It isn't often that we specifically call out another site for writing things that are just not true, but this one we can't let go. In an article about Blu-ray's Managed Copy, Ars Technica's Nate Anderson posts that Blu-ray's Managed Copy is a "stinker" because you might have to pay to make a copy and claims that the HD DVD version was better because it was free. Other than the fact that this is just not true, the part that really struck out to us was that he linked back to the Ars archive to support his statement, but must've missed the part of the source that states "No, as Jordi Rebbas told me, studios have to offer managed copy, but they have the option of charging for it." Lucky for us, both
Intel and Microsoft exposed the real difference in Managed Copy between the two formats, which was that initially on Blu-ray the studios could choose whether or not each title was copyable, so in other words it wasn't mandatory. The
BDA eventually caved and as we've said before, Managed Copy on Blu-ray is mandatory. Another related note is that Managed Copy was never implemented on HD DVD either, as it was also dependent on the
finalization of AACS, but what was different was that the Discs did contain data that pointed to what was expected to become authentication servers. So in theory, if the format would've survived, even the initial Discs would've been copyable when it was implemented. Of course we'll never get to find out if it would've worked, but at least they did plan ahead a little, which is more than you can say for Blu-ray.
posted November 10th 2009 9:53AM
"Ars Technica's Nate Anderson posts that Blu-ray's Managed Copy is a "stinker" because you might have to pay to make a copy and claims that the HD DVD version was better because it was free."
"he linked back to the Ars archive to support his statement, but must of missed the part of the source that states "No, as Jordi Rebbas told me, studios have to offer managed copy, but they have the option of charging for it"
I don't see where it says either of those things in the Ars Technica article. In fact the article actually points out the same fact "Oh, and no one said that these managed copies have to be free, either."
Really? It says it right under the sub heading "Blame Congress?" with "The managed copy saga has now been four years in the making. Back in 2005, when HD DVD was still battling it out with Blu-ray, companies like Intel and Microsoft went with HD DVD due to its mandatory support of (free) managed copy for all discs. "
I have a screen shot if that isn't what your's says.
Mandatory support does not mean it is free at all.
Sorry Ben, think I misinterpreted the emphasis of your comment. Redacted:)
It would appear that Nate got his facts a little mixed up, but does it really matter? HD DVD dead. Deal with it.
Nice article Ben. I really hope some industry finds uses for HD-DVD but lack of support solidifies the death of this format. I agree with you that HD-DVD looked forward. It's a shame to celebrate "new" features that Blu-ray acquires with various firmware updates while some of them were available with HD-DVD.
Some people can never let the HD DVD/Blu ray format war go….BEN DRAWBAUGH!
Haha, actually I've let it go, but I can't stand by and let others spread this crap. I felt I was pretty even since I acknowledged that HD DVD was more forward thinking.
"Must of"? Eh - correcting other authors is fine, but get your grammar right - it's "must have"...
Just givin you crap buddy.
Another example of why HD-DVD was better designed than Blu-ray.
Another example of you NOT paying attention. Ben just showed, AGAIN, all the talk about HD-DVD being Managed Copy-ready from the get go was pretty much false. It wasn't going to be free, the spec wasn't even completred at that point.
And probably the only reason Ben even wrote this article is because it ties into another Maganed Copy article he posted earlier. I didnt read the comments for that one, but I'm willing to bet there was a whole bunch of HD-DVD diehards who won't let the format wars go saying how it proved HD-DVD was better, even though Maganed Copy wasnt even ready yet, and those XML files on the discs may have ended up being useless anyway.
I read the article. My point is that HD-DVD had this and other features designed in from the beginning. I don't care if managed copy may not have been free. The point is that it was there as part of the original spec, and should it have been enabled, it would have worked on all discs, even those already in the wild. It didn't take four revisions of the format to include features that should have been there from day one, managed copy just being one of them.
Blu-ray was released way too early. It wasn't done yet.
A great example of this is that the original 1.0 players won't play many current titles. If that isn't broken, I don't know what is.
Not sure why we have to keep rehashing the past, but if Toshiba would've just joined the BDA to begin with then they would not have been in such a rush to bring it to market.
HD DVD had it merits, but they weren't enough, so lets just let it die already.
Every time these things come up, the Blu camp always ends up sounding like a bunch of battered house wives.
"He didn't mean to hurt me. He'll make it up to me. He promised me the ring, the kid, the house."
They should have called it Black & Blu-Ray.
Doug, it would never have worked on all disks. Go look at at the aacs files on HD DVDs some time. The manifest files point at non-existent servers and they're filled with untested values. The server values changed from disk to disk so one disk might work while another might not. MC was always an academic point for both formats. Blu Ray just chose to sideline it rather than put stub files on the disk. Chances are if HD DVD had survived long enough to see a player capable of MC, that it would be filled with per title specific patches to work around the broken files on the disk.
As for better designed, in some ways HD DVD was distinctly worse as you well know. I suppose if we were to subjectively compare BD 1.0 to HD DVD, that overall HD DVD would come out ahead. Then again 1.1 and 2.0 turned up in HD DVD's lifetime and easily surpassed it. All while maintaining backwards compatibility. Not that many of the alleged features such as PIP or internet connectivity are worth a damn on either format.
I was going to let this go, but when such blatantly wrong information is being published I can't just sit back and watch.
In what way did Blu-ray 1.1 or 2.0 surpass HD-DVD's specs?
If you say capacity I'm going to thump you on the head because even 20GB is more than enough to produce an extremely high quality title in HD with either VC-1 or AVC. Even single layer HD-DVD would have been good enough for most movies, though few of those were made. And we certainly aren't seeing tons of bonus material on current Blu-ray discs taking advantage of the extra capacity; manufacturers are still including extra discs for that (with many titles, like Disney's newest, coming on no less than 4 discs for 1 movie!) There were certainly HD-DVD discs that included just as much bonus material all on a single disc without sacrificing video quality (ever see King Kong on HD-DVD?), and many had the DVD version on the flip side to boot, requiring fewer resources to manufacture, and fewer discs to deal with.
Unless you count the extra layer of anti-consumer copy protection, I don't see how even the latest incarnation of Blu-ray surpasses HD-DVD in any of its specs. The picture and audio quality certainly hasn't changed. And the two formats are identical in that respect, with both using the exact same codecs, frame rate, and resolution.
Let's look at what each version of Blu-ray added: 1.1 made PiP and secondary audio stream capability mandatory, and added optional local storage. HD-DVD had all three from launch. 2.0 added internet connectivity. HD-DVD had that from the beginning too. Still not seeing advantage from Blu. More of a catching up.
Not only are several of the added features optional, most manufacturers are leaving at least some of them out, so capabilities vary from one player to the next (very few, for example, have any internal local storage, and require a separate purchase of a USB thumb drive). A feature that works on one player might not be included or work on another. It's a mess! I have inconsistent performance between my two players (some bonus features on some discs work on one but not the other), and it is frustrating.
Aside from the specs, the actual HD-DVD players had much better DVD upscaling than even the newest Blu-ray decks. My HD-A30 makes the picture on both of my Blu-ray players look downright horrendous on DVDs, and it wasn't the best model made.
But even with all of that said, neither format was very forward looking. Neither planned for aspect ratios other than 4:3 or 16:9, or alternate video resolutions. Or 3D. A properly designed format would have natively supported 2.00:1, 2:35:1, or any other aspect ratio used by the film industry. Or a way to add supplemental data into the data stream without breaking the existing format, so features like 3D could be added without changing the spec.
The only people I can see liking Blu-ray better are the movie studios, as (on paper) it protects their IP better. For consumers, HD-DVD would have been a much better choice. It was less restrictive, offered more capabilities, and it would have been far less confusing. And it was less expensive to boot.
Don't get me entirely wrong here, I'm not entirely a Blu-ray hater. Like I said, I have two current model players, and more than 40 discs, so at this point I've invested into the format. But to say that Blu-ray is a better spec than HD-DVD was is just ignoring reality.
Blu has 50Gb storage vs 30Gb on HD DVD. BD1.1 mandates 256Mb local storage, BD 2.0 mandates 1Gb local storage vs 128Mb on HD DVD. BD-J is far more powerful than HDi. PiP and internet connectivity were added from 1.1 and 2.0 respectively nullifying that advantage. You say 20Gb extra space means nothing, but lots of disks use it for alternate language tracks, higher bitrate audio & video, or more features. If HD DVD had survived it may have bumped up its storage space and maybe augmented HDi with Silverlight but it didnt. It is clear DrXym was largely correct that by the end that blu had matched or exceeded HD DVD in most areas.
I agree that blu had features that protected IP holders, but you say it as if it is somehow bad for the success of a format. Some studios clearly want region encoding or more sophisticated copy protection and blu offers them those choices.
I don't have time to address your other points except to say that HD DVD could only have been cheaper if Toshiba were taking a hit on each sale. First the subsidy was slight and then it disintegrated into a firesale when they still weren't winning. The hardware & licencing specs for both systems are so similar that there is no other reasonable explanation.
Again, the storage capacity argument is moot. Nobody is using the extra storage for movies, because it just isn't necessary. Blu-ray has the capability for higher bitrates on video (40 vs 29 Mbps), but that's like saying your car can do 200 MPH when the speed limit is 55; 20 Mbps is more than enough for essentially pristine reproduction of HD video. Both formats have more than enough bandwidth for both extremely high quality video and audio.
The higher capacity also brings with it problems. The data is more densely packed on the disc, making it more prone to damage, and harder to make discs that work properly. Just yesterday my copy of Monsters, Inc. (brand new) already started skipping and freezing on both of my Blu-ray players.
The local storage capability is mandatory with Blu-ray, but nobody is actually implementing it internally. I can't even think of a single Blu-ray player that comes with internal storage besides the PS3. Most require you to buy a USB flash drive, making a lot of interactive features unavailable on most players. (Go read your manual; it probably doesn't have it.) All HD-DVD players all had it built-in.
Both HD-DVD disc and hardware manufacturing costs were lower because it was a less complicated format. The discs themselves were more similar to DVD, and easier to make. The lack of BD+ encryption required less powerful hardware to decode the bitstream. Of course HD-DVD was going to be cheaper. It was a simpler format.
We can talk specs all day long, but it isn't going to change the fact that HD-DVD was a better designed format and it didn't require three (four?) versions to finally get the feature set right. Having three (four?) versions of Blu-ray and some of its features be optional has fractured the market, creating a mess. You never know if the features on a disc are going to work on a given player. And that isn't just a theoretical argument either; I have run into several discs that have portions that do not play properly on my current model Samsung BD-P1600. The problems do pop up in the real world. It's an ugly situation that could have been avoided if the designers of Blu-ray had done a better job designing before releasing the product.
Give it a rest Doug. Storage isn't moot. Lots of disks use more than 30Gb thereby proving that the space can easily be used. Indeed disks like The Godfather use 40Gb for the main feature alone. As for HD DVD being "better designed", the point is entirely academic since Blu Ray already surpassed it when HD DVD was alive and not its dead.
@Ben
While everyone admits that the format war is dead, the disemination of lies about each format is far from it. " if Toshiba would've just joined the BDA to begin with then they would not have been in such a rush to bring it to market." What evidence is there that HD-DVD was rushed to the market? What evidence is there that HD-DVD being first out of the gate had anything to do with its ultimate demise? Without playing "Monday morning quarterback", what benefit was there for Toshiba to join the BDA?
Both were rushed to market because of the format war. HD DVD couldn't even make its initial date and was pushed back months while magazine ads proclaimed its availability.
http://www.engadgethd.com/2006/03/23/toshiba-delays-hd-dvd-rollout/
Then Blu-ray was delayed as well.
The benefits are apparent as Toshiba has joined the BDA. I was just saying we could've avoided this entire war if they would've joined earlier.
http://www.engadgethd.com/2009/08/10/toshiba-applies-for-bda-admission-blu-ray-players-and-laptops-c/
I actually think the format war was good for consumers, but that's me.
It was called a format "war" for a reason. It was two camps with different ideals slugging it out. Neither format was perfect, each had pros and cons. Saying in hindsight that Toshiba should have just joined BDA to avoid the war, would be like saying that the Japanese should have surrendered before Pearl Harbor. Toshiba truly thought they had a superior format that would win (perhaps not in disc space, but in backward compatibility with manufacturing techniques, cost, etc.). I do not blame them for prolonging the war. If anything, I just wish that both camps would have compromised to make hybrid players and not protracted it any longer than they needed to. As it is Blu-Ray is going to be lucky if they get to DVD adoption rates prior to downloadable content taking over the market.
(disclaimer: I'm bitter, I got an HD DVD player before the end of the war. I still don't plan on shopping for a stand-alone Blu-Ray player, and am eagerly awaiting more HD streaming quality and competition)
How was the format war good for consumers? Were there effects after the war ended?
I'm asking honestly (maybe I can get over the bitterness). All I can focus on is the burn from a technology prevailing despite less flexibility (current functionality at the time) and more restrictive DRM. I believe Blu-Ray did this by distracting unsophisticated consumers with one statistic (higher capacity). This seems like Monster Cable's winning formula: focus on the casual consumer who needs one reason to believe why what he bought was "superior" even if that reason is just a brand; if a few sophisticated consumers buy it too, even better.
Peter,
I believe the format war was good because it raised awareness to consumers, but also because the competition motivated the BDA to improve transfer techniques and change Managed Copy to Mandatory.
The only thing I liked about HD DVD better was the interactive layer, it still seems hardware is having a hard time with BD-J.
I agree that the format war was good for consumers. Unfortunately, consumers chose the format that was created and promoted by a content provider, and they get the baggage associated with that fact.
Blu Ray was created and promoted by an industry consortium consisting of manufacturers, computer companies and content providers. You say it as if it's a bad thing.
Blu-ray ultimately won out because of a back alley deal with a content provider (Warner). Not because of technical merit.
Doug,
You know there isn't any evidence that Warner was paid to go Blu.
What is a fact is that Warner released Harry Potter on both formats right before Christmas, and the Blu version outsold the Red version by a large margin. Shortly after Warner announced it was going Blu. Yes it was about money, but it was about the money consumers demonstrated they were willing to spend. As to why more people bought Harry Potter on Blu-ray, well that is another debate entirely.
http://www.engadgethd.com/2007/12/05/format-war-interactivity-vs-hd-supplements/
http://www.engadgethd.com/2007/12/28/nielsen-videoscan-high-def-market-share-for-week-ending-december/
Even if Doug did supply with evidence, the fact is that HD DVD went there too, buying exclusivity of several studios so neither Doug nor the format he defends enjoys any moral high ground on the matter. And his riposte was just a diversion from the simple reality that Blu Ray enjoyed widespread industry support and HD DVD didnt.
Just for fun…
If instead of releasing a Harry Potter movie on both formats to compare sales, if a movie like Atonement was used for comparison it would have been the exact opposite. At that time, and still today the PS3 was/is the most sold blu ray player. Back when Harry Potter was “compared” the majority of blu ray owners were in Harry Potter’s demographic.
You are correct that high(er)-brow movies sold better to the HD-DVD crowd by about twenty percent. However it takes ten of these movies to equal the earning power of one mass market flick. Atonement has lifetime DVD sales of $20 million while the Harry Potter series has sold over $1 billion in DVDs. Like it or not, "mass market" movies are where studios make their money and across the board those sold better on blu-ray. In the months leading up to Warner's decision, those money making movies were selling at a ratio of 2:1 in favor of blu.
It doesn't matter who won, my player still takes a minute to boot up. They were both released too soon.