Quote Originally Posted by nightflier
The betamax survived because people in the business (video and sound editors) had standardized on beta for the higher quality. Sony was supplying them with product long after the retail demand had dried up.

Speaking of HD-DVD's demize, I wouldn't call this a BR victory, either. Yes, I know I was one who posted multiple scenarios that I figured would have changed the outcome, but it does look now like HD-DVD is going to die a slow painful death. Over at CES, the booths and presentations were overwhelmingly in favor of BR. But the other thing that was apparent was that downloadable content is on every manufacturer's agenda now. The fact is the format war lasted so long that it damaged both sides and gave downloaded content a real chance. Here's an article that came out this morning (apologies for the #$%@# ads):

http://www.computerworld.com/action/...8&pageNumber=1

I know that's not what everyone who bought an HD player wants to hear, but I think the widespread interest in downloadable content at CES is pretty damning for HD-DVD as well as BR.
I disagree with the opinions expressed in the ComputerWorld article shared by Nightflier, and I do respect Nightflier's opinions and insights. The article's author, yet another nay-sayer a la SACD or 24bit DVD-A, leads a negative charge, which can have the direct effect of causing fear and doubt with the consumer; resulting in an outcome which does not serve those interested in listening to music or watching premium video conversions. Continuing this point regarding the debaucle of the hi-res music scenario; clearly, both hi-res music formats are inherently superior in every way sonically (to regular CD), yet the aspersions cast by nay-sayers were powerful enough to kill any hope of adoption with regular consumers. This is why software for hi-res audio has never evolved, because the manufacturers gave up the ghost - after all, its the general consumer market and not the audio enthusiast market that will yield the revenues they seek. Given time and belief, I'm sure prices would have dropped, and the manufacturers would have been compelled to replace CD as the standard by pricing the new software at the same level as the regular CD. But we all lost out to a large degree on that one.

The primary reason either of the new hi-res video formats have not yet been fully adopted is one of cost, I feel. I'm sure most average-income consumers want to get into the hi-def formats - they are clearly superior - but with movies still at $25 and up, its not at the right price point yet, which will have the vast majority of consumers - including myself - running to pick up a player. I would probably be classified as earning above average, and I do find the propostion of buying $25 movies expensive; thats why I haven't picked up either player yet. Most of us can't and indeed won't spend all of our disposable income on the next great new thing unless it offers the performance benefits at a value-oriented price.

If Sony, Toshiba, and the rest of the players in this re-occuring drama want to truly open the flood gates, then they should charge the same amount for the hi-def format software as they do for regular DVD. A sportman's bet that the floodgates will fly open, and all - including the consumer - will win. I really don't see a problem with two seperate formats. After all, we listen to Vinyl as well as CD. We listen to SACD or DVD-A as well as CD. As long as pricing is value oriented for the consumer, then everybody will reap the benefits...