Toshiba gives up on HD-DVD

[mkreku]

http://uk.reuters.com/article/technologyNe...637974620080216

 

Apparently Toshiba are about to give up completely. Good or bad? I don't know.

[Bokishi]

There goes my 360 addon

[Deraldin]

I'll say what I've said everywhere. DVD forever!

[Gromnir]

a pointless victory for blu and sony? probably. microsoft backed off of full hd-dvd support some time ago. they already had a superior codec, and they saw that by the time the current dvd format were dead, direct download would supplant much of industry... as well as being the clear future.

 

time will tell, but this ain't a vhs v. beta situation being repeated as the successor tech to blu-ray & hd dvd is not the least bit remote.

 

HA! Good Fun!

[Xard]

The war is over then

[LadyCrimson]

Even if it's not quite like beta vs. vhs in some techy way, I'm glad we didn't buy a hd-dvd player and buy a bunch of hd-dvd's. And I'll still wait before buying a blu-ray ... until, like, you can't buy "regular" DVD players/DVD's anymore.

[Magister Lajciak]

I hope this is untrue. I really did not want Blu-ray to win, since unlike HD-DVD, Blu-ray has region coding and I travel a lot... If Blu-ray wins I will probably just skip this 'generation' of media and stay with DVDs, where region coding can be circumvented with relative ease.

[Kaftan Barlast]

Blu-ray has alot more storage space, so this was a technicly sound outcome. However, Sony has alot of nasty licensing traps and whatnot, so Blu-ray is a huge hassle for anyone looking to use it commmercially.

 

 

Will Sony allow Microsoft and Nintendo to use bluray in the next gen consoles?

[Deraldin]

Will Sony allow Microsoft and Nintendo to use bluray in the next gen consoles?

 

Of course they will. There are two questions though. How much will Sony charge for the usage and will Microsoft/Nintendo want to pay it?

[Tale]

I hope this is untrue. I really did not want Blu-ray to win, since unlike HD-DVD, Blu-ray has region coding and I travel a lot... If Blu-ray wins I will probably just skip this 'generation' of media and stay with DVDs, where region coding can be circumvented with relative ease.

Region coding is not mandatory. The majority of releases don't even bother using it.

 

Will Sony allow Microsoft and Nintendo to use bluray in the next gen consoles?

 

Of course they will. There are two questions though. How much will Sony charge for the usage and will Microsoft/Nintendo want to pay it?

The same licensing/royalty fees that everyone else has to use. People need to stop talking like Sony is the owner of Blu-Ray. They're not. The Blu-Ray Disc Association is and it consists of more companies than just Sony. As for Nintendo, Nintendo is specifically using optical discs that get them out of paying fees to the DVD forum. Chances are that Nintendo will never use anything that's not proprietary.

 

direct download would supplant much of industry... as well as being the clear future.

 

HAHA, no it won't. Movies aren't like music. The key reasons it's taken over for music is their small size, portability for MP3 players, and the ability to buy single tracks. None of which carries over to movies. Something that is immensely large files (assuming good quality) that take forever to download unless you're willing to sacrifice quality. And then there's the sense of ownership which people get from discs, which music only got around by transferring it to the MP3 players. With most online download systems only bothering to use rental schemes, the sense of ownership is completely absent.

 

Until someone starts selling online enabled movie download boxes (with a catchy name and massive hard drives) AND the ISPs overhaul the internet's capacity to be able to handle it, it'll never take off except for a few.

Edited February 17, 2008 by Tale

[Tigranes]

The key reasons it's taken over for music is their small size, portability for MP3 players, and the ability to buy single tracks.

 

'Small size' will probably cease to matter as storage capacity for all manner of affordable gadgets increase at a dramatic fashion. Portability, however, will probably remain a concern for as long as we travel the way we do. DD will probably take a fair chunk out of movie sales, but it probably won't destroy standard sales.

[Gromnir]

The key reasons it's taken over for music is their small size, portability for MP3 players, and the ability to buy single tracks.

 

'Small size' will probably cease to matter as storage capacity for all manner of affordable gadgets increase at a dramatic fashion. Portability, however, will probably remain a concern for as long as we travel the way we do. DD will probably take a fair chunk out of movie sales, but it probably won't destroy standard sales.

 

 

portability is a far less significant factor for movies than for music... still need a tv. and while maybe tvs is getting thinner, they is actually getting bigger. chances are you don't watch movies on a personal tv while jogging or while at gym or while at work.... 'least most people do not. portability is less a factor, but even so, just as most folks not use cds to listen to music no more (particularly 'cause those storage devices is getting smaller and cheaper) it will be much more efficient to store multiple flicks on a small device than has dozens o' discs cluttering up your life.

 

blu-ray victory is pointless and will be short-lived.

 

HA! Good Fun!

[Spider]

HAHA, no it won't. Movies aren't like music. The key reasons it's taken over for music is their small size, portability for MP3 players, and the ability to buy single tracks. None of which carries over to movies. Something that is immensely large files (assuming good quality) that take forever to download unless you're willing to sacrifice quality. And then there's the sense of ownership which people get from discs, which music only got around by transferring it to the MP3 players. With most online download systems only bothering to use rental schemes, the sense of ownership is completely absent.

 

Until someone starts selling online enabled movie download boxes (with a catchy name and massive hard drives) AND the ISPs overhaul the internet's capacity to be able to handle it, it'll never take off except for a few.

 

I hate to be piling on here, but I'm also finding myself disagreeing with the above statement.

 

First, what is your definition of "immensly large files"? A decent quality movie (decent on a standard TV anyway) would land somewhere around 700 GB. Double that and you'll pretty much get as good as it gets. A TV show would be 350 MB and 700 MB respectively.

 

If you want to go into HD quality, you'll get to roughly 1 GB for a TV show and around twice that for a movie. Maybe a bit more, so say 2.5 GB. Nothing that would take me more than 5-10 minutes to download. Now, I realize not everyone lives in Sweden, where fast and affordable internet is available to everyone, but the rest of the world is bound to catch up sooner or later. I think most people would be able to deal with those kinds of waiting times.

 

Also, I don't see harddrive space being much of an issue either. Movies can easily be burned to DVDs (or similarly blu-rays once burner technology becomes affordable). Besides, they're selling harddrives with a terabyte of storage now, imagine where we'll be in 5-10 years.

 

Secondly, let's not forget the Ipod. They are already selling downloads of both movies and TV shows. I don't know any numbers, but it seems to be a fairly succesful initiative. Those episodes are roughly 220 MB in size iirc, which is more than enough for the screen on the Ipod.

 

Personally I think the biggest obstacle to downloaded movies becoming a much bigger deal is the industry's reluctance to allow it to be. They are scared of file-sharing (which explains the "rental" services), but more importantly they're afraid of the income loss abandoning the traditional model would entail at first. They don't want to alienate companies like Wal-Mart by giving on-line alternatives that are DVD-like in quality until they know they'll be able to make as much money that way.

 

Downloaded movies won't become popular overnight, but once they start selling those over Xbox live, directly downloading them to a system that is already connected to the TV, things will start to change.

[Tale]

First, what is your definition of "immensly large files"? A decent quality movie (decent on a standard TV anyway) would land somewhere around 700 GB. Double that and you'll pretty much get as good as it gets. A TV show would be 350 MB and 700 MB respectively.

As for TV shows, I was never arguing against them. They're far more likely (to the point where I'd argue it's assured) to have their primary success come from downloads.

 

If you want to go into HD quality, you'll get to roughly 1 GB for a TV show and around twice that for a movie. Maybe a bit more, so say 2.5 GB.

I don't really know how to argue against but it does have me ask a question. If an HD movie is only 2.5 GB, why are we not seeing them being sold at the store on DVDs which hold nearly 5 GB on a single layer? You could fit both the HD and the SD version on a single layer DVD that way.

 

If you honestly believe the home movie market has no interest in moving into better quality picture and sound, that's something we'll have to disagree on. And that's the only way to keep your movies at the sizes you cite. Heavy compression and limited sound options. Extras and bonus features I think we can do without.

 

Nothing that would take me more than 5-10 minutes to download. Now, I realize not everyone lives in Sweden, where fast and affordable internet is available to everyone, but the rest of the world is bound to catch up sooner or later. I think most people would be able to deal with those kinds of waiting times.

I agree they would. But I sincerely doubt we'll be seeing the infrastructure to support the majority* of the developed world downloading 2.5GB files at 5MB/s simultaneously on Friday nights anytime soon. Later is a whole other issue. *exaggeration of the large movie renting/purchasing crowds that occur on Friday nights

 

Also, I don't see harddrive space being much of an issue either. Movies can easily be burned to DVDs (or similarly blu-rays once burner technology becomes affordable). Besides, they're selling harddrives with a terabyte of storage now, imagine where we'll be in 5-10 years.

I never really said anything about hard drive space except it being a requirement for the entertainment center box. That was more a descriptor than a qualifier.

 

Secondly, let's not forget the Ipod. They are already selling downloads of both movies and TV shows. I don't know any numbers, but it seems to be a fairly succesful initiative. Those episodes are roughly 220 MB in size iirc, which is more than enough for the screen on the Ipod.

Are you honestly trying to argue that the majority of movie watches will convert to watching a small handheld screen for their regular movie viewing? Or are you simply reiterating the existance of a niche success that I never argued against? I never made the point that nobody will buy digital downloads. My point is that it won't become the dominant form relatively soon.

 

Downloaded movies won't become popular overnight, but once they start selling those over Xbox live, directly downloading them to a system that is already connected to the TV, things will start to change.

This is the main jist of what I was saying. They haven't even really started. I never said it won't ever happen. Just that it's not on the verge of replacing disc media.

 

 

This is all of course, ignoring the simple concept of ownership that is present in our consumerist society. Something to hold is more tangible and valuable to many than data. Music could have very well not taken off at all if it hadn't been for the ability to select individual tracks instead of albums and increased portability, two things not applicable to movies. The sole advantage that comes to mind (a very big advantage, huge even) is the lack of shelfspace for digital downloads. More important at the storefront than the homefront because it means more room for available movie choices. And that's going to be legally downloading's biggest hindrance to overcome, demonstrating a clear advantage for consumer adoption over discs. Which aside from that single one I mentioned, it doesn't really have.

Edited February 20, 2008 by Tale

[Spider]

The Ipod part had more to do with the posts following yours I guess. It does help in establishing a viewing pattern though.

 

The gist of our disagreement comes to you saying near future in your second post. If that was what you meant originally as well, then I guess there isn't that much we disagree on. I didn't get the near future impression from your post at all. Gromnir said direct downloads were the clear future, that is what I agree with. When that future will arrive I don't know, that depends on how fast the infra structure is developed.

 

And then there's this:

I don't really know how to argue against but it does have me ask a question. If an HD movie is only 2.5 GB, why are we not seeing them being sold at the store on DVDs which hold nearly 5 GB on a single layer? You could fit both the HD and the SD version on a single layer DVD that way.

 

If you honestly believe the home movie market has no interest in moving into better quality picture and sound, that's something we'll have to disagree on. And that's the only way to keep your movies at the sizes you cite. Heavy compression and limited sound options. Extras and bonus features I think we can do without.

 

Why we're not seeing them being sold? There are no players capable of playing them. Although my actual figures are a bit off. A standard HD-movie (at 720p) is usually around 4.4 GB, ie fits on one dvd. That will get you full 720p resolution and full surround sound. (TV shows are 1 GB though and have the same picture quality and sound). Is it compressed? Yes, to a degree. But the x264 codec that is used to do that compression is very good at what it does, and streaming the files to a HD TV gives noticeably better quality than DVD. Can't compare to HD-DVD or Blu-ray since I have no experience with those.

 

But the x264 codec takes a lot of power to run, so until recently there haven't even existed media stations that can run it, other than a dedicated media-pc. And definitely no DVD-player that could. Last fall products finally started to appear on the market (I know of two, but there could be a few more).

 

Also, the movie companies want more space because apparently they think we value extras (and I know a lot of people who do). So Blu-rays gives more space for extras as well as the ability to have movies in 1080, which are would take up twice the space.

[angshuman]

A standard HD-movie (at 720p) is usually around 4.4 GB, ie fits on one dvd.

720p is considered HD, as is 1080p. DVDs are 480p (SD).

 

Your point is still valid, I just got offended that you insulted my 720p setup.

[Magister Lajciak]

I hope this is untrue. I really did not want Blu-ray to win, since unlike HD-DVD, Blu-ray has region coding and I travel a lot... If Blu-ray wins I will probably just skip this 'generation' of media and stay with DVDs, where region coding can be circumvented with relative ease.

Region coding is not mandatory. The majority of releases don't even bother using it.

 

They don't? They do for standard DVDs, but luckily it is easily surmountable. With Blu-ray, however, it is probably much more difficult to bypass, hence my apprehension. Region coding is an artificial market segmentation device and I am surprised it has not been attacked by U.S. and European regulators yet. I despise region coding, as I believe do most people who move between regions. I hope this format does not gain traction and a new generation standard comes out later that is region-free, but I know that is probably a vain hope, especially with the current victory of Blu-ray.