Duffinator said:
Just like a Sony Beta-max video player.
From what I've read, that's somewhat of a misconception. While Betamax was "superior" to VHS in terms of picture quality, the difference was barely noticable, if at all, on a standard television. Betamax was also lacking decent audio for it's first few years (until the later release of Betamax Hi-Fi, which I think was just before VHS came out).
What killed Betamax was it's size. At the time that VHS came out, Betamax tapes could only hold one hour of video, where VHS could hold two (pre-EP/SLP). It gave the opportunity for Hollywood to release films on tape (which I think they were reluctant to do on
two Betamax tapes). And for all the people who bought VCRs, they could tape movies off of TV without having to A) spend more money on more tapes, and B) have to switch tapes in mid-film.
Betamax eventually released longer tapes with two-hour capability, but by the time they did, it was too little, too late. VHS was firmly established, and the Betamax format was effectively dead.
The other big problem plaguing Betamax was that there was only one brand of player: Sony. For whatever reason, they had the damndest time getting other manufacturers on board to make Betamax VCRs.
They don't have those problems this time. Space is not an issue, since they have
more than their competition this time around. Manufacturer support is also taken care of, since they've got companies like Mitsu****a supporting Blu-Ray. I don't have the whole list handy, but they've got a LOT more support this time around.
The only thing HD-DVD currently has going for it is the startup costs. But most of those costs will never make it's way to the consumer, so will pretty much be a non-issue for Joe Consumer who goes to buy a movie, as they'll be comparably priced.
And even if HD-DVDs are cheaper to manufacture, at what point is
that no longer an issue? What happens if, say,
Batman Begins comes out on two-disc HD-DVD, but WB later finds out they can fit the film
plus extras on only
one Blu-Ray disc? Suddenly it's
Blu-Ray that's cheaper (since it's practically impossible for per-disc costs of Blu-Ray to be double that of HD-DVD).
That's my take on it, anyway. Most of it seems common sense to me.. I really can't imagine someone honestly believing that HD-DVD is superior in any concievable way.
