Is the HD format war a good thing? IMDB poll says no ...

[Woochifer]

With the recent decision by Paramount (and its distribution of Dreamworks) to drop Blu-ray, the HD-DVD/Blu-ray format war is now virtually assured of stretching well into 2008, if not beyond. A lot of articles and discussion board posts have forwarded the notion that this format war is good for consumers in that competition between the two sides has pushed hardware prices down faster than would have otherwise occurred with a single format.

I'll agree that Toshiba has been forced to rapidly lower its hardware prices, while Blu-ray has had to push the price points down to $500 in response. Lower prices can be a good thing.

But, I would also argue that the HD format war has seriously impeded adoption by consumers, which hurts the long terms prospects for these HD formats to eventually supplant the DVD as the dominant home video format. With one unified format, you have the entire industry involved and a clear, focused marketing message to consumers. As it stands, there is widespread confusion and plenty of enthusiasts sitting on the fence, because they would rather wait until the market settles down before committing to either format.

Today, IMDB posted a poll asking what people thought of Paramount/Dreamworks' decision to go HD-DVD only. With over 16k votes tallied, a full 63% indicated "I have neither system and this makes (me) want to enter HD media even less. I'll stick with DVD for the time being." If putting a damper on the HD disc market was the intention of this move, then it appears to have succeeded.

http://www.imdb.com/poll/results/2007-08-25

Any which way you look, I just don't see this HD format war benefiting consumers in the long run. In the short term, it might have accelerated price declines on HD-DVD and Blu-ray players. But, I think in the long run, it will impede growth, which increases the chances of both formats failing in the market. And if the end result is a dual format compromise, this creates higher prices for consumers because of the need for dual format players, hybrid disc media, and/or added costs due to retailers having to maintain multiple inventories.

[PeruvianSkies]

Agreed.

[pixelthis]

That might be the case except for one thing...
Most don't even know what blu-ray, HDDVD is!
I have seen the lackadasial response from the great unwashed in the stores, most think
these are some kind of new dvd.
But to most, even the few who know just what is going on its kinda like the Falklands
war... two bald men fighting over a comb.
in other words...

Dont forget one poster on this site not too long ago was talking about getting an ED plasma because he really couldn't really tell the difference between 480p and 1080i.
A lot like hdtv, but you'd be surprised how many think that hdtv is just a sort of DVD you
get over the cable or airwaves
This isn't a monumental fight over the future, because neither one is the future.
Sony and Toshiba are fighting the last war, where the winner had the format of choice
for millions, VHS.
This isn't that war, for most dvd is just fine, if there is a "winner" they wont be able to charge much more than DVD or people wont buy it.
In the end , no matter which format "wins", it will be to be the "laserdisc of the 21st century".
And even the "winner" is going to wind up paying millions more than they make.
And serves em right

[GMichael]

Agreed.

Ditto.

Hey! Did PS just agree with Wooch?

[Feanor]

Any price reductions as a result of format competions will be minor and of temporary. Long term price retuctions will tend to be on hardware, not software, and will stem from competion among manufacturers of whichever format wins.

At least, this was the case for the cassette/8-track and Beta/VHS battles. Note that there were never any software price price reductions on account of these competions.

[Feanor]

That might be the case except for one thing...
Most don't even know what blu-ray, HDDVD is!
..,

Right now I agree on this point. With at 27" CRT like I'm using neither Blu-Ray nor HD-DVD mean diddly.

It brings to mind the SACD example where that product never did and never will go mainstream, (though it might endure longer than Laserdisc). On the other hand Woochifer, (I believe it was), made a compelling arguement that HD video is inherently more interesting to the masses than HD audio.

[kexodusc]

I have to agree with the common sentiment - the format war certainly is not forcing a substantial price reduction to the benefit of the consumer - at least not more than a unified format would otherwise.

Consider the DVD - when it was clear it was going to be the winner, prices fell at a ridiculously fast rate. Why? A few reasons:
1) the competitive advantage of mass production - simply put, sell 10,000 units, and you have to absorb the cost of a factory across 10,000 units. Sell 10,000,000, and that cost is possibly 1/1000th per unit. These guys are fighting over 2 halves of a small pie right now.

2) More competition - right now BluRay and HD-DVD are competing against each other, but largely remaining in the introduction stage of the product life cycle. There are relatively very few market participants - Sony, Toshiba, Samsung, I think Denon, and a handful of others I'm sure. But each vendor offers 1 or 2 models. Not 8-10. They compete against the other format, but not so much against each other - each player has 1 or 2 relatively homogenous competitors. With DVD there were 20 brands slugging it out for bang-for-the-buck and performance-at-all-cost supremacy.

3) The format war itself is sidelining the majority of the market as they play the wait-and-see game. Manufacturers are playing wait-and-see as well. There's not enough incentive to buy and not enough incentive to sell at this point.

This benefits two parties:
1) anyone who happened to hold the licensing rights on the previous standard format, as it continues to live indefinitley (Toshiba)
2) anyone with competing interests on the horizon (possibly a new format, or alternative medium for movies altogether) who would benefit from not having a healthy, strong HD format to supplant.

And so it goes on.

I suspect there'll be a lot of studio pressure on both BluRay and HD-DVD to try and sweeten their commitments to either in the meantime.

Who knows - as much as each camp is trying to control the market, the market may still decide to pick one over the other. I have to think stores are frustrated at having to carry 3 different version of the same movie, and shelf space/inventory challenges might force some big suppliers to choose one way or the other.

Every where I go, people seem to expect Sony to do something to counter the Paramount move. If that ever happened, things could be on the fast track again. Sony's got a history as bad as anyone at trying to buy the market and dropping stupid amounts of money to prop its formats.

What remains to be seen is the Paramount move's impact on hardware sales, and in turn the number of titles each format sells.

[PeruvianSkies]

Ditto.

Hey! Did PS just agree with Wooch?

Just to show that I am not a bitter person, I actually don't mind Wooch anymore. I have gotten over it, and through the course of time have come to understand and appreciate his viewpoints a little better. Do I agree with him all the time? No. I even gave him a few 'greenies' these past few days. Besides, there is another person on here lately that has taken all my dedicated anger. I think we all know who that could be.

[GMichael]

Just to show that I am not a bitter person, I actually don't mind Wooch anymore. I have gotten over it, and through the course of time have come to understand and appreciate his viewpoints a little better. Do I agree with him all the time? No. I even gave him a few 'greenies' these past few days. Besides, there is another person on here lately that has taken all my dedicated anger. I think we all know who that could be.

And you agreed with him too. What's going on with you?

[Rich-n-Texas]

He's running for president of AR, remember?

[GMichael]

So now he's kissing babies?

[musicman1999]

I agree with everyone this is terrible news for consumers,corporate greed wins again.On a personal note I was getting close to buying a BluRay player but now thats put off.It was just starting to look like BR was on the way to victory,but now thats up in the air.I will stick with my Moon until this gets sorted out.

bill

[Rich-n-Texas]

BTW, Oppo has their DV-980H Universal player at Amazon for $169. I'm still doing a side-by-side with the 981, but a1080p upconverter & SACD capable player at that price point is awfully tempting.

[PeruvianSkies]

He's running for president of AR, remember?

Yes, and I am spreading 'freedom' everywhere.

[nightflier]

It brings to mind the SACD example where that product never did and never will go mainstream, (though it might endure longer than Laserdisc).

That brings up a good point: why the %$#$@% heck don't any of the Sony Blu-Ray players support SACD? The S-300 plays CDs and the S-1 even has 5.1 outs, but neither plays SACDs - actually the S-1 doesn't play any music format unless it's burned to a DVD! Asking people to choose between HD-DVD and Blu-Ray is hard enough, but they still want something to play the rest of their disks.

From what I've been able to compare, Sony, the inventor of Blu-Ray, is manufacturing hobbled-down products, when their competitors (Panasonic, Samsung, LG) at least play music CDs. The S-1 should be their flagship but it's plodding along like the Titanic. Why would anyone support a company that does not support its own legacy formats, especially those that could use a shot in the arm?

[pixelthis]

That brings up a good point: why the %$#$@% heck don't any of the Sony Blu-Ray players support SACD? The S-300 plays CDs and the S-1 even has 5.1 outs, but neither plays SACDs - actually the S-1 doesn't play any music format unless it's burned to a DVD! Asking people to choose between HD-DVD and Blu-Ray is hard enough, but they still want something to play the rest of their disks.

From what I've been able to compare, Sony, the inventor of Blu-Ray, is manufacturing hobbled-down products, when their competitors (Panasonic, Samsung, LG) at least play music CDs. The S-1 should be their flagship but it's plodding along like the Titanic. Why would anyone support a company that does not support its own legacy formats, especially those that could use a shot in the arm?

And they wonder why SACD is moribund.
I had a 5 disc Sony DVD changer that supported SACD (one of the reasons I got it)
and the sound was nothing special. It wasn't until I listened to SACD on my current Samsung that I knew just how good they could sound.
But be fair, blu ray is expensive, probably why they left Sacd out.

[PeruvianSkies]

That brings up a good point: why the %$#$@% heck don't any of the Sony Blu-Ray players support SACD? The S-300 plays CDs and the S-1 even has 5.1 outs, but neither plays SACDs - actually the S-1 doesn't play any music format unless it's burned to a DVD! Asking people to choose between HD-DVD and Blu-Ray is hard enough, but they still want something to play the rest of their disks.

From what I've been able to compare, Sony, the inventor of Blu-Ray, is manufacturing hobbled-down products, when their competitors (Panasonic, Samsung, LG) at least play music CDs. The S-1 should be their flagship but it's plodding along like the Titanic. Why would anyone support a company that does not support its own legacy formats, especially those that could use a shot in the arm?

That's a dang shame. I didn't know that until I read your post either...I have not kept that close attention to this whole mess. It's a shame because there are DVD players out there (a Pioneer unit comes to mind) that is under $100 and has been for about 2 years that will play anything you throw at it....CD-R, SACD, DVD-A, anything except the HD formats...I am waiting to see what Pioneer comes up with in their Elite line for the formats.

[nightflier]

Does anyone know: if the SACD omission is because it is technically expensive or because it's a licensing issue?

[Feanor]

Does anyone know: if the SACD omission is because it is technically expensive or because it's a licensing issue?

That being the case, it's presumably nothing to do with licensing. But it isn't necessarily technical either: could be some of Sony's typical stupidness with respect to marketing technical innovations.

[musicman1999]

I think it may be that they feel no one cares if it plays SACD or not.

bill

[drseid]

That brings up a good point: why the %$#$@% heck don't any of the Sony Blu-Ray players support SACD? The S-300 plays CDs and the S-1 even has 5.1 outs, but neither plays SACDs - actually the S-1 doesn't play any music format unless it's burned to a DVD! Asking people to choose between HD-DVD and Blu-Ray is hard enough, but they still want something to play the rest of their disks.

From what I've been able to compare, Sony, the inventor of Blu-Ray, is manufacturing hobbled-down products, when their competitors (Panasonic, Samsung, LG) at least play music CDs. The S-1 should be their flagship but it's plodding along like the Titanic. Why would anyone support a company that does not support its own legacy formats, especially those that could use a shot in the arm?

Well it really isn't Sony... Pioneer is the OEM for the Sony player (and their player does not play CDs either). I use a dedicated player for my CDs, so it really is irrelevant to *me*... but I agree the lack of support is lame.

---Dave

[Woochifer]

Does anyone know: if the SACD omission is because it is technically expensive or because it's a licensing issue?

Without knowing anything about the specifics on the models in question, I would suspect that it's because of HDMI. Since HDMI 1.2 and 1.3 support digital DSD streaming, the SACD can be output digitally and decoded with a compatible processor/receiver. It's no different than DVD players that digitally output a DTS or DD track, but don't include any internal decoders. Also, the first batch of Sony Blu-ray players do not have any internal decoding for lossless Dolby TrueHD or DTS-HD. I'm not even sure what multichannel internal sound format decoding that they have on board.

Strange that Sony would exclude those features from their introductory Blu-ray player, but then again, it's clear now that Blu-ray was rushed to market before the format was ready with feature support that was spotty at best (i.e., at launch, BD-Java was not yet implemented, the BDA was still debugging the dual layer BD-50 disc format, MPEG-4 and VC-1 Blu-ray authoring were not yet implemented, TrueHD and DTS-HD support was nonexistent, etc.). The need to get the PS3 out by November drove the launch timing, and the first gen players and disc releases suffered as a result. I don't think that we'll see the real story on the direction of Blu-ray hardware until new Blu-ray players start requiring profile 1.1 compliance in November.

IMO, the real question is not whether these Blu-ray players can do the SACD DSD decoding internally (we know that they don't) but rather do they include any kind of SACD functionality using a digital HDMI output (i.e., can they read the SACD layers in the first place)? An example of this is Oppo Digital's universal players, which can read SACDs and transcode the DSD bitstream into a 88.2/24 PCM signal that most HDMI receivers can natively decode (v. 1.1 and higher). Other universal players from Pioneer, Yamaha, and Denon, among others, also read SACDs and output the DSD bitstream digitally using iLink connections. Would only make sense that at least some newer Blu-ray players include that same capability using HDMI connections.

If Sony excludes any kind of SACD functionality from their Blu-ray players (now or in the future), then that would be a major blunder IMO. A lot of these issues are fixable via firmware updates, the question remains though whether SACD is enough of an issue for Blu-ray manufacturers (and Sony in particular) to bother. For example, the recent version 1.9 firmware update for the PS3 added upscaling to 176.4/24 PCM resolution for CDs, but has not yet incorporated any kind of multichannel HDMI audio output for SACD (SACD playback is still stuck at two-channel analog on the PS3).

Their decision today to drop support for the ATRAC format (which underpins SDDS, MiniDisc, and their Connect music download service) from their new Video Walkman line might also be a sign that they will no longer support their legacy formats to the bitter end.

http://blog.washingtonpost.com/faste...it_the_st.html

[kexodusc]

Their decision today to drop support for the ATRAC format (which underpins SDDS, MiniDisc, and their Connect music download service) from their new Video Walkman line might also be a sign that they will no longer support their legacy formats to the bitter end.

http://blog.washingtonpost.com/faste...it_the_st.html

Still, others would argue that after a decade of disappointment, the "bitter end" has finally arrived...

I love the comment that Sony is seriously considering refunding the 5 people who own devices that support ATRAC their money.

[Woochifer]

Still, others would argue that after a decade of disappointment, the "bitter end" has finally arrived...

I love the comment that Sony is seriously considering refunding the 5 people who own devices that support ATRAC their money.

Very true. ATRAC doesn't seem to have a lot of viable channels left. Sony stopped marketing SDDS hardware a few years ago, though they still service existing theatrical and mixing studio installations. The MiniDisc was one of those formats that Sony stubbornly supported even after the record companies dropped the format, and the rest of the market had moved onto MP3-based hardware.

Until I read this WaPo blog, I did not know that Sony's music download service was ATRAC-based. Sucks for those who purchased music downloads from that service, since the only recourse now is to burn the tracks onto CDs if they want to move their downloads onto other devices.

[L.J.]

For example, the recent version 1.9 firmware update for the PS3 added upscaling to 176.4/24 PCM resolution for CDs, but has not yet incorporated any kind of multichannel HDMI audio output for SACD (SACD playback is still stuck at two-channel analog on the PS3).

I've been playing SACD for a while now on my PS3. Unless I'm misunderstanding something, I'm assuming the PS3 decodes and outputs as MC PCM. I'm playing something right now and my Yammy shows a signal info of 5.1 PCM, 176.4 sampling.