Blu-Ray versus HD-DVD?

[mas]

Sony's rigid marketing strategy is evident in the VHS/BETAMAX war. Instead of junking Betamax they refined it into the professional markets to get the big money. I guess win or loose doesn't count in the financial world of Sony.

Just a little history...

Beta, with its helical scan, had a much superior picture over the linear VHS (the scan allowed Beta to have what might be considered to be (in old tape speed units) a 15 ips resolution vs. VHS's 1.75 inch resolution).

But it was NOT the mass consumer market that doomed Beta as so many seem to think!

Folks, the world is still driven in large measure by a small 'thing' called economics. And it makes sense to see who is most effected. And lest the conspiracy wackos come out of the woodwork, the A/V/IT industry is still a business. And no, this does not make it 'bad' or tainted! But it does expose poor strategy pretty quickly!

Sony opted to license their 'superior technology' to manufacturers. Thus if you were a manufacturer of Beta VCR's, you paid say $1 per unit. And at the end of the year, if you had manufactured 1,000,000 units, you owed Sony $1,000,000. It was an expense for the manufacturer. Now of course that cost was passed on to the consumer via unit pricing, but nevertheless the manufacturer saw it as a cost.

VHS, developed by JVC took another route. Rather than charge the manufacturer a fee, they decided to tack say 10 cents onto every tape cartridge. Thus, while the manufacturer and subsequently the consumer would have paid Sony a total of $1 for the technology, the manufacturer would pay nothing and the consumer would pay 10 cents on every tape they ever purchased. Thus over the life of the machine a consumer might pay say $30-$50 in licensing costs versus $1 for Sony. And the manufacturer, presented with the option to pay nothing for VHS was presented with a more attractive option in the world of corporate finance.

Thus, what really determined the difference in market penetration was the manufacturers! It was they who basically decided to go with the technology that cost THEM less. It was not simply the play time or the resolution that made the difference. That was not a fundamental limitation to them at all.

JVC was simply much more astute in ascertaining the real market and to whom they were actually selling the technology! It was actually the B2B market, not the B2C market. And JVC simply responded more astutely by following the Gillette model - give away the razors and develop your cash stream on the subsequent purchase of consumable blades. Thus the manufacturers never saw the cost - and it was much more attractive to them. On the professional front, Sony did not have to deal with additional manufacturing licensing to develop the technology for the higher resolution desired by profession production houses, and simply capitalized upon the technology delivery without any licensing.

A similar scenario is shaping up between the two HD DVD formats, HD-DVD allowing current manufacturers to leverage the already substantial investment made in fab plants, while Blu-Ray requires manufacturers to invest in new incompatible manufacturing equipment. You do the math! And remember who drives corporate decisions! ...And no folks, it is not what you desire that determines this - it is a corporate financial ROI decision! Remember, it is a business!

Additional similarities (as well as a bit of insight) can be gained by examining the current market developments among manufacturers in the mono & color laser printer marketplace - as most consumers are oblivious as to the cost of the consumables and the true cost per unit of operation. And to go even further regarding printers, most consumers are oblivious to the costs of replacing the fuser or drums - which after say 20,000 copies cost 1.5-2x MORE than the complete copier - thus rendering the oblivious customer bound to either spend 1.5 to 2x the cost of the printer to replace the components for dated technology, or insuring that they by a new printer after a year or two, depending upon the rate of usage. Thus, many copiers are actually being sold below actual total production costs in anticipation of the return to be realized in the aftermarket peripheral market niche.

So it is far to early to predict a winner in the DVD format war. But as most of the computer industry has sided with HD-DVD with a few straddling the fence, and the opportunity for current manufacturers to enter the HD-DVD space without complete re-tooling at substantial cost savings - despite the current advantages of Blu-Ray pre-recorded content and a very small advantage in capacity (which are as yet still 'paper' advantages!), I would not be sticking my neck out yet based upon perceived advantages of quality.

But if you do, be prepared to be continue to pay if you go with Blu-Ray...because of the real additional production costs incurred by manufacturers associated with the format, it is at a long term disadvantage over the much more cost effective (and B2B friendly) HD-DVD format. The Beta-VHS war still has a lot of lessons to teach us - AND Sony!

[Bill H.]

I am sure this has already been overly talked about but here is the latest, I've found on the format Wars...

Talk about a seismic shift in the next-generation DVD format war.

Warner Brothers--until now the only studio that was continuing to release titles in both Blu-ray Disc and HD DVD formats--has announced it will be moving to Blu-ray Disc exclusively in 2008.

The studio's decision to go Blu-ray means Blu-ray clearly has the advantage with regard to content: With the backing of Warner plus Blu-ray stalwarts Disney, Fox, Lionsgate, MGM, and Sony, Blu-ray Disc holds the content advantage. It's now the better bet of the two warring formats--if for no other reason that the movies you want are more likely to come out on Blu-ray than on HD DVD.

I fully expected that if Warner was going to make an announcement one way or the other, it would be at next week's International Consumer Electronics Show.

The company got a jump on all the CES news by putting its announcement out today, a day before the first official CES events start in Las Vegas.

Now that Warner has made its move, I'm all the more interested in watching the posturing at CES by the two camps. I know that Warner never wanted to be in the position of deciding the format war by picking a side; yet, that may be what they effectively did by coming out decisively on the side of Blu-ray Disc.

In a statement released today, Warner chairman and CEO Barry Meyer says this move "is a strategic decision focused on the long term and the most direct way to give consumers what they want. The window of opportunity for high-definition DVD could be missed if format confusion continues to linger. We believe that exclusively distributing in Blu-ray will further the potential for mass market success and ultimately benefit retailers, producers, and most importantly, consumers."

Just one year ago, Warner was touting its Total High-Def dual-format disc solution to the format war. However, in spite of the company's grandiose plans, the option of creating a disc with both formats (one on each side) was never commercially viable, and the company quietly tabled the idea later in 2007.

Warner says it will continue to release titles in standard DVD and Blu-ray. Thereafter, after a "short window" passes, the studio will continue to release new titles in HD DVD until the end of May 2008. The company's initial statement gives no indication as to why they plan to continue offering new titles in HD DVD.

Back in August 2007, Paramount, the only other studio to release discs in both formats, went HD DVD exclusively.

Warner's move was not entirely unanticipated, based on murmurs I've heard in back rooms and conversation. The studio had stated openly at October's Blu-ray Festival that it was revisiting the practicality of releasing titles in both formats, and would be looking at making a decision on its direction by the beginning of the new year.

Although Blu-ray has ridden a high this year with regard to disc sales, the format has seen HD DVD make some inroads recently--particularly with last November's $100 pre-holiday sell-off of older HD DVD models.

This announcement by Warner certainly gives Blu-ray a much-needed booster shot--and looks to solidify Blu-ray's lead in the format war.

[Guest srobak]

http://forums.klipsch.com/forums/p/100006/1013260.aspx#1013260

[Bill H.]

" Mom- [:'(] DT started it !!!!!!!!!!!!" [:$]

[Mikekid]

Yes Bill......you are in TROUBLE now! []

[mas]

Heck, the entire forum is in trouble if he ever discovers that the forum consists of ~9 unique threads repeated over and over...[*-)][|-)]

[Guest srobak]

That's a lot different than copying and pasting an exact post... but knowing that would require you to be paying attention, mas... we know how well that works.

[mas]

Gee, thanks Barn!

Some of us don't worry about it like YOU do! LOL!

We all feel safer now!

[WMcD]

If I may disagree with mas.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helical_scan is a source but I don't agree with all of the nomenclature.

In the very beginning Ampex broadcast tape decks used two-inch tape. The tape was put up against a cylindrical surface with its axis in line with tape travel. I believe a vacuum pump was involved to wrap the tape around a quarter cylinder. Tape speed was about 15 ips or so. Then four heads scanned across the tape and there was switching from head to head. If you see old tapes sometimes there are lines, in quarters, when the switching is not quite correct or, probably, where the edge of the tape is not in full alignment.

BTW, Ray Dolby worked on some of this project. Or maybe it was the color version. His mentors told him to get an EE and he did so, Then he created his compansion noise reduction systems.

It is an interesting scheme because the writing speed arises in great part from the movement of the heads. Of course that is the same theory as Beta or VHS but the mechanism is a bit different.

What wikipedia is calling quadruplex was actually called "helical". The combined movement of the heads and tape trace out a helix (corkscrew).

Then came semi-pro reel to reel units by Ampex and Sony. These used one-inch tape. They used a scheme which was what the article described as inclinded azimuth. Here the head capstan was about 8 inches in diameter and the tape wrapped around the head capstan. There were two video head. Of course the big drum capstan rotated heads. Very much the same as later Beta and VHS, if I understand correctly. A stickler would say these were not helical. I'm being a stickler.

In those days, there was at least one video recorder for home use. It used 1/4 inch audio tape traveling at about 30 or greater ips with a fixed head. Recording time was a few minutes.

But VHS is indeed an inclined azimuth system. I ahd to unravel a rent a tape from a malfunctioning VHS machine and it is like the Wikipedia pictures show.

There is some basis for the comment that VHS is linear. It was the audio tracks which are linear and write at the edge of the tape. But because the tape linear speed was slow, audio was not good. (Note that in the original Ampex broadcast system the tape was running at 15 ips and thus linear tracks were running at a good speed.) Hi-Fi VHS uses a scheme with additional head which somehow fit audio track in between the video tracks. This is FM modulated and give good audio. I think standard Beta was dead by then but U-Matic may have address the audio issue.

There was a counter intuitive issue at least in the audio. Please recall the VHS has different speeds of tape travel available. Extended play, standard play. I recall there might be three.

The problem is that in the inclined azimuth scheme standard, the head are running, diagionally to the tape, but with a velocity component in the same direction as the linear tape motion. So the linear tape motion is actually running in the same direction as head motion and the relative write speed is reduced by the tape speed. Therefore, a higher write speed was possible with a reduced tape speed. The velocity components no longer fought each other.

I'm not sure how this works for video. Maybe the necessary closer spacing of tracks messes things up.

Gil

[mas]

Gil,

While both formats were to develop enhanced versions, Sony introduced both Super Beta (and then ED,etc) and Hi-Fi versions at a lower price point far earlier then did JVC. And the release dates did not overlap significantly with VHS lagging behind the Sony releases (and with a higher price). SuperVHS remained prohibitively high priced for quite some time.

While the Super Beta (400×480 w 300 lines)HiFi became readily available at reasonable prices around 1984-85 (I still have the receipt for my SL-HF550 dated September 1984), Super VHS did not become available in a comparably priced version (meaning similarly priced to the Sony SB-HF units) until almost 1999-2000 when the JVC units (SR-H4(5/6)00U) were introduced. (And unlike the enhanced Beta video, the S-VHS format is not playable on a non S-VHS machine - all you get is snow/noise).

I used the SB-HF unit for audio, as it also benefited by the heavier backing minimizing print-through, but never experienced any "buzzing" the article refers to. I was however aware at times of a high pitched whine/whistle similar to many DVD units that was only apparent up close to the player - but not through the playback.

And then by the early 90's we had moved to DAT which rendered the issue moot.

[Guest srobak]

Gee, thanks Barn!

Some of us don't worry about it like YOU do! LOL!

Unfortunately you cannot claim to be one of those people. Who was it that was whining in another thread about it being the same stuff posted over and over? Sorry, but I am applying your standards equally. If you get to whine about people posting Bose or Monster threads, then I get to note when people post the exact same text, verbatim, in three different threads (nevermind the fact that all three of them are discussing the same thing). Man - doesn't it suck when your own rules and logic are used against you?

But - being the king of doubelspeak - you will no doubt try to find some way to twist this around so your own standards and "rules" do not apply in this case.

[Catharsis147]

Jesus Srobak and MAS,

I hope you guys never see each other on the street, you two would kill each other

[mas]

My objection to the Bose/Monster thread is due to the fact that it asserts an importance to a product they claim does not exist.

It matters not if it is stated once, twice, or a thousand times. But as usual you miss the point again and we get to listen to

your misinterpretation represented as fact.

But it is fun to read your posts.

And what is even funnier is to read how you, Barn, have appointed yourself Guardian of the Forum, (pause for fanfare & applause), vowing to protect us from dreaded repeated posts, as you have deemed it appropriate that you

get to note when people post the exact same text, verbatim, in three different threads (nevermind the fact that all three of them are discussing the same thing).

You express such concern and care. You make us feel so safe and secure...So warm and fuzzy...

But considering that you yourself have posted

the exact same (material), verbatim,(more than three times) in (MORE than) three different threads (nevermind the fact that all three of them are discussing the same thing).

There is only one thing a concerned citizen, inspired by such a display of bravado and pure BS can do:

Citizen's Arrest! Citizen's Arrest! Citizen's Arrest! .

And in the immortal words of

Man - doesn't it suck when your own rules and logic are used against you?

[Guest srobak]

My objection to the Bose/Monster thread is due to the fact that it asserts an importance to a product they claim does not exist.

So now you are saying that your entire point when complaining about those threads and posts was that other people's points (which they had the freedom to post) had no point regarding your point - a point which was made after the original posters points?? Man you love to talk yourself in circles...

It matters not if it is stated once, twice, or a thousand times. But as usual you miss the point again and we get to listen to
your misinterpretation represented as fact.

Not according to your very own post...

My original post in this thread was a call for no more threads complaining and worrying about BOSE!!!!!

So - was that your point, as you affirm above after telling me I had missed the point in that thread, or was it more sarcasm and byperbole? Right. You are a typing contradiction.

Barn

[You] appointed yourself Guardian of the Forum,

Have done no such thing. This was discussed in the other thread - guardian presumes enforcement ability. As I have nor want any here - it is relegated to nothing more than suggestion. (pause for mas to understand.... still waiting... waiting... wai... ah nevermind. Not gonna happen).

vowing to protect us from dreaded repeated posts, as you have deemed it appropriate

Just as you have done regarding all threads Bose and Monster. See above. If it's ok for you - then it is ok for me. You do not get to apply double-standards on people as you see fit. You do not get to see the wizard unless everyone else does too. No - you aren't special. Deal Widdit.

Barney

You express such concern and care.

Only for fairness and equality. Unfortunately - with the deletion of threads like "point and click", and "point and click deleted" while other threads such as those taking shots at rednecks are left to grow - it has become clear that this forum is not a place of fairness and equality. Too bad too - because the point and click thread was one of the better ones we have had here in a while, despite your participation and mis-quoting of me.

You make us feel so safe and secure...So warm and fuzzy...

Jou got issues, mang.

But considering that you yourself have posted the exact same (material), verbatim,(more than three times) in (MORE than) three different threads, There is only one thing a concerned citizen, inspired by such a display of bravado and pure BS can do:

I have done no such thing other than making receiver and speaker recommendations when someone asks the same questions as had been previously asked in an otherwise ancient (read: not active) thread. And unlike my demonstrations about you - you will not be able to cite otherwise.

Now - as you are feverishly going to abuse the search feature - good luck with that.