HD-DVD and Blu-Ray: a rundown on the teams
By Kevin C. Tofel 
posted Aug 17th 2005 2:07PM
posted Aug 17th 2005 2:07PM
I have an uneasy feeling we're going to have at least one HD-DVD and Blu-Ray post a day, at least until one of the products actually hit the retail shelves. In case you live under a rock and have missed these HD media wars, here's the high-level skinny on these phat formats.- HD-DVD can store 15GB per layer
side or up to 30GB per disk. Studio backers on this team include: Warner Brothers, Paramount, and Universal. - Blu-Ray can store 25GB per layer
50GB per side or up to 100GB per disk. Players on this side include: 20th Century Fox, Sony and Disney. Universal Music jumped on board this week.
Regardless of the name, both formats use a blue laser over today's current red lasers. The color has to do with the wavelength; blue lasers can read more data in smaller spaces. Both formats also boast superior copy protection, which makes Hollywood happy.
Two competing formats for the same type of media makes me unhappy, but at least you're now up to speed. We now return you to the DVD you were watching; or is is DVD+R....or a DVD-RAM...or a DVD+-RW; well, you get the idea.
HD-DVD and Blu-Ray will provide a clear picture if you can read through the blurry format differences. The only thing clear so far: format wars plain hurt the consumer. Competition is great, but lets see competing products with unique functions, not competing formats for the same function!
Actually, Blu-ray is only 25GB per layer. You can have a 50GB Blu-ray disc, but that's a dual-layer disc. By comparison, HD DVD holds 15GB per layer, so a dual-layer HD DVD can hold 30GB.
Regardless, a triple-layer HD DVD disc still can't hold as much as a dual-layer Blu-ray disc. And I don't think either format is going to gain a huge foothold in the marketplace, unless the studios start releasing everything in dual-disc formats. (Which they can do with either HD DVD or Blu-ray, actually...)
Thanks for the correction; updates made in post. Too many "layers" of confusion with multiple "standards"!
Is Universal and Universal Music a different company?
I think they're part of the same conglomerate, but they're effectively run as separate companies.
Universal Music is still owned by Vivendi, just as the games division is. The motion picture and television assets (such as Universal Studios) is now part of NBC Universal, whose majority shareholder is GE, with Vivendi in the minority. That's why there is a distinction. Warner Music is a separate entity from the rest of the Warner Bros. assets that are still owned by TimeWarner (but a minority of Warner Music stock is still owned by TimeWarner*). And Sony's music interests are now part of SonyBMG and separate from parent company Sony and Sony (Columbia/TriStar) Pictures.
*Typical of Warner Communications history. TimeWarner got rid of Warner Music because music industry sales were in the slumps at the time and there was widespread discussion of internet piracy going on. TimeWarner sold the majority stake of the division to Bronfman (sic) to take pressure off TimeWarner's stock with the intent to come back in at a later date and buy back the company if it is turned around and TimeWarner's stock appreciates in the meantime. Warner Communications did a similar scheme back in 1984 when it split up Atari Inc. and sold majority stakes off (home division 75% sold to the Tramiel family, arcade division 75% sold to Namco) to relieve pressure off Warner's stock at the time and to fend of Rupert Murdoch's takeover attempt at the time. It is an easy assumption that TimeWarner will try the same thing with AOL as soon as possible.