Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
HP Media

HP No Longer Exclusively Supporting Blue-Ray 134

Posted by Zonk
from the hard-to-pick dept.
linumax wrote to mention an MSNBC article stating that HP is dropping its exclusive support for Blue-Ray. They'll be offering support to the HD-DVD format as well. From the article: "The decision is the latest sign of a looming 'format war' between the competing standards for a new generation of digital video players that can record high-definition films and video games. Blu-Ray and HD-DVD-compatible devices are expected to hit stores worldwide early next year."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

HP No Longer Exclusively Supporting Blue-Ray

Comments Filter:
  • Dead on arrival. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by croddy (659025) on Saturday December 17, 2005 @02:38PM (#14280335)
    This trumped-up format war is going to be dead on arrival -- because 90% of U.S. televisions won't be anywhere near an HDTV signal until 2015. It's going to be DVD right up to the holocubes.
    • Re:Dead on arrival. (Score:3, Informative)

      by interiot (50685)
      So generations overlap, film at 11. Despite the huge take-up of DVDs, they just stopped selling VCR tapes like... last year, right?

      HD movies are already being transmitted on cable and satellite channels... if people want to keep HD movies around, their only (legal) option is to keep them on a PVR's hard drive. Are HDTV owners satisfied with that? No.

      • Re:Dead on arrival. (Score:2, Informative)

        by interiot (50685)
        * VHS tapes
      • Re:Dead on arrival. (Score:5, Interesting)

        by calibanDNS (32250) <brad_staton@h[ ]ail.com ['otm' in gap]> on Saturday December 17, 2005 @02:56PM (#14280428)
        It's kind of a silly option, but there is a HiDef VHS format out there that will let you record HD content to a D-VHS tape (or whatever they're calling it this week). It supports 480p up to 1080i (no 1080p, but honestly where are you getting a 1080p signal from anyway?).
        • 1080p (Score:3, Insightful)

          by HalAtWork (926717)
          (no 1080p, but honestly where are you getting a 1080p signal from anyway?)

          From people building support into their products like these people. Hopefully nobody will have the same attitude in thinking "What's the point, 1080p isn't so common" because I don't want to see another fucking interlaced display in my lifetime ever again! There is no reason we should have to put up with visual garbage such as interlacing. Holy crap, it's horrid. I'd rather watch 480p (or 720p) than 1080i, but I'm sure 1080i woul

          • 1080i isn't total rubbish. HDNet does a lot of quality work, they always transmit their films in the original aspect ratio, for instance, and they transmit in 1080i [hd.net], and their stuff looks great.

            But yes, HD-newbies may not initially realize that 720p and 1080i should co-exist as equals... high-quality sports games are usually transmitted in 720p, for instance.

          • CBS uses 1080i, ABC and ESPN uses 720p. And there's no comparison. CBS (CSI) looks far far better).

            The only TVs that don't support 720p are cheapo CRT TVs that don't want to convert the signal. 720p requires a vertical frequency of 60Hz and a horizontal frequency of 43.2KHz. Whipping the electron beam right to left between lines 43,000 times per second is a tall order.

            1080i only requires a vertical frequency of 30Hz and a horizontal frequency of 16.2KHz. That's a lot easier to do on a tube.

            I do have to go b
            • > The only TVs that don't support 720p are cheapo CRT TVs that don't want to convert the signal

              Or us unlucky bastards who were early HD adopters who bought our expensive gear 5+ years ago...
            • So you're comparing a 720p signal that's converted to 1080i against one that's being displayed in its native resolution? There are some televisions that display 720p natively, and it looks great. I think one of the best showcases for HDTV in the early days was the show Alias on ABC.
              • Bad assumption.

                My TV is a LCD rear projection unit with a resolution of 1368x768. It doesn't convert 720p to 1080i. Only CRT-based HDTVs do that. Discrete-pixel displays (LCD, LCos, DLP, plasma, FED/SED) can't even really display interlaced material without converting it to progressive (except the new wobblerating DLPs).

                Alias was okay in the early days. It just can't hold a candle to CSI:TOS though, it's been that way for at least two years. It's not just the resolution, because Law and Order is 1080i too a
          • I didn't mean to imply that 1080p was bad, just that it wasn't readily available yet - and I agree with you that it's terrible that it's not. Interlacing really isn't necessary anymore, and I wish 1080i hadn't been included as an HD resolution. Now that it's out there, I see it being touted a lot more than 720p just because it sounds better to the un-informed. I've started seeing some DLPs in stores that support 1080p, but I don't want to upgrade to a new display until I feel like there's enough content
          • "What's the point, 1080p isn't so common" because I don't want to see another fucking interlaced display in my lifetime ever again! There is no reason we should have to put up with visual garbage such as interlacing.

            You can't just make blanket statements like that. 1080i is superior to 720p if your subject is relatively low-motion. 720p is superior if your subject is relativly high motion.

            If you watch a lot of sports or play video games, 720p is better. If you watch a lot of dramas and non-action cinema,

            • You can't just make blanket statements like that. 1080i is superior to 720p if your subject is relatively low-motion.

              You mean like using an LCD or Plasma screen both of which have a much lower millisecond response time in pixel change. With a CRT, it's near instantaneous. As such, the effect of interlacing only becomes noticeable with CRT technology.

              Who would have though LCD and Plasma technology inherently masks the effect of interlacing? ;)
      • I do think that HDTV uptake is going to be very slow though. Unlike the USA, UK broadcasters aren't doing HDTV until the middle of next year. I'd be interested to see how many (if any) other countries have started it yet.
    • by zaphod8829 (754076)
      Right, and no one sees any reason to store more than 4.5GB on a disc anytime soon either.

      Wasn't this the very reason they changed the DVD acronym to stand for Digital Versatile Disc rather than Digital Video disc?
      • I saw floppy drives at Fry's yesterday.
    • by Anyd (625939)
      But DRM and copyright flags will prohibit us from watching it with our eyes open.
    • Maybe 90% of televisions will still be SD simply because of the installed base and that they last so long, but currently about 10% of current US households already have at least one high definition capable TV set. HD sets are getting a lot cheaper every year as well, I would not be surprised to see a 720p LCD available early next year for $500, it would probably be around 27" or so.
      • Saw one over at Walmart last night (don't ask why I was there...thats the first time I was in there in 6 months) that was a 27" for $700 so your not far off. It was a piece of crap, but none the less close to your $500.
      • you know some people are still using black and white tv sets.

        but seriously the 1950's called they want their 'color tv's are too expensive' bit back.

        HDtv will continue to grow, people don't always wait for stuff to break to replace it, they wait until it makes sense for them to shell out the $$ to get a new tv
    • by badasscat (563442)
      This trumped-up format war is going to be dead on arrival -- because 90% of U.S. televisions won't be anywhere near an HDTV signal until 2015.

      News flash: they already are.

      Even "wait and see" articles like this one [siliconvalley.com] admit that there are already 16 million HDTV's in the US, which makes for greater than 10% market share (more like 15%). And that's as a percentage of all TV's currently in use - if you realize that there are more TV's in use than households in this country, then you can also make the assumption
      • Even "wait and see" articles like this one [siliconvalley.com] admit that there are already 16 million HDTV's in the US, which makes for greater than 10% market share (more like 15%). And that's as a percentage of all TV's currently in use - if you realize that there are more TV's in use than households in this country, then you can also make the assumption that many HDTV-enabled homes also have standard TV's in secondary rooms. So the total household penetration is probably more like 20%.

        Be careful whe
    • 90% of U.S. televisions won't be anywhere near an HDTV signal until 2015

      I see satellite dishes everywhere, HD on digital cable, four American and three Canadian border stations broadcasting in HD right now.

    • This trumped-up format war is going to be dead on arrival -- because 90% of U.S. televisions won't be anywhere near an HDTV signal until 2015. It's going to be DVD right up to the holocubes.

      A significant chunk of DVD sales is for TV series, which are usually sold by the season on multi-disc sets. HD-DVD or Blu-Ray or both will be quite popular regardless of whether people have TVs that can display HDTV, simply because they'll be able to get a whole season of a show on far fewer discs.

      • TV series on DVD have already shown us that pricing of shows on disc has nothing to do with the cost of making copies. Even assuming that they are encoded at the same bitrates we see today, making it possible to cram whole seasons onto 1 or 2 discs, pricing will not change and people will not be flocking to a new format that costs the same -- or, more realistically, costs even more.
    • You are right. The majority of America still do not have a HDTV ready TV. It is one of the reasons why the government is working on subsidies to help low income and poverty level income brackets buy hdtv receivers/turners. This will enable Analog TVs to watch HDTV.

      FYI -- Low Income and Poverty Level people can not afford $500 HDTV ready tv.
  • by ClickOnThis (137803) on Saturday December 17, 2005 @02:39PM (#14280347) Journal
    The article headline says that HP has dropped support for Blu-Ray, implying that it has dropped all support. Whereas the article text makes it clear that HP has only dropped exclusive support.

    A bit of fact-spinning going on at MSNBC?
    • by Anonymous Coward
      Not to sound like Bill Clinton, but there's support in the sense of "backing" and support in the sense of "working with." For example, you could say Apple iPods support mp3, but in reality Apple backs AAC while still working with MP3.
    • by Anonymous Coward
      Yes, drop could mean to totally dump something. But it could also be "drop" as in "a drop in volume", which simply means a reduction. So Sony "dropping" support for Blu-Ray could also be interpreted as "reducing" support. Similar to how Pat Robertson's, "I think we should take him out", doesn't necessarily refer to assassination. It sometimes comes in handy to know how to simultaneously say things and not say them.
    • A bit of fact-spinning going on at MSNBC?

      Microsoft is backing the competing format.

      That said, it's much more likely that they just used a shorter headline with smaller words as is SOP for most news organization headlines.
  • It's "Blu-ray" (Score:4, Informative)

    by Jugalator (259273) on Saturday December 17, 2005 @02:40PM (#14280349) Journal
    It's not Blue-ray, since it was considered too generic to be trademarked.
    Hmm... "Blue-rays" less generic than... Windows?
    • Windows isn't trademarked either. Microsoft Windows is.
      • OHIM, which manages the europe-wide trademark system confirms that "windows" is a trademark of the Microsoft Corporation and has been since 1996.

        You see, before "windows" the term meant "panes of glass in the wall of a house" to most people.

        Just like I couldn't have the term "fishing boat" as a trademark in the boat making industry but could in say the pencil making industry. "fishing boat" is not a term in the pencil making art (AFAIK) and so can be used to indicate origin (in the sense of the originating
        • I agree with this, Windows is trademarked in several countries to the point that Lindows haven't been allowed, and the reason behind this "Linspire" thing.

          In the USA, Lindows could keep using its name after a drawn out case that finally ruled in their favor, and that Windows could just be used in the context of Microsoft Windows and not in general, so there was no "collision" with Lindows, but this didn't happen in Europe AFAIK.
  • Great (Score:2, Interesting)

    by 42Penguins (861511)
    DVD burners can now do DVD+R and DVD-R in one, and are finally getting down in price.

    And now we have the next turn around, with Blu-ray and HD-DVD.
    So place your bets, gentlemen. Will one die, as in Betamax?
    Or will they eventually be combined in a single machine? (Is that possible?)
  • Only the most open solution can win. Consumers will realize if they can't copy (to some other medium) or if either one angles them in DRM, that it just isn't worth it.

    AFAIK, both of them drown in DRM features and there's no real buzz for them outside some in the video-phile community, DVDs will prevail - they are good enough and neither new offering offer killer must-have features for the majority of people.

    Since either medium doesn't give me a significantly big boost in GBs that I was expecting, it will p
    • by jerw134 (409531) on Saturday December 17, 2005 @03:05PM (#14280446)
      Consumers will realize if they can't copy (to some other medium) or if either one angles them in DRM, that it just isn't worth it.

      Right, because consumers everywhere are copying DVDs to other mediums.

      With DVDs, you have NO (legal) ability to do anything with the DVD aside from playing it. With the new formats, they will have managed copy systems to allow some copying. So your argument makes absolutely no sense.
      • Right, because consumers everywhere are copying DVDs to other mediums.

        Actually, I've been doing exactly that ever since I got my Archos DV4100. With the recent advent of the Video iPod, that is only going to get more common as time goes on.

        The primary limitation hasn't been inability, but rather the compelling reason to leave the relatively portable DVD. Now that hard drives are becoming cheap enough for portable players to not cost a corporate mint, that is a burgeoning reality.

        Nonetheless, whether or no
      • I find this comment (on the cluelessness of consumers) somewhat hilarious if it's supposed to support Blu-ray/HD-DVD. Most owners that have HD TVs, at least the early adopters, probably have a clue. The other (majority) of consumers with lesser TVs won't have a reason to really give a rat's ass about anything but DVD and thus don't have a reason to buy in the first place.

        I still think it's too early in the DVD cycle for DVDs to lose a significant amount of customers. HD is still a niche market.

        By the tim
    • both of them drown in DRM features

      As I understand it, both formats allow "one click" transfers to hard disk drives, distribution through home networks and standard-definition downloads to portable devices.

      That sounds like "Fair Use" to me. I would like the option to stream low-res video over IM chat links and the like. But that is not a deal-breaker.

    • by DrYak (748999)
      Because, of course, Joe Six Pack knows perfectly well what "DRM" means.
      And in 2006, he is of course aware the one can copy movie ? He hasn't seen VCR for ages, and the only thing he can think of when you speak about recording to him is either Camcoder, TiVO, or downloading from Kazaa.

      I've actually seen portable music player beeing advertised as "MP3, WMA, and DRM" compatible. As if DRM was something to be proud of.
      And I've seen the average joes *buying* them, not because they understand anything, but just b
    • Consumers will realize if they can't copy (to some other medium) or if either one angles them in DRM, that it just isn't worth it.

      AFAIK, both of them drown in DRM features and there's no real buzz for them outside some in the video-phile community, DVDs will prevail - they are good enough and neither new offering offer killer must-have features for the majority of people.

      I agree

      I remember reading a discussion like this a few years back... about some wierd new format horning on something that provided

    • ...Then I think sales of Blu-Ray/HD-DVD sales will be fairly strong.

      Don't forget sales are picking up of 1080p rear-projection TV's, and I expect most Blu-Ray/HD-DVD players to sport circuitry to down-convert to the 720p format used by earlier-generation DLP, LCD and LCOS rear projection TV's. Even down-converted to 720p, the picture quality will still be quite a bit better than the 480p, since the line resolution count will be 50% higher.

      But at 1080p resolution, you're talking 2¼ times the resolution
  • looming? (Score:4, Funny)

    by customs (236182) on Saturday December 17, 2005 @02:46PM (#14280375)
    a looming format war? what have you called the last year? minor consistent back and forth skirmishes?

    sorry folks, the format war has been going on.
    • a looming format war? what have you called the last year?

      A cold war. Accumulating allies before the first shots are fired.

      When they're competing on price, features, marketing, content, players, how "open" their DRM is, etc., then it will be a format war.
  • by Kohath (38547) on Saturday December 17, 2005 @02:46PM (#14280380)
    HP wants to support HD-DVD because Windows Vista will have support for HD-DVD, but add-ons like Java will be required for Blu-ray. Microsoft won't ship Java with Windows Vista.

    This only matters for PCs and laptops, not stand-alone Blu-ray players. The makers of stand-alone players are happy to ship Java.

    I plan on buying the PS3 as my high-def disc player. It will support Blu-ray and it runs Linux. Plus I can play games on it.
    • This seems to be very true. HP even made a request [vnunet.com] that the Blu-ray group include iHD (microsoft's non java interactivity "language") support. However, iHD isn't even "Tested". I can't find any information on it. Compare this with java with has many years of being tried and tested. Also consider the fact that either way, Blu-Ray or HD DVD implementors will have to pay MS for the VC-1 license.

      It almost seems as if MS is "convincing" HP to make this move. I don't know if it has anything to do with java itself
    • "and it runs Linux"

      That's a pretty confident statement. You talk as if it is already out and have it running right now

    • Java will be needed for menus, titles, etc. - everything needed for watching movies. Microsoft may simply not ship this stuff, and rely on third-party offers (e.g. Windows XP/Media Player cannot play DVDs out-of-the box, but only after installing a third-party decoder).
    • HP wants to support HD-DVD because Windows Vista will have support for HD-DVD, but add-ons like Java will be required for Blu-ray. Microsoft won't ship Java with Windows Vista.

      Luckily, since the stuff in question will be in the decoding hardware rather than in the software, Microsoft won't actually have to ship anything beyond drivers.

      It's not often I get to chastize someone on Slashdot for having an excessively Microsoft-centric view of hardware. Today, folks, is such a day. Badbear! BAD.
  • by DumbSwede (521261) <slashdotbin@hotmail.com> on Saturday December 17, 2005 @02:51PM (#14280406) Journal
    HP is just trying to strong-arm some more concessions out of Sony on Blu-Ray features like managed copy. With 90% support from movie studios and HD-DVD delayed until 2006 the battle is already over. Even Microsoft has quit making noise about a possible HD-DVD X-Box 360. As far as low cost manufacture of discs, Blu-Ray can win there too with mpeg-4 on conventional DVD-9 for low bar entry into HD production -- can you aay porn? I know you could.
    • HP is just trying to strong-arm some more concessions out of Sony on Blu-Ray features like managed copy.

      Actually, that has already happened.

      Nov 16, 2005 - Blu-ray Disc to Support Mandatory Managed Copy [blu-ray.com]
    • Because nobody has a HD-DVD or a Blu-Ray player available for purchase, and won't for at least a year, it is FAR, FAR too early to declare anyone the winner in this format war.

      And the fact is that both camps have a reason to lie to you and tell you they are going to be ready as soon as or sooner than the competition to keep supporters from leaving them. At this point there is no way to know when either product is really going to be available. Although HD-DVD may seem to be behind right now because Hollyw
  • Of course? (Score:3, Funny)

    by darkmeridian (119044) <william DOT chuang AT gmail DOT com> on Saturday December 17, 2005 @02:53PM (#14280417) Homepage
    Who would support Blue-Ray anyway? I mean it isn't even a standard like Blu-Ray is.
  • by pla (258480) on Saturday December 17, 2005 @02:54PM (#14280423) Journal
    The decision is the latest sign of a looming 'format war' between the competing standards for a new generation

    First of all, only those of us who actually want to use this stuff will "lose" this war. As with the DVD +/- "war", we'll just end up seeing every device need to license both formats, boosting prices and causing massive incompatibilities where people argue about which brand of media works best in which brand of drive. And Grandma still won't understand why she can't burn her now-in-HD soaps to a plain ordinary CD ("But it fits in the drive!").



    These industry groups REALLY needs to suck up their pride, and just play a hand of poker to decide which format wins. The winner will agree to buy out the loser's R&D costs (perhaps with a bit extra as a deal-sweetener), and the loser will in turn refrain from unnecessarily fragmenting the market. Then we all win. Even the industry groups.



    But more importantly, I see the whole Blu-Ray vs HD-HVD issue as all but moot. Regardless of who wins, we'll only see at best a roughly 10x increase in optical storage capacity per disc, and even that only at the tail end of the effective lifetime of the media (ie, look at writeable dual-layer DVDs - Oh wait, I can't, I've never even seen one in person, and they cost a few bucks each).

    The "home theater" market does not have the same requirements as the data storage market. For home theater, just switching the existing DVD standard to allow MPEG-4 would allow for HD movies. But for data storage, particularly backups, we now have desktop PCs with 500GB drives - Which will still take 20 first-gen Blu-Ray discs, or 34 HD-DVDs, to completely back up. And many of us who appreciate the need for good backups have home file servers in excess of a terabyte.

    What we really need, we won't get out of simple industry greed in pushing incremental upgrades on us - We need everyone to say "screw the sub-100GB optical formats, let's finally get one of these multi-TB holographic techs we keep hearing about, to market".
    • But more importantly, I see the whole Blu-Ray vs HD-HVD issue as all but moot. Regardless of who wins, we'll only see at best a roughly 10x increase in optical storage capacity per disc, and even that only at the tail end of the effective lifetime of the media (ie, look at writeable dual-layer DVDs - Oh wait, I can't, I've never even seen one in person, and they cost a few bucks each).

      I used one once to back up a movie for a friend. We had to drive to walmart to buy them, and they only had one brand. Th
    • I used to promote the idea of using the HD optical discs as backups, but frankly, they haven't kept up with hard drive capacities, I had a 600GB hard drive when the first writable CDs came out, a 9GB drive when the earliest writable 4GB DVDs came out, and now I have 400GB drives and even 100GB media is simply inadequate. I just sucked it up and bought external hard drives for backup purposes instead. Using CDs and DVDs no longer makes much sense for backups, they are too slow and save for a changer, requi
  • by Saint Stephen (19450) on Saturday December 17, 2005 @03:09PM (#14280460) Homepage Journal
    My personal opinion is that "HDTV" and "HD-DVD" or whatever are totally missing the point. There's no point in buying one of these "flat panel televisions" -- just go buy a computer monitor. There's no point in getting hi-def content on a dead-plastic disc or from your dead mainstream media. It's all just going to be files on a computer.

    My 2cents.
    • by Anonymous Coward
      Absolutely. Its good to see that more and more displays support VGA/HDMI/DVI as well as Component/Composite/Coax inputs and such. I am glad that the newer media devices like the xbox 360 are supporting VGA output instead of just the standard composite.
    • Yeah, I just love my 50-inch computer monitor... oh wait, those don't exist. I also love downloading HD movies to my computer over the Net... oh wait, nobody has even announced such a thing.
    • There's no point in getting hi-def content on a dead-plastic disc or from your dead mainstream media. It's all just going to be files on a computer.

      As someone with a 26/1.5Mbit cable connection, I would say there is. Getting HDTV movies at 10-15GB EACH is non-trivial.. The HD/Blu-ray DVD discs are looking at 30-50GB each. Maybe when we're all sitting on 100Mbit symmetric that'll change but not now. That is where I would like it to be going though.
    • My personal opinion is that "HDTV" and "HD-DVD" or whatever are totally missing the point.

      HDTV signals need a format standard, modulation scheme, etc. If they didn't write it well, recievers would be very, very expensive.

      It is also very nice to have standard resolutions to aim for, otherwise everything would have completely arbitrary resolution, aspect, etc.

      In particular, it's still very difficult to even decode HDTV in realtime on a brand-new PC. You certainly wouldn't have seen people getting HDTVs 5+

      • Point me to a 50" 16:9 computer monitor that can do at least 1920x1080 for under $1000.

        First point me to a sub-$1000 50" HDTV that supports 1080i. The only things I could find in that price range don't natively support 1080i- they downscale to 720p. That automatically disqualifies them according to your specs. And they're mostly projection displays, which come with a huge set of drawbacks (hugely limited optimum viewing angle for one).
        • First point me to a sub-$1000 50" HDTV that supports 1080i.

          I'm quite sure I could find a few if I was willing to put some effort into researching them, just for you... Instead, I just found the cheapest one (51", $1,170) on bestbuy:

          http://www.bestbuy.com/site/olspage.jsp?skuId=7071 633&productCategoryId=pcmcat31800050029&type=produ ct&id=1110265591947 [bestbuy.com]

          Now you can point me to the 51" sub-$1,170 computer monitors.

          The only things I could find in that price range don't natively support 1080i- they

          • It's true that you won't find a monitor that size probably at all, much less for a price that low. My 24" LCD monitor (Dell 2405FPW, which is capable of displaying 1080p) retails for $1200. I paid less than that, but it's still a hell of a lot more than a TV. That being said, it does have a far superior vieweability to projection TVs. My roommate owns a Panasonic 50" LCD projection HDTV (which, by the way, is one of those sets that doesn't natively support 1080i), and its optimum viewing angle range is posi
            • My roommate owns a Panasonic 50" LCD projection HDTV (which, by the way, is one of those sets that doesn't natively support 1080i), and its optimum viewing angle range is positively tiny- even when compared to my LCD.

              I don't know what to tell you about that specific TV... But moder projection screens generally have a better viewing angle than even the best LCDs.

              Also, comparing it to your 24" LCD isn't quite fair. The problems with viewing angles multiply as screen-size increases. So much so that at 50" o

  • Blu-Ray (Score:2, Informative)

    by Kickboy12 (913888)
    Blu-Ray is clearly the better format. It can hold more, and has faster read times (theoretically, havn't seen stats yet). The only reason HD-DVD has alot of interest is because it's cheaper to produce, and requires only small modifications to current DVD players. More evidance that in the current capitalist buisness world, quality is the least important factor in anything. Money is the bottom line.
    • Capitalism is always about a balance or compromise between price and quality. Sony could probably have come out with a format that stores double what it does but at 10x times the cost, in which case HD-DVD would be the clear winner. I demand quality as a consumer, but not at any cost. This is the beauty of capitalism, we the consumers get the quality we want (demand) at the price point we are willing to pay.
    • "The only reason HD-DVD has alot of interest is because it's cheaper to produce, and requires only small modifications to current DVD players. More evidance that in the current capitalist buisness world, quality is the least important factor in anything. Money is the bottom line."

      HD-DVD drives and disks share a common focal distance with DVDs which makes them easier to produce right now. The players are going to require considerable rework, especially since HD-DVDs are using iHD instead of standard Java
    • Last time I checked both formats are rated at the same (slow) speed. Blu-ray's only main technical advantage is that it could theoretically hold more than HD-DVD. But since both formats have a lot more space than is necessary even for HD films, it is hard to see that as much a real advantage in comparison to the cheaper and more flexible manufacturing of HD-DVD. (You can have HD-DVD processing lines make normal DVDs too. Manufacturers really like like that.)
    • Yeah, but it's too bad they go and ruin all that technical superiority with DRM garbage.

      I'll wait till both formats are out first, then make my decision. From the looks of things, I won't be buying either of them. Not for movies anyways. They just don't offer me anything that DVD doesn't already (I don't have an HDTV, nor do I find the picture quality difference that significant for my tastes).
  • Whether HP supported Blue-Ray or HD. IT DOES NOT MATTER. The only ones that matter are the content providers. Those have voted for Blue ray exclusively or vowed to support both format. So, HP and MS really do not matter when it comes to this fight. It is over and Blue Ray has won because of the studios.
  • ...we better get some major consumer electronics retailer to issue a press release and pay MSNBC to cover it. If Blu-Ray wins, think of all the patent licensing revenue we'll lose!
  • Apple is the key. (Score:3, Interesting)

    by jcr (53032) <jcr.mac@com> on Saturday December 17, 2005 @04:45PM (#14280837) Journal
    All the filmmakers use Macs, the screenwriters use Macs, the editors use Macs, and the format that Macs can burn is going to be the standard in Hollywood.

    -jcr
    • Re:Apple is the key. (Score:3, Informative)

      by goMac2500 (741295)
      Apple has already announced support for Blu-Ray.
    • Reality Check: No, it doesn't matter what Macs can burn because they won't be burning all 50 bajillion copies of King Kong on a couple of Macs..... They're going to press them in a factory. Just to forestall the flamewar, I'm a mac user, most would say fanatic, I'm writing this on an iMac G5, and I can't wait to watch Blu-Ray movies on my iMac G10 or whatever. But what Macs will be able to burn does not matter to the movie industry except maybe in terms of awareness.
      • Reality Check: No, it doesn't matter what Macs can burn because they won't be burning all 50 bajillion copies of King Kong on a couple of Macs..... They're going to press them in a factory.

        The mass production isn't what matters here. Hollywood uses Macs, and hollywood will decide what on what format the movies are made available.

        -jcr
      • on your iMac G10? you mean your iMac Pentium10.
    • Why do they use a Mac ? Does MovieFakeOS run on Macs ?
  • by SuperKendall (25149) * on Saturday December 17, 2005 @05:06PM (#14280911)
    Out of all the players in both the Blu-Ray and HD-DVD camps, I literally cannot think of a more insignificant player.

    HP is dropping exclusive support simply because they are acting as a Microsoft shill to try and shoehorn Microsoft's menuing language into the Blu-Ray spec. Undoubtedly it would stick in Microsofts craw to have to develop tools to help people build Java based menus that are going to be a part of Blu-Ray, and simialrily they probably already have tools lined up to support thier own format.

    However I don't think HP's slight shift in allegance will have any impact. If Dell had moved it might be a bigger story, although really the players that matter are the consumer electronics manufacturers as whatever player there are the most of are going to be the players computer owners will want burners for to play thier own media.

    Currently still the war looks to be over before it began with Sony shipping Blu-Ray players in every PS3. Within a year there are simply going to be an order of magnitude more Blu-Ray players than HD-DVD, and that will be that as much as the monolithc marketing engines behind HD-DVD will try and drag things out.
    • Out of all the players in both the Blu-Ray and HD-DVD camps, I literally cannot think of a more insignificant player.

      HP is the #2 PC maker. They're far from insignificant.

      -jcr
      • Yes, the #2 PC maker. Which as I noted means diddly-squat in terms of consumer electronics.

        Dell at least has a small grasp on the market selling TV's and the like. I could see a Dell branded player even. But even if HP offeres a player, who is going to buy it from them?

        HP simply has no leverage where it counts. As far as using this move to force the Blu-Ray consoritum to add support for Microsoft menus - Sony and company are just going to laugh at them, or at least shrug it off.

        If PC makers had any real
  • Who cares? In about two-three years, I plan on rigging a slightly older system (P3 probably) up like this: braodband internet +satellite TV +bittorrent client +TV tuner video card +internal holographic hard drive +external holographic hard drive all connected a pair of large flat panel monitors and nice speakers. That's a real home entertainment system (have all TV shows, movies, music, and whatever else you want all together on one disk, and backed up externally for viewing on a laptop on the go), and a ch
  • I mean, noone actually cares for either of those formats. First of all everyone is turning to Internet for distribution. After iPod for video, the news about various TV networks and studios signing up deals with cellular operators and sites for distribution of content over the net have been flooding all blogs and news channels. When people moved from tapes to CD they had: - lighter/cheaper media - non-degrading sound quality over time (well if you handle it properly) So they gradually moved. But it took
  • Right now, i have a nice dvd player that will play Xvids, but it chokes on hires Xvids and won't recognize Matroska containers at all. Give me a good dvd player that will play h.264 video from MKVs and I'd gladly forget all about Sony's BLUR-ay and HDDVD.
  • Problem is there are hardly any spoils to go around for the winner of this little competition. Billions put into research and development for these two formats and I find it highly unlikely either will take off. Like everyone has already said, hardly anyone has a HDTV to take advantage of them, these are expensive devices, and people are not going to be willing to re-buy the old movies and TV shows they just bought on standard DVD just to view them at what most of them would probably call a 10% increase i

To understand a program you must become both the machine and the program.

Working...