpriced hardware.
Don’t forget:
USB2 vs Firewire
And Apple is helping FireWire lose.
little man: that is perhaps the worst analysis of the two next gen consoles i’ve ever seen. microsoft chose dvd over hd-dvd because right now, it’s cheaper. (insert mac addict comments about microsfot always choosing cheaper technology, blah blah blah). by going with HDDVD, there is no way microsoft could have charged 299/399 and still had a prayer of making any profit in the long run. the reason why not having HD-DVD is NOT a big deal right now is because 99% of games right now on the current generation don’t even fill up a SINGLE LAYER DVD. With dual layer, Microsoft has basically doubled the space availalbe to developers. i haven’t heard a single developer for xbox360 complain about the lack of space on the disc yet. in fact, most are pretty happy with the overall package and the ease of development (especially the 512MB of ram).
now i’m not saying that the xbox360 is a superior system; there’s not nearly information out there about the ps3 other than that it’s going to be expensive as hell. consumers are NOT going to choose a console based on the optical drive. they are going to choose based primarily on software, and if there is a secondary factor, it will be price. software sells, not hardware.
np,
Thanks for the clarification on the USE of the space availible on the disks. Was not aware the game companies weren’t already taking advantage.
As far as consumers not chosing a game console based on the drive, well yeah. I guess what I was saying (albeit unclearly) is that I think PS will continue to dominate this round of consoles. You said yourself it’s about the software. That means that current PS2 owners will opt to continue on in that line when the PS3 comes out. This is where the format war is won. If there are more PS3s out there, there are more blu-ray players out there as well. Therefore, Blu-Ray discs will sell/rent better than HD-DVD. The number of PS3 owners will far outnumber the early adopters buying standalone players for some time.
Quoting the article posted on arstechnica is just plain bullsh*t and is intentionally misleading!
The article clearly states it does NOT represent the opinion of the ars staff and is written by a person openly promoting the HD DVD format. The numbers the person quotes for costs are disputed by the BD group. Additionally, $1-3 million per plant is not much these days. It sounds like a lot to you and me (and is to me) but manufacturing facilities cost $1 million or more just for the bare bones building these days. Besides, compare this to the multi-billion dollar costs of chip fab lines. Manufacturers won’t be scared away by such small cost differences which can be recouped by adding a few cents to each disk.
Quoting this article is meerly an attempt by the posters here to get people to think, “Ars is usually thorough, and I don’t have time to read that article. This HD DVD group must really have something.” When in point of fact the article, for all practicle purposes, just someone else’s opinion just being hosted on the Ars site.
The Ars staff seems to support BD more than HD DVD. Ars may just be hosting this article to give people access to other opinions than their own.
In another light people are claiming that the 30 GB is more than enough for right now. Not so. The current, NON HDTV, version of “The Lord of the Rings – The Return of the King (Platinum Series Special Extended Edition) (2004)” comes on four 8.5 GB dual layer DVDs. That’s 34 GB of disk space used for this issue. My grade school math says that something that needs 34 GB TODAY will not fit on a 30 GB disk.
Also, remember, this 34 GB is not HDTV (720p, 1080i, 1080p). A HDTV version at 1080p would definitely take up more room that this. From these numbers (based upon what is shipping TODAY) HD DVD is certainly lacking.
Why should we support a format which does not have sufficient capacity today and most certainly will be too small in the future?
From Engadget:
http://www.engadget.com/entry/1234000747057581/
From everything I’ve read, HD-DVD is the “quick and easy” route, while Blu-Ray offers far better potential at far greater startup costs.
When hairbo says that HD-DVD will play in current players at lower resolution, I believe he’s referring to “dual-format” discs, which would have a standard DVD layer. I believe that’s possible with Blu-Ray as well, especially since the Blu-Ray layer needs to be much closer to the laser, making much more room underneath for one or even two standard DVD layers.
My money’s on both formats intially being a big fat flop. Remember, it hasn’t been all that long since DVDs really took off. What, five years maybe? I got my parents their first player for Christmas 2002. Consumer resistance to starting over again so soon, plus the format war, will keep all but the earliest of early adopters from taking the plunge.
So what most of you are saying is that half the storage capacity and lesser quality is BETTER for me as a consumer? And why? Because a Blue-Ray disk will cost me $3 instead of $2. Pleeeeese!
I don’t think this has anything to do with the merits of the technologies involved. It’s all about saving face and politics.
The only reason M$ chose HD-DVD is because Apple already chose Blu-ray. Had Apple chosen HD-DVD instead, M$ would have chosen Blu-ray. The iPod is seriously embarrassing M$ because they aren’t the ones monopolizing that market. They don’t want to be perceived as following Apple’s lead. That’s the true reason for M$’s choice, no matter how they try to rationalize it to the world.
As far as Intel is concerned, they may be an industry heavyweight, but their vote is essentially meaningless. They will produce chips for either technology, so long as there is profit to be made. Their endorsement, therefore, is largely symbolic. The fact that they made a joint statement with M$ suggests that something’s afoot between the two. And i’ll bet it has everything to do with politics. Intel probably pissed-off M$ by embracing Apple, and this is a chance for Intel to sooth the wrath of the Beast of Redmond. In the end, Intel’s HD-DVD “endorsement” doesn’t mean anything.
Have you ever asked yourself who will decide which format wins? It’s not like there’s a deciding authority out there which will decide, nor tally the votes. If all the studios were to line up on one side, that would probably decide the issue… unless, of course, all the computer makers lined up on the other side. Lacking a clear consensus, it goes to a vote of the consumer, as it did years ago with BetaMax and VHS.
If it goes to Blu-ray, it means Apple has already won the media-center war. M$’s pride may be its undoing. Supporting Blu-ray would have been a safe bet for the already beleaguered M$. They may have sparked a format war, one which they have to win, and joined the side which is farther behind and has less momentum at this point.
Just my 2¢. YMMV.
I can unserstand MS support for HDDVD, but Intel makes no sense. What’s in it for a chip maker? DRM? That’s already built into both format technologies and neither MS or Intel DRM schemes are necessary.
I’m amazed from a tech POV, at so much of the anti-Blu ray sentiment expressed here for a clearly superior (tech specs-wise) format. Although not by that expressed by members of the Ars tech drivel quoting, anti-Apple, MS lemmings crowd. I think part of this antipathy is due the antagonism some have for Sony (and consequently anything Sony is involved in) and the rest is just the Walmart (cheaper is better) mentality that’s running rampant in American society today.
Backwards compatibility is a non-issue from either the hardward or software perspective.
As for hardware, players for both formats will require additional hardware (beyond what is necessary for the HD format) to play existing DVDs. BTW, since both sides are claiming this feature will exist in their players this will, in fact, make all hi-def players “dual-format” players. Players designed to play both hi-def formats and DVDs will actually be “tri-format” players.
As for software, both formats will require a separate “DVD layer” to function in an existing DVD player. HDDVDs will not play in existing players without it. Although why anyone would want to buy HDDVD (or Blu ray) discs just to play them in a DVD player is beyond me. Kind of like buying CDs and re-recording them to casettes because you only wanted to listen to them on a tape player. Not that there’s anything wrong with that. Whatever floats your boat, I guess.
As for the manufacturing costs associated with retooling for a new format, that’s just a part of doing business in a technologicly evolving world. Did anybody claim DVD wouldn’t succeed because it would require completely different manufacturing processes than the existing method of mass producing video on tapes? (As an aside, I don’t know for a fact, but in all probability, some clueless studio suit probably did. IMHO)
In fact, in light of the maufacturing processes involved, it could be said that HDDVD is simply a temporary (and really unnecessary) stop-gap format on the way to the completely new and superior Blu ray format.
MS and Intel’s jumping on the HDDVD bandwagon may seem to spell trouble for Blu ray, but I’m convinced content will be king. However, neither of them brings anything to the table except muscle (sort of, as neither is necessary to the succes of either format). Consumers aren’t going to be buying into hi-def (regardless of format) because MS or Intel is or isn’t involved. They’ll be buying it for content that they want. Consequently, IMHO, the studios will determine the winner and at this time, Blu ray has the majority of studios.
Of course, at this stage it’s all just anyone’s opinion. Only history will tell who actually wins. It will be rather interesting, as well as frustrating, to see how it unfolds.
Shadowself says:
“Quoting the article posted on arstechnica is just plain bullsh*t and is intentionally misleading! The article clearly states it does NOT represent the opinion of the ars staff and is written by a person openly promoting the HD DVD format.”
So then how is it “intentionally misleading” if the article clearly states – as you yourself admit – at the beginning that this isn’t necessarily the opinion of the Ars staff?? This is so logically inconsistent that it sounds like you’re letting your own bias get the best of you. Furthmore, the author of the piece identifies himself as someone who was the key guy in bringing both the CD and DVD formats to light, and offers his own opinion based on what his experience brings to understanding not only the technologies, but the manufacturing issues involved. I’d say, since he’s probably forgotten more about the subject than you will ever know, he’s a voice worth listening to.
“The numbers the person quotes for costs are disputed by the BD group. Additionally, $1-3 million per plant is not much these days. It sounds like a lot to you and me (and is to me) but manufacturing facilities cost $1 million or more just for the bare bones building these days. Besides, compare this to the multi-billion dollar costs of chip fab lines. Manufacturers won’t be scared away by such small cost differences which can be recouped by adding a few cents to each disk.”
First, “The person” isn’t quoting numbers from the pro HD-DVD group – he’s telling us what he knows from having to actually build these manufacturing lines himself. Second, so the BluRay groups diputes his figures … wow, you don’t say? And just what the hell else do you expect the BluRay group to do? Since their own numbers are clearly coming from a biased source, and the author is about as unbiased as commentator as your going to find in this debate, again I feel more than secure in listening to what he has to say, and giving it some weight.
Second, now it is you who are misrepresenting things. The author is saying that investment in BluRay manufacturing vs HD-DVD is a function of billions versus millions of dollars. That’s a lot of pennies to make up per BluRay disk, especially if they don’t wind up selling as well as hoped. As for Chip fab lines; they usually cost in the hundreds of millions, not billions, but regardless of the numbers theirs is a gauranteed return on the investment. Who is not going to need CPUs and memory chips these days? What computer manufacturer is not clamoring for faster, more efficient chips? The DVD optical disk format, on the other hand, isn’t being utilized to their full capacity today. Even Super Audio CDs and Audio DVDs are selling flat, simply because people are finding what they offer (more capacity, better quality, or both) less than compelling. Sometimes ‘good enough’ really is! So there’s no ‘sure thing’ here regarding market acceptance of BluRay OR HD-DVD, and for that reason the more flexible and manufacturing efficient of the formats should be favored.
“Quoting this article is meerly an attempt by the posters here to get people to think, “Ars is usually thorough, and I don’t have time to read that article. This HD DVD group must really have something.” When in point of fact the article, for all practicle purposes, just someone else’s opinion just being hosted on the Ars site.”
And posting the article – which is what I did – is “meerly” an attempt to get people to read it for themselves. I never quoted anybody. And for the record, you’re right that Ars is thorough – one of the best sites out there for news and analysis on Macs, PCs, Gaming, … just about any technology-related issues you cab think of. So, if even THEY saw the worth of putting this article out there, despite their own editorial position, then (and I’m beginning to feel like a broken record here) I will give it the reading that it deserves.
continued …
” width=”19″ height=”19″ alt=”excaim” style=”border:0;” />
Shadowself says:
“The Ars staff seems to support BD more than HD DVD. Ars may just be hosting this article to give people access to other opinions than their own.”
Man, my inner 2 year old is really struggling to get out on this one … I mean, I really want to take the high road, but what’s left to say about such an obvious statement, but “duh”?
“… people are claiming that the 30 GB is more than enough for right now. Not so. The current, NON HDTV, version of “The Lord of the Rings – The Return of the King (Platinum Series Special Extended Edition) (2004)” comes on four 8.5 GB dual layer DVDs. That’s 34 GB of disk space used for this issue. My grade school math says that something that needs 34 GB TODAY will not fit on a 30 GB disk. Also, remember, this 34 GB is not HDTV (720p, 1080i, 1080p). A HDTV version at 1080p would definitely take up more room that this. From these numbers (based upon what is shipping TODAY) HD DVD is certainly lacking. Why should we support a format which does not have sufficient capacity today and most certainly will be too small in the future?”
Regarding your LotR example: In both the case of BluRay and HD-DVD, your going to wind up with the same number of disks – 2 – in order to hold all the non-HD material found on the 8 regular DVD disks currently offered. Since BluRay disks are going to be more expensive to manufacture, and since those costs are certain to be passed on to us, then the cheaper High Def solution seems better to me.
Once High def becomes completely ubiquitous, your argument about total capacity might hold more weight, but that’s barring any advances in capacity in HD-DVD. As a point of reference, early DVDs held only about 2Gigs of data. Basic DVDs today have doubled that, and dual layer versions have doubled it again. Thus, to look at BluRay and HD-DVD in their present capacities as definitive forever is foolish. It is likely that BluRay will hold an advantage, and you mention “sufficient capacity” as the criterion we should be looking at, but what’s sufficient for one person might be over-kill for another, especially if the cost differential of the two formats is taken into account. It already takes me 2-3 days to sit through all the special features in a 2 disk DVD movie now – Christ, how many more sick days do I need to call in to watch it all?
This author has the background to know what’s-what in all of this. That’s why Ars gave him a forum. You and the editors of MDN may not like what he has to say, but if these are the best arguments you have to refute him then I feel even more certain that he’s probably right.
” width=”19″ height=”19″ alt=”cool grin” style=”border:0;” />
Correction to above:
I should have said “In both the case of what BluRay and HD-DVD offer today, your going to wind up with the same number of disks – 2 – in order to hold all the non-HD material found on the 8 regular DVD disks currently offered.”
Sorry for the typo.
To leodavinci:
HD-DVD and BluRay will have their own DRM schemes (so we’ll be dealing with schemes upon schemes upon schemes pretty soon), so it may be that the HD-DVD version is more compatible with what Intel wants to do with DRM, and that’s why they chose it. They also may simply be looking at the start-up numbers – those are definitively in favor of HD-DVD.
As for my anti-BluRay sentiment, I assure you it has nothing to do with my hating Sony, or Apple, or loving MS – I own almost all Sony branded AV equippment, most of my computers are Apples, and I have a loathing for MS that goes back to the late 90s. This is all about the numbers for me, and what the ‘promise’ of High Def content will require technologically vs. what each format can deliver, and by both criterion it seems HD-DVD is the better technology to go with. BlueRay is not that different from HD-DVD in terms of capacity, but it is VERY different in terms of what the market must do to accomodate it. The fact that you can make those HD-DVD disks on the same lines as DVDs, thus allowing for the market to transition at it’s own pace (as opposed to an imposed one) is big selling point … at least for a ‘free-marketeer’ like myself. Going with BluRay, just for these companies to recoup their investments in it, would almost necessitate the elimination of DVD (they’ll need the sales numbers that DVD stragglers will be siphoning away). Since that’s a forced transition to a higher costing alternative, it should be a red-flag for all of us.
I do agree that this whole thing is just a stopgap before the next big thing, but trust me – the next big thing is NOT BluRay. It’s flash memory and super high capacity hard drives. Which is one more reason that, if we absolutely MUST go down this optical disk improvement road, I favor taking the least costly and disruptive route possible.
And that is HD-DVD.
Odyssey67, you posted the link. Others just copied from the article. I still believe many readers will just think about the Ars article rather than following the link you provided. The other people who just copied parts of the article are even worse.
Odessy67…
So the $1-3 million is from the person’s personal experience. Well, my personal experience having set up manufacturing lines for high tech production (spacecraft in my case) says that an additional bump of $1-3 million over the cost of the facility in total is a small fraction of the total costs. Also this is most likely for the first few facilities/lines. The costs will most definitely come down.
You go on to state, “Since their [BD faction’s] own numbers are clearly coming from a biased source, and the author [of the referenced article hosted on Ars] is about as unbiased as commentator as your going to find in this debate, again I feel more than secure in listening to what he has to say, and giving it some weight.”, but Ars’ Nota Bene clearly states, “Today we offer an op-ed from a member of the HD DVD camp…” Seems to me the author is just about as biased as anyone else. Sorry to burst your delusion.
Goin on you state, “Regarding your LotR example: In both the case of BluRay and HD-DVD, your going to wind up with the same number of disks – 2 – in order to hold all the non-HD material found on the 8 regular DVD disks currently offered.” First off, it’s on 4 (FOUR) DVDs today (as I stated in my original post). That’s 34 GB. That 34 GB would fit on 1 (ONE) Blu-ray Disk. It would require 2 (TWO) HD-DVD disks.
And yet further you state, “Once High def becomes completely ubiquitous, your argument about total capacity might hold more weight, but that’s barring any advances in capacity in HD-DVD. As a point of reference, early DVDs held only about 2Gigs of data. Basic DVDs today have doubled that, and dual layer versions have doubled it again.” The initial, published DVD plan was with 4.7 GB on a single sided, single layer; 8.5 GB on a single sided, double layer (8.5 is not double 4.7); 9.4 GB on two sided, single layer (which is double 4.7 but requires the user to manually turn the disk over); and 17 GB on two sided double layer. There were even proposed players which would allow the playing of both sides without user interaction though I know of none that shipped as a commercial product. I know of no commercial products for DVD that were 2 GB. (There may have been one for DVD-RAM, but I never followed that format.)
Additionally, Blu-ray Disk has plans for 100 GB and 200 GB disks in their roadmap and has published preliminary specifications to these effects. Will they materialize in shipping products? No one knows. However, I have yet to hear of any capacity growth planned for the HD DVD group other than some flippant statement along the lines of “We can grow our capacity too.”
If Apple had supported HD-DVD, Microsoft would have gone for Blu-ray. So what’s new?
>Microsoft backs cheaper, less sophisticated>
Cheaper–read-crap,
Less sophisticated–read-a bit thick.
Odyssey67,
Got any links to non-biased criteria that HDDVD is the better technology? Not trying be contentious here, just want objective information, as everything I’ve read, online or off, indicates otherwise.
Personally, as a “free-marketeer” myself, I’d rather see a format war. As I see it, this will force both camps to adapt, better and lower the consumer cost on their products much quicker than either would do if there were only one format. Eventually the market place will determine the winner (but not necessarily the best product) and consumers will have a better, less expensive product than otherwise.
Unless something better comes along before then.
HD DVD vs Blu-Ray is technicial mumbo jumbo that I don’t understand.
But I do understand marketing and HD DVD will win. Why? Just because of its name. HD DVD means something! Blu-Ray will loose because of its name. When I first heard of Blu-Ray I thought of Ray Charles, whom I loved dearly, but would never thake his recommendation on a video. Music yes, but video no way.
“Ward don’t you think you were a little hard on the Beaver last night.” – my favorite line from “Leave It To Beaver.” Now, that was one sick TV show. I want the entire run on HD DVD.
I can certainly see that if HD-DVD wins out over Blue-Ray, for all the reasons posted above already and to compare VHS vs Beta in that famous format battle we all should know what happened as so far no one has mentioned this.
What happened was Beta did not die completely and to some it may come as a surprise as Beta became Betacam, then SP, SX and Digiatal Betacam to include a raw HDCAM used as a means to capture your news and many other TV shows. Sony still makes a lot of money with the Beta format.
So my point is Blue Ray being a better quality format would become used by broadcast organisations instead and HD DVD for consumers.
Sin City by Robert Rodriguez was made on Sony’s HDCAM and is cheaper than Panaflex 35mm film as no processing is involved as well as shorter edit time that being digital, etc.
Just to correct a typo:
*Digital Betacam
TY
I forgot to mention that I am sure I saw a report by Apple somewhere stating that the company was in fact in both camps, HD-DVD and Blue-Ray so whichever way the format war goes Apple will be ready.
My advice is not to buy a new burner/superdrive unless your current one breaks down. Once new hardware for one gets released wait for the other and wait a bit longer still before buying.
For me this’ll be one early adopter tax I don’t want to end up paying, meaning that I’ll end up buying new hardware again just because the world went the other way. Not to be confused with the world went Windows and I went Macintosh, I was always a Mac user stuck on Windows because Mac was too expensive, $7,000 for an Apple II, no thanks.
My parents did same with VHS vs Beta, waited to see which way the market went and let the dust settle as well before buying our first video player a Ferguson VideoStar VHS player, it wasn’t as big and bulky as many others, had the front loading flap for tapes and recorded TV shows without the need to swap tapes part way through shows or live events as Beta had shorter recording time 60 mins maximum vs upto 180 per VHS tape. Long play didn’t come until a lot later.
“But I do understand marketing and HD DVD will win. Why? Just because of its name. HD DVD means something!”
Well then, tell me, just what does HD DVD mean?
I’ll tell you. HD DVD is marketing hype. It’s named that to take advantage of consumer ignorance.
I understand marketing, also (it’s my line of work) and I’ll tell you flat out that the John Doe average early HD DVD buyer going to be very disappointed when he tries to play one on his old standard def DVD player, only to find that it doesn’t look any better on his TV than his older and cheaper regular DVDs.
Shadowself:
“So the $1-3 million is from the person’s personal experience. Well, my personal experience having set up manufacturing lines for high tech production (spacecraft in my case) says that an additional bump of $1-3 million over the cost of the facility in total is a small fraction of the total costs. Also this is most likely for the first few facilities/lines. The costs will most definitely come down.”
The overall costs as I read them are as follows – upgrading an existing DVD line to HD-DVD is about $150,000. Less than one tenth (!!) the cost of a BluRay line, which clocks in at an estimated $1.7 million. Further, each manufacturing facility would require two (at least, depending on the size of the facility) mastering systems; the cost being $2 million or more per system. From what I can tell, HD-DVD will need no additoonal mastering systems beyond what the DVD facilities already have. There are about 600 manufacturing lines across the world that would need to be re-done in order to meet the current DVD disk capacity; that’s $1.02billion right there. I don’t know how those lines divide amongst the number of facilities, but lets just say there are 60 to 100 facilities (6-10 lines per, which sounds high but at least it’s a round number), that would be another $100-200million alone. Those numbers are no “bump”, regardless the business in question. That vs $90million for HD-DVD – less than the cost of the mastering systems for BluRay.
So, for well over 100% more money, you bring a product with, maybe 25% more capacity to a market where the customers – in most cases – aren’t even using all the capacity they have in the old DVD standard yet. That just seems fundamentally inane to me, but all too familiar. These companies do stuff like this all the time, because they’re convinced that once the ‘standard’ is introduced, they can shove it down everyone’s throat and charge whatever they wish in the process. It’s like their Holy Grail, and they just can’t stop grabbing for it. Remember Intel with Rambus? Sony with memory stick or mini disk? MS with just about any technology they could get their hands on? And the market suffers the consequences via total lack of interoperability among technologies that all do essentially the same damn thing.
As for the author being a biased source too: Ars introduced him as being part of the “HD-DVD camp” only because he believes it to be the more logical choice. He’s not working for the HD-DVD guys – I think he’s retired. He’s in their ‘camp’ because he believes, based on his experience with setting up the CD and DVD manufacturing infrastructures, that they happen to be backing the more fiscally responsible technology.
DVD capacities: I recall a 2Gb spec, but as for the rest you are exactly right. I wasn’t trying to write an exposition on it, just to point out that there’s almost certainly room for growth in HD-DVD, as I’m sure there is for BluRay, as there was for DVD. My main point is once you get past 30 Gigs, what exactly is there that requires the ‘above and beyond’? Personally, the movie itself is all that needs to be HD – maybe one or two ‘xtras’ could benefit, but really all the rest of the interviews and stuff is just fine on standard definition compression. Don’t you think?
Lastly: “Blu-ray Disk has plans for 100 GB and 200 GB disks in their roadmap and has published preliminary specifications to these effects. Will they materialize in shipping products? No one knows. However, I have yet to hear of any capacity growth planned for the HD DVD group other than some flippant statement along the lines of ‘We can grow our capacity too’.”
The author makes the point that of the 2 standards, only HD-DVD has actually produced a higher capacity disk. I was as surprised about that as anyone, but I’ve done a little scouring and indeed did not find anything to refute it. I guess my position on that is, BluRay will surely get something out there, and it probably will be higher capacity, but then HD-DVD will bump up their disks, and so on … Again, after 30 or 60 Gigs, it starts to get somewhat ridiculous for anything other than computer backups, and usually portable hard drives are the preferred method there for anyone but the most cost conscious (it’s much faster and more reliable). And roadmaps … like opinions, everybody’s got one. Some are more reliable than others, but I use them as a guide, not as gospel.