Hate to quote Mr. Dvorak, but here's what he said in a recent article taken from http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,1759,1750098,00.asp
When new technologies emerge, there are always competitors, and the current battle raging between the Blu-ray DVD standard (HP, Panasonic, Sony, etc.) and the newer HD-DVD technology (NEC, Sanyo, Toshiba) is no exception. A clear winner hasn't emerged, but looking at the history of this sort of battle, it's apparent to me that HD-DVD will win. Here's why.
Both technologies are targeting the same market: HDTV and data storage. HD-DVD emphasizes HDTV, with a 30GB capacity and a smoother backward compatibility with current DVD technology. A Blu-ray disc holds a whopping 50GB on two layers; Sony has announced an eight-layer drive to hold 200GB. The latter sounds like an ideal backup medium, but making a drive with four writable layers on each side that works outside the lab seems far-fetched.
The scene is further complicated by the competing compression schemes. The recently ratified H.264 (or H.264/AVC), otherwise known as MPEG-4 Part 10the latest iteration of the MPEG-4 standardcan produce images of better quality than MPEG-2 (used by DVD technology), with twice the compression. HD images require around seven times the disk capacity of SD (standard definition) TV images when recorded. (I derived this number by using an HD-DVR.) With H.264 and 30GB, you have the MPEG-2 equivalency of about 60GB, which should easily hold an HD movie. The Blu-ray has much more leeway.
If H.264 isn't good enough, then there is the Microsoft VC-1 codec, derived from Windows Media 9 technology. By all accounts, it's at least as good as, if not better than, H.264. It's so good that the Blu-ray specification calls for it to be used jointly with H.264. From an objective standpoint, we have a superior technology in Blu-ray competing with something not as good. It sounds like the Betamax versus VHS battle. But there I would argue that the definition of superior was in the eyes of the beholder. That's the problem with judging technology based on one's perception or definition of superiority. Users found VHS technology was superior, because the tapes could hold more hours of programming. And this was more important to them than image quality.
We must examine technologies in terms of what I call practical superiority: the differentiation that is responsible for eventual success in the marketplace. Then we must consider secondary issues of politics and promotion. If all things are equal, can one technology overtake the other with superior marketing?
If we look at capacity alone, Blu-ray is clearly superior. I suspect that just as the image-quality gap was eventually closed between VHS and Beta, the capacity gap will close here too. So what is HD-DVD's practical superiority? It's cheaper to make and more easily made backward-compatible. Cheaper to make is the key here, especially in a world where the emphasis is shifting to places like India and China. If image quality is the same, the cheaper product will win. Thus the major Hollywood studios have said they'll support HD-DVD. Sony Entertainment, of course, won't (yet).
Then there are the politics of thisthe most interesting aspect. First, the DVD Forum has endorsed HD-DVD and not Blu-ray. The Sony-led Blu-ray consortium probably didn't think this was important, after witnessing the emergence of DVD+RW without any support from the DVD Forum.
Another subtext is the copy-protection mechanism. The HD-DVD system is being sold as uncrackable. True or not, it sounds good to Hollywood. Blu-ray seems more liberal in its approach, with "limited-copy" mechanisms similar to those found on DAT recorders. This factor alone could kill Blu-ray among the paranoid Hollywood types. One copy, even if legal, is to be avoided as far as they are concerned.
Then there are the codecs. Manufacturers have to pay for each one installed in every unit. So how long will VC-1 and H.264 coexist in the same boxes when they do the same thing? Do we need two formats? I sense the cheap-thinking HD-DVD folks are ready to scrap VC-1, while Blu-ray is not.
The final factor is the arrows-in-the-back phenomenon, which occurs when a technology comes out too far ahead of the curveas Blu-ray did. It's been around for years without getting any traction. This makes it seem oldor as if it never worked right. "Blu-ray, I've heard of that. Did they ever get it to work?" Meanwhile, HD-DVD is new and jazzy.
When you put these factors together, along with Sony's track record for being on the wrong side of the technology split, it's hard to see Blu-ray winning this one. Hello, HD-DVD!
When new technologies emerge, there are always competitors, and the current battle raging between the Blu-ray DVD standard (HP, Panasonic, Sony, etc.) and the newer HD-DVD technology (NEC, Sanyo, Toshiba) is no exception. A clear winner hasn't emerged, but looking at the history of this sort of battle, it's apparent to me that HD-DVD will win. Here's why.
Both technologies are targeting the same market: HDTV and data storage. HD-DVD emphasizes HDTV, with a 30GB capacity and a smoother backward compatibility with current DVD technology. A Blu-ray disc holds a whopping 50GB on two layers; Sony has announced an eight-layer drive to hold 200GB. The latter sounds like an ideal backup medium, but making a drive with four writable layers on each side that works outside the lab seems far-fetched.
The scene is further complicated by the competing compression schemes. The recently ratified H.264 (or H.264/AVC), otherwise known as MPEG-4 Part 10the latest iteration of the MPEG-4 standardcan produce images of better quality than MPEG-2 (used by DVD technology), with twice the compression. HD images require around seven times the disk capacity of SD (standard definition) TV images when recorded. (I derived this number by using an HD-DVR.) With H.264 and 30GB, you have the MPEG-2 equivalency of about 60GB, which should easily hold an HD movie. The Blu-ray has much more leeway.
If H.264 isn't good enough, then there is the Microsoft VC-1 codec, derived from Windows Media 9 technology. By all accounts, it's at least as good as, if not better than, H.264. It's so good that the Blu-ray specification calls for it to be used jointly with H.264. From an objective standpoint, we have a superior technology in Blu-ray competing with something not as good. It sounds like the Betamax versus VHS battle. But there I would argue that the definition of superior was in the eyes of the beholder. That's the problem with judging technology based on one's perception or definition of superiority. Users found VHS technology was superior, because the tapes could hold more hours of programming. And this was more important to them than image quality.
We must examine technologies in terms of what I call practical superiority: the differentiation that is responsible for eventual success in the marketplace. Then we must consider secondary issues of politics and promotion. If all things are equal, can one technology overtake the other with superior marketing?
If we look at capacity alone, Blu-ray is clearly superior. I suspect that just as the image-quality gap was eventually closed between VHS and Beta, the capacity gap will close here too. So what is HD-DVD's practical superiority? It's cheaper to make and more easily made backward-compatible. Cheaper to make is the key here, especially in a world where the emphasis is shifting to places like India and China. If image quality is the same, the cheaper product will win. Thus the major Hollywood studios have said they'll support HD-DVD. Sony Entertainment, of course, won't (yet).
Then there are the politics of thisthe most interesting aspect. First, the DVD Forum has endorsed HD-DVD and not Blu-ray. The Sony-led Blu-ray consortium probably didn't think this was important, after witnessing the emergence of DVD+RW without any support from the DVD Forum.
Another subtext is the copy-protection mechanism. The HD-DVD system is being sold as uncrackable. True or not, it sounds good to Hollywood. Blu-ray seems more liberal in its approach, with "limited-copy" mechanisms similar to those found on DAT recorders. This factor alone could kill Blu-ray among the paranoid Hollywood types. One copy, even if legal, is to be avoided as far as they are concerned.
Then there are the codecs. Manufacturers have to pay for each one installed in every unit. So how long will VC-1 and H.264 coexist in the same boxes when they do the same thing? Do we need two formats? I sense the cheap-thinking HD-DVD folks are ready to scrap VC-1, while Blu-ray is not.
The final factor is the arrows-in-the-back phenomenon, which occurs when a technology comes out too far ahead of the curveas Blu-ray did. It's been around for years without getting any traction. This makes it seem oldor as if it never worked right. "Blu-ray, I've heard of that. Did they ever get it to work?" Meanwhile, HD-DVD is new and jazzy.
When you put these factors together, along with Sony's track record for being on the wrong side of the technology split, it's hard to see Blu-ray winning this one. Hello, HD-DVD!
, but it's very interesting and shows just how clueless some posters over here are... *cough* nuckinfutz *cough* GFLPraxis *cough* 
