......so is it fair now to declare Blu Ray the winner of the Format War?

[oldbuckster]

The Toshiba HD AX2 reviews say it's SD playback is the best of any type of dvd player they have seen so may just buy a AX2 or the HD AX3(guessing at the AX2 replacement) and keep buying SD dvds.

That's a question I have tried to ask before ......... it never seemed to come out right, So, Thanks jbsl, that's a question I'd like to see the answer for, what do you think Gents ????????

[el jopez]

Yes, current HD players regardless of format will play and upscale DVD's, some better than others.

When Blu-Ray was being devloped there were great difficulties in getting the tech to cooperate with DVD 9's. I guess some haven't forgotten that outdated bit of information.

[MrMcGoo]

For upconverting SD DVD: The Toshiba XA2 is currently the best, but only has advantages in 30 frames per second video and in adjustability of the output. The A30 and A35 have near as good upconvert for movies shot at 24 frames per second. The XA2 uses a Reon processor and the A30 and A35 use a processor by Anchor. I have an A35 and like the picture in high def better than the A1 that it replaced. The A35 will bitstream the new audio codecs via HDMI and it also has analog outputs for the sound. The A30 has no analog output and will not bitstream, but it will decode high def audio to PCM via HDMI.

Blu-ray: They will play and upconvert SD DVDs. The two players to look at now are the PS3 and the Panasonic BD30. Future models look good from Pioneer, Panasonic and Sony look good on paper. The Denons look too expensive for what you get.

Bill

[skonopa]

For upconverting SD DVD: The Toshiba XA2 is currently the best, but only has advantages in 30 frames per second video and in adjustability of the output. The A30 and A35 have near as good upconvert for movies shot at 24 frames per second. The XA2 uses a Reon processor and the A30 and A35 use a processor by Anchor. I have an A35 and like the picture in high def better than the A1 that it replaced. The A35 will bitstream the new audio codecs via HDMI and it also has analog outputs for the sound. The A30 has no analog output and will not bitstream, but it will decode high def audio to PCM via HDMI.

I just scored a Toshiba A-30 at Best Buy this weekend for $200, figuring, at this price, what the hell? The only DVD player I currently have is my Pioneer DVD Recorder (which I am still keeping in my system as I do use the recording every now and again), which does not upconvert DVDs. If I can find any decent HD-DVD formatted movies that I can rent/buy, so be it, but at the very least, figured this would make for a decen up-converting DVD player. The thing did include two HD-DVD movies, Bourne Supremcy and 300, neither of which I've seen yet, so that will be cool. Don't know if that "5 additional movies by mail" offer is still in effect though. I did not see anything in the box included with the player about it. I'll go check Toshiba's website and see there. Looking back, wish I did get an A-35, as the bitstream output would be pretty nice, but my current pre-amp could not support it anyway, so no real loss there.

[Professor.Ham.Slap]

Blu-ray may have won the
war over HD DVD. Yet in the end its likely not going to
matter with the advent of HD downloads. The only thing the battle may
have yielded is enough time for streaming HD to become a viable option.

Negative. There simply isn't enough quality in current downloadable "HD" Media. For example, Xbox Live's HD bitrate is 6.8mbps, which is into the range of SD DVD which has a range of 4-8mbps. Apple's solution is even worse clocking in at 4mbps. This is all in comparison to HD DVD's max bitrate of 28mbps for 1080p, which even still is a compression of around 107:1 (uncompressed 1080p registers at 3000mbps). Heck, even high definition broadcast runs up to just over 19mbps. Those that know me know that I'm not a huge fan of Blu-Ray due to ever-changing player standards and region coding, but I'd MUCH rather pick up a Blu-Ray player than be subjected to crippled HD video and audio.

[mas]

This is incorrect. I am not referring to existing alternatives widely available today. I am referring to the myriad number of announcements made at CES by just about everyone - the Telcos, cable companies, satellite providers, and independents!

Evidently all of the companies who are activily investing millions of dollars into this - including the manufacturers of routers who are licensing DIVX and bit torrent capability have missed the boat as well.

This is even being predicted by major manufacturer CEOs, including some who are backing Blu-Ray in their own products!

The fact is that we are at the cusp where digital video downloads, including HD programming material, will soon accompany the audio downloads.

Additionally, NONE of the service providers are required to use either HD-DVD or Blu-Ray schemas for download either!

But since none of the companies and consortiums announcing plans know what they are talking about, you might want to go back and read the myriad annoucements, including those coming out of CES.

Heck, HD-DVD and Blu-Ray even missed out onthe data backups niche in IT, as the advances in hard drive memory, and reduced costs, and tape (which was declared a dead technology only 5 years ago) are back with a vengence and leaving the HD media dead in the water.

Listening to fols say this isn't possible is like listening to Bill Gates tell us that the Internet will never amount to anything significant or to Sears telling us that brick and mortar establishments have nothing to fear from online access. Or you can ask CompUSA...ooops, no you can't!

HD recorded content will remain a niche product compared to the available product available now and with the increasing availability of downloadable content eliminating the exorbitant hard good supply chain management cost overhead. Whether you or like it, this solution will be driven by the industry itself who is looking for greater efficiency.

[anarchist]

mas, you really need to stop jumping on every new product bandwagon. CES announced dreams. Many of which are vaporware. Cool concepts. Neat stuff. The practicality or purpose of which is far from being ubiquitous. I don't download audio. I don't know many people who do - unless they are stealing. Audio downloads have been available for how long? Years! Cd's havent gone anywhere. Albums are back. Cassette tapes are back. (By the way, tape was never dead and never suffered a slowdown in the computer industry.) The storage capacities of HD-DVD and Blu-Ray will be utilized for archival purposes in the computer industry. You seem to believe an announcement is made at CES and everyone immediately jumps on it. It doesn't work that way. Next year, more cool stuff will be announced at CES and all the things you now have a hard-on for will be passe. I bet you waited with baited breath when Gates announced some version of Windows which took years to deliver or were touting the benefits of Linux immediately after it was released on the net - yet another product which took years, many years to catch hold and it still isn't ubiquitous. Linux is without a doubt a better OS than Windows; whats the marketshare of each? The industry doesn't drive the solution, the consumers do.

[Professor.Ham.Slap]

Mas, you're assuming that everything you just saw at CES is going to be implemented immediately (i.e. this year or probably even the next three years). I can tell straight off that we in America do not have the necessary Internet infrastructure to make something like that a reality. In order to stream those HD downloads you would need a fiber connection of at least 35-40Mbps (using HD DVD as a basis for bitrate, plus overhead for error correction and anything else that may be happening on that particular connection connection. Even the fastest FiOS option option which clocks in at $160/month misses that mark by 5Mbps

Using best case scenarios, if someone had a 6Mbps cable connection and actually had all of the bandwidth available to them (no degredation due to errors or other customers on that particular cable line), it would take someone 7.5 hours to download a 90 minute HD movie assuming a 30Mbps encoding for 1080p audio and video. Not exactly an option for the family who decides they want to watch a movie after dinner. So, uh, yeah, this is me telling you it isn't possible ATM. Now will HD media become more than a niche product? That's a whole other discussion which I don't think anyone can do anything but discuss theories.

*I used 30mbps as a benchmark because it is right around the max bitrate of HD DVD, which I feel is right around the minimum bitrate one would need for a quality transfer of a HD video with 1080p video and an advanced audio codec (Dolby TrueHD or DTS MA).

[mas]

Mas, you're assuming that everything you just saw at CES is going to be implemented immediately

Absolutely not! It is the predominant evolving business and technological model. And the network plant (fiber, copper, string) is not the fundamental limitation.

But obviously YOU do.

Your assumptions are specious.

"And no errors due to somepne else being on that particular cable line"??? A data transmission assumes no one else is on the line?

Your model renders current HD transmission via cable, satellite, off air networks and the telcos completely impossible! Oops! You might want to be spending your time appealing for a refund.

And you also seem to assume that they are simply doing the equivalent of slipping an HD-DVD or Blu-Ray disk into a player and sending the output to a receiver! And you assume that it can only be delivered real time instantly. You impose all sorts of limitations and assumptions that are your creation.

You need to investigate the various schemas and delivery methods further.

And I will go still further. It won't even take online HD delivery to further marginalize the HD hardware market. Just the additional option of a readily available SD library that can be obtained at a competitive price online (and which can also be upscaled) will have the same effect online access to (low-fi) music has had on CDs and especially DVD-A and SACD. Contrary to what some of the fanboys assume, the mass market is not clammoring to adopt higher end sources. And with all of he focus here on HD recorded content, it is still akin to the DVD-A/SACD crowd relative to standard CDs! It is a niche market at best NOW, with no sign of changing. And with high entry prices for hardware, along with the continuing format war...only the fanboys are declaring victory. The mass buying public is saving their money and ignoring the bravado...and the format.

[Professor.Ham.Slap]

"And no errors due to somepne else being on that particular cable
line"??? A data transmission assumes no one else is on the line?"

Read it again. I said assuming there are no errors (packet loss, something that happens due to many reasons such as routing loops, checksum errors, invalid routes and any other number of things that would cause an Internet frame to be discarded. In the event of this, your computer waits a defined amount of time before issuing a resend packet x message which equates to a loss of performance) OR someone else sharing your cable bandwidth (i.e. many people are on the same shared bandwidth pipe when you subscribe to cable. It's the way the technology is designed. This is where I ask you to know what you're talking about before you randomly decide to put down someone else's point, m-kay?).

Now we're back to the formats point. You're assuming just because I used a bitrate within the range of HD DVD and Blu-Ray I'm talking about pushing HD download services within those particular parameters. Nope. Bitrate is bitrate. We're already using advanced codecs that do wonderful things to preserve video quality under extreme compression such as VC-1, MPEG-4, etc. If you drop the bitrate, you drop the quality. No amount of upconverting or any other hardware from even a wonderful company such as Silicon Optics is going to change that.

It's obvious that there are a lot of people that aren't truely interested in the HD formats, but putting up SD downloads in competition with HD just doesn't work; SD downloads are in "competition" with SD DVDs and the rental chains that provide them. I think you'd be hard pressed to find anyone who would walk out and say, "Well, I was planning on getting a BD/HDDVD player today, but now that they're offering upconverted SD downloads, I think I'll just go that route." If someone wants HD, they're going to get HD so that's a completely seperate issue. More likely, it's going to be more along the lines of "I don't really feel like driving to Hollywood Video anymore. I'll just subscribe to Netflix and download my movies from here on out."

[mas]

So that is what the difference between TCP and UDP are? wow!? I guess that also rules out the use of bit torrent technologies as well.

And sure SD is in competition with HD! And its kicking HD's posterior! Wishful thinking doesn't determine this, sales do.

Look at the rate of sales of upconverting SD DVD plyers versus HD players?

What is driving HD is not HD media sales, its cable, satellite and network broadcast HD! And again, you keep defining HD as either HD-DVD or Blu-Ray. There are plenty of HD channels ALREADY readily available which are neither. NO network service is moving to 1080p. And the percentage of people who subscribe to satellite of cable HD services far exceed HD recorded media market.

So now you are saying that in order to have HD it must be of that caliber, everyone most now also have a 1080p set! Yeah. Hold your breath.

The market is not demanding 1080p HD. And in large measure, its not going to get it. Additionally, its not the consumer who is driving this change, but rather the business model economics that are driving this. Just like the consumer did not kill records, the distribution companies killed vinyl due to their resistance to having yet another format of duplicated hardware to ship, process, return, and account. With increasing supply chain management costs, the industry itself is looking for alternative delivery methods. And all of the talk that cassettes and records are 'coming back' - except in boutique formats, they are not.

And putting up SD formats against HD hardware has worked. Cable, satellite and telco broadcast of HD services supports compared to HD hardware supports this. Overall market sales and market penetration supports this! Only the passion of the fanboys disputes this.

Additionally, the hardware market - namely the TV, receiver and even HD units are all moving to incorporate network attachment as well.

You can't even get the EXISTING HD hardware to achieve anything other than a niche market with no sign that this market penetration is changing significantly. Meanwhile subscription HD services are doing well (but as we know, they are 'real' HD!) So, after you address this fundamental real world limitation where the HD hardware market remains niche, then you can tell us how HD hardware and the requirement to have 1080p is going to take over from the myriad sources of existing HD broadcast as well as ward off the various growing alternative distribution models increasing pushed by every aspect of the industry.

Persisting with the OLD supply chain model of physical distribution of multiple formats is declining and will continue to decline to an increasingly marginal market.

In any event, the HD hardware market will remain a marginal niche market at best., with online deliverables being the area that will experience the largest percentage growth. You ignore the economics, business and supply chain management models at your own peril.

And the Internet is already a reality to distribute video. And for those who are already happy with SD and upscaled SD, what version of HD is available, if at all, is not going to cause them to wait. Meanwhile HD is even further marginalized with respect to the overall availability of the various market delivery vectors.

Oh, and in response to the comment that tape was never dead...you evidently did not read the IT industry trade magazines of 4-6 years ago when the pronouncement was the rage - along with the predicted death of Ethernet. And ironically now iSCSI is looking like its going to kick fiber channel to the curb with its superior ROI. And HD-DVD and Blu-Ray have almost NO enterprise IT penetration. You might archive your hard drive on 20 of them, but enterprises don't care if they exist. Not even the optical silos. Too little, too costly, too late.

One doesn't have to 'buy in' to every technical announcement to see where the business pressure is. And the successes are going to be those companies who can best leverage.

But its hard to see how Sony wins much of anything as they continue to lose money on the platform as they subsidize their units. And maybe this fall someone can actually buy a profile 2 'complete' unit that was supposed to have been produced 2 years ago. But, as we learned during CES, its HD-DVD's fault!

[damonrpayne]

• HD Media is still in the early adopter phase. SD DVD still winning? So what? If the market share of HD optical media has not gained massively on SD DVD in another 1.5 years, I'll say "niche"
• To say that the content owners are "looking for alternate means of distribution" is an odd case to make. These are the Old Gaurd, the people who have fought innovation at every turn because it's a threat to their control over their content. The music companies have fought digital downloads every step of the way and only given in when the iPod etc. became a juggernaut. I think the times are chaning, but the luddite studio execs and the "not with it yet" consumers combined means a strong market for optical media for several years to come.
• Studios are looking to HD media to help shore up flagging DVD sales. High Def was 3% of DVD sales (# of units) in 2007; High Def disks cost quite a bit more than DVDs. To some degree, it's working for them, though not as much as they'd like I'm sure.

Look, streaming downloads are great for watching on my laptop, it's not even tolerable for watching on my TV or Projector. People may not NEED quality all the time but they do want quality. Until there's fiber to everyone's house that can provide 50mb/s of audio+video there is a market for media: be it optical, SD cards, whatever.

[Catharsis147]

I find it unlikely that the HD formats will remain a niche market, ala SACD and DVD-Audio. The fact remains, people that are not into consumer electronics the way most of us on this forum are do not care about sound in their own homes, but about video.

Whenever I demo my Reference system, people are always amazed by the sound quality, but don't have (or want to) allocate space for anything resembling my system. Kind of like a "that sure is nice, but not for me" type of attitude. However, when I go to other peoples houses and see a giant 50" HDTV, people always have that "I gotta have it!!" look on their faces.

There is something about the video that compels the average joe much quicker than the audio. I think Blu Ray is going to become a mainstream media format before we know it. Hopefully people will learn that loseless audio is just as cool (hell, COOLER in my opinion) as 1080p video on an HDTV.

[oldtimer]

My take is that preference for video over audio is somehow genetic. I would hypothesize that those of us into audio have more innate musical talent or family history of musical talent. I married into a "video" family and have had to introduce bringing up the sound quailty to them. No one in the family or to my knowledge ancestral is known for having musical talent. While they appreciate the difference in better sound I have introduced, there still is no changing the tin ear effect, and if left to their own devices, would probably not make the best choice within a given budget. So my conclusion regarding this issue is that you can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it drink; merely exposing them to the possibility of better sound will not create demand among those to whom sound is not as important as sight.

[anarchist]

Oh, and in response to the comment that tape was never dead...you evidently did not read the IT industry trade magazines of 4-6 years ago when the pronouncement was the rage - along with the predicted death of Ethernet.

Thank you Mas. Exactly my point.

While you were reading "tape was dead", companies were continue to deploy and develop ever more inventive ways of using tape.

You would think you had learned your lesson. Instead, now you read about streaming technologies (also not new) and immediately predict the death of media once again.

Others have pointed out your arguments are disingenous (they do sound impressive though and surely sway those who are less informed); HD-DVD and Blu-Ray are both new technologies and are not adopted overnight - claiming SD is kicking their butt is a worthless argument. Claiming broadcast and satellite HD sales supports your point is also a fallacy; the fact is those services are basic infrastructure requirements and people are opting for HD because (the services are offering free promo's) and people are buying HD tv's and for the most part the only way they have had to actually see a HD signal was through these services. A HD-DVD provides a significantly better picture experience than broadcast. There is no doubt (one simply need to visit a best buy or walmart instead of reading CES adverts) sales of HD-DVD will increase and eliminate SD's over the course of time.

The latest news about support for the two formats makes it rather simple to declare Blu-Ray the winner. If you want HD, buy one. If you want to wait for streaming HD to come to your neighborhood, be prepared to wait for a very, very long time.

[Catharsis147]

Ditto oldtimer. Hell, I will expand on that point: though never a proper musician, I think the reason I am into audio is because music not only helped me through my dark days of adolescence, but provided me an avenue with which to make mony as a DJ. Every person that I have met that has some affinity towards audio has either been a musician, or has some attachment to music on a much deeper level than merely liking whatever new song that is popular. Video, on the other hand, does not require the same level of appreciation, at least as far as I know. There are many peope I know that have no particular attachment to movies, or to TV shows on any serious level, but who would still buy the latest and greatest television. It seems that television can remain a focal point for an extended period of time (say at a party- Heroes parties, Super Bowl parties, etc.), while music through speakers rarely draws the same kind of audience (cannot ever say I have had a Keith Jarrett party at my house- probably because there are not too many people at 28 that even know who Keith Jarrett is). Anyway, let me stop rambling.

[damonrpayne]

I just listened to this: http://www.avrant.com/?p=230

The director of Audioholics, just back from CES, talking about how un-ready downloads are, how you are not getting the high definition experience.

[Guest srobak]

I guess that also rules out the use of bit torrent technologies as well.

For real-time streaming - yes. We have been over this in other threads. 1080i with only 2 channel stereo streamed is 8Mb/s - without very significant buffering - no one can offer this yet... certainly not in any volume that makes it a functional distribution system for streamed/on-demand media.

Look at the rate of sales of upconverting SD DVD plyers versus HD players?

You have GOT to be kidding me.... your other posts - while utopian - certainly show more brains than this statement. You are comparing apples and t-bone steaks, and does not support your argument at all. People are buying up-converting decks because they do not want to replace their EXISTING SD library which they have spent years and thousands of dollars on so they can watch it through their out-dated 16:9 format HDTV while waiting for the HD/BR war to settle. C'mon man... you think just because an HD format is settled upon that everyone is just going to chuck their entire SD DVD collection and start over? Maybe you have money to whiz away like that - but the majority of consumers do not.

[mas]

Oh, and in response to the comment that tape was never dead...you evidently did not read the IT industry trade magazines of 4-6 years ago when the pronouncement was the rage - along with the predicted death of Ethernet.

Thank you Mas. Exactly my point.

While you were reading "tape was dead", companies were continue to deploy and develop ever more inventive ways of using tape.

You would think you had learned your lesson. Instead, now you read about streaming technologies (also not new) and immediately predict the death of media once again.

Others have pointed out your arguments are disingenous (they do sound impressive though and surely sway those who are less informed); HD-DVD and Blu-Ray are both new technologies and are not adopted overnight - claiming SD is kicking their butt is a worthless argument. Claiming broadcast and satellite HD sales supports your point is also a fallacy; the fact is those services are basic infrastructure requirements and people are opting for HD because (the services are offering free promo's) and people are buying HD tv's and for the most part the only way they have had to actually see a HD signal was through these services. A HD-DVD provides a significantly better picture experience than broadcast. There is no doubt (one simply need to visit a best buy or walmart instead of reading CES adverts) sales of HD-DVD will increase and eliminate SD's over the course of time.

The latest news about support for the two formats makes it rather simple to declare Blu-Ray the winner. If you want HD, buy one. If you want to wait for streaming HD to come to your neighborhood, be prepared to wait for a very, very long time.

Wrong.

According to the latest polling results, HD accounts for only 13.7% of households. (Look up the Nielsen taliies)

All of you keep talking as if HD recorded data is a dominant technology - its not. It is small percentage of the industry. Its a niche market.

HD streaming as a market percentage at this point is moot. Even if it were fully implimented, it still would be but a percentage of a small percentage - and the entire topic, HD included not worth the discussion from a business perspective.

But the more significant aspect of streaming, as has been pointed out is as an alternative to the old business model of hard copy deliverables and the exorbitant and increasing costs associated the supply chain management of multiple duplicate formats for the same product that simply replicate costs without generating an increase in sales.

As as such, your focus on HD streaming if fascinating but hardly signnificant in the near term. Rather the current market oportunities are greater for non-HD streaming - which is entirely possible - and that is via traditional exisitng means, ignoring distributed and bit torrent distribution models, which are also entirely feasible.

Your "worthless argument" is where the market is, whereas your 'worthy argument' is a fantasy. A developng market perhaps, but not one that after several years is making much headway. And that is a fact.

And the point you TOTALLY miss regarding tape (and Ethernet for that matter!), is that tape was not heralded as a NEW media! It was the dominant existing market! A critical point you fail to acknowledge. Rather like your saying that anything less than 'full' HD is "worthless". Unfortunately for you, that "worthless market is still the dominant cash cow of the industry, while you chose to myopically focus upon a niche of slighlty more than 13% of the market - or even worse in your case - only 65% of that market 'owned' by BluRay! But I guess that business and math were never very interesting for you. And isn't it ironic that Beta failed with a much larger total market percentage thn the entire HD player market! HD only wishes they had the total marketshare that Beta had when it failed! But now HD is but a small percentage of the video market and BluRay a small percentage of that! Yup, ignore SD at your peril as only HD is 'worthy' of focus! Keep preaching to the fanboys!

My debate is not over which HD format is better at all, as you mistaken seem to think. In fact, i really don't think much about HD at all. And neither does the market judging from the continuing percentage of tradtional and upscaling DVD players and deliverables compared to either HD format! If and when the format war is settled, and if and when the prices come down to competitive levels, and when sufficient programming material of all genres is available, THEN I will make a decision. But I am not pressed for time to make that decision!

And in the near term, streaming options, be they standard SD, or enhanced SD present a very viable alternative to hard copy deliverables. Just as Netflix's entire model utilizing the mail is but an interim step towards a model of fully streamed deliverables. But they made this clear from inception, as they would love to eliminate the supply chain management headache and costs associated with hard copy shipping and reciving processing. Heck, Blockbuster can't even compete with NetFlix' mail delivery! And yet you think they will compete with their online delivery which offersmusch more attractive business economy?

But hey, you might want to run out and scoop up some of that Blockbuster stock, as I hear its 'on sale'. After all, they are focused on the HD "winner"! How can they lose!? Indeed. Obviously BluRay hard copy deliverables are not sufficient!

And if you were aware of the desire to do this from the service provider POV that goes back to the development of pay per view. But the goal has always gone far beyonf that model which some erroneously think has been achieved with PPV, as there was the small issue of having to build and maintain a small technicality called plant - the network! And now the real technology exists to stream SD or enhanced SD video. And as such they can capture a large enough market share of the non-HD market to make it well worth their while!

And as the technology increases to where they can move into full HD transmission, they can easily wait for this market to mature. But you keep saying it is a failure because they cannot do it yesterday or today. And so? The point is that neither can HD-DVD nor BluRay, as they have failed to capture a significant percentage market share.

Again, you keep bantering only technological ability while ignoring and missing the boat regarding viable business models.

And as far as a ~65-35% making it "easy" to declare BluRay a winner, you might want to tell Sony that they can stop subsidizing their machines and start making a profit! And then tell all of those who think it is winning that they can trade in their players for a fully capable profile 2 player come this fall, if hey indeed ship on time.

Yup, with a 65% share of a 13.7% market, BluRay has indeed won! 8.9% of anything is an absolute majority. I dare say, that's near a monopoly.

Yup, according to you, its not even the 13.7% marketshare that matters! Its the 8.9% that is sufficient to declare victory.

In your dreams.

Personally, I won't buy either at this point. Why would I want an HD-DVD player if it is the 'loser', or a BluRay player if it is only an incomplete version fo the standard that will not be available until this fall? And with the piddling library available in either format (unless I absolutely need the full Adam Sandler library). there is little compelling reason to pay far too much for far too little - when upscaled SD and a huge library of available titles does just fine.

But aain, all the streaming industry has to do is to capture a relatively small percentage of the traditional video market to be a success. And as Netflix alone converts to streaming (which they are actively in the process of doing!), my money is on them quickly achieving a market share that exceeds both HD-DVD and BluRays current market. And if that is "worthless" as you say, that makes the more expensive HD market, where Sony is losing its rear as it hemmorhages money subsidizing its players, as stunning 'success'(sic)!

You might want to spend more time studying the evolving business models. Like it or not, the future will not be dominated by any hard copy A/V deliverables. of any format. And the market will be driven by these evolving models. Yup, Blockbuster is doing great following your model of looking backwards to go foward - while Netflix is doing poorly looking forward...NOT!

[Guest srobak]

According to the latest polling results, HD accounts for only 13.7% of households. (Look up the Nielsen taliies)

Right... because Nielsen gives a remotely accurate representation of what is going on. Do you participate in any Nielsen Media Research programs or polls? Does ANYONE you know? I didn't think so. Case in point... northeastern Illinois - specifically - the greather Chicagoland area - covering a grid encompassing nearly 20 million people samples 800 (yes, EIGHT HUNDRED) homes, and then sells the results off as being an accurate representation of the greater numbers of the entire region. Even at 4 people per home that is only 3200people. 3200 representing 20 million, and that is supposed to be accurate? Right.

HD streaming as a market percentage at this point is moot. Even if it were fully implimented, it still would be but a percentage of a small percentage - and the entire topic, HD included not worth the discussion from a business perspective.

Why when I said the exact same thing in response to you saying it was the next wave and that all other forms of hd media are dead - you argued with me about it?