To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
"least consumer friendly one" why was HD DVD more consumer friendly. I guess that means Linux is more consumer friendly. Admittedly Blu-Ray has an "optional" layer of protection...but its *still* a layer of protection.
The strange thing is only toshiba produced HD-DVD. (I can't think of another...but the BDA has several manufacures. Thats ignoring the PS3 which not only has to compete with other blu-ray companies but other consoles.
The bottom line for me is I can say happily that I will not be able to play either format on my Linux system, but look forward to the more "consumer friendly" capacity.
I may be wrong but I thought I read a while back that the HD format retained the potential to expand to a larger total available disk space than BlueRay also? I remember it only becuase it broke my heart a little to respect MS that little bit for backing the potentially larger storage medium. Sony is no better a steward of the end users best interests though so now there's just one less lipsticked pig to choose from.
Mythical N-layer discs have been reported on both sides, but they don't make any sense. Both formats were de facto frozen when the first players were released, and those first players only read single-layer or dual-layer discs. Releasing N-layer discs would be a huge mistake since any disc which is not playable on 1.3 million HD-DVD players is not an HD-DVD, regardless of what retroactive changes to the spec they want to make.
Quite frankly, the Blu-Ray DRM is a joke. It's already been cracked (http://www.slysoft.com).
Sad isn't it? These people are stupid enough to what Blue ray to win, when Sony has proven that it is DRM made, and does NOT care for its customers - installing silent rootkits etc.
I'll personally avoid hd-dvd and blue ray for as long as I can in protest, DVDs are perfectly fine as far as I'm concerned.
When these major studios start offering cheaper prices for these new 'technologies' for those that have already bought the movies on another format, then I might be interested. As far as I understand, when I buy a DVD movie, the price includes the manufacturing costs, the small % to the artist, and the licencing fee. Why should I have to pay the licencing fee again on another format, when I've already paid for it? Shouldn't I just have to pay for the manufacturing costs, and nothing more?
I'm amazed at no governments will investigate this and do these bastards for the monopolistic, anti competitive, rip off merchants that they are. These mongrels don't deserve our money (and no, I'm not endorsing piracy).
Dave






Member since:
2005-07-14
the sad thing is that the winner is the least consumer friendly one. It's more expensive - and they won't have any incentive to reduce price now - and it's the most DRM-bugged one.