MS In Full TakeOver Mode With High-Def Optical Tech.

Comment from: Mr. Peabody
To put a fine on point on it, wittingly or not, you are in fact supporting a technology that Microsoft has, also in fact, provided much if not all of the technology for – directly. VC-1, for instance, is in point of fact a Microsoft invented technology. To try and distance your stand from any support of MS is nothing less than kidding yourself, assuming your doing it unwittingly.

MS already has a track record of doing this in audio and media with so-called WAV and WMA. When I came to work for the media production group that I work for now, it took me the better part of a year to de-program several of the production crew members who, bless their hearts, were adamant that WAV was some sort of default ISO standard – it isn’t, and has only recently begrudgingly been recognized as any kind of actual format by the ISO, and that, not because of any great addition to existing non-platform, non-manufacturer specific, already well established and truely universal standards, but because there’s just so many installations of Windows. To sharpen that edge a bit more many of the same good folks that I work with actually thought that “aif” stood for Apple Interchange Format. Not surprisingly a MS rep. had swept through the company about two month before I got here. It took a couple of years to undo the endless misconceptions that were left in his wake. And this isn’t the first production organization I’ve worked for where this exact tactic was played by MS and its partners.

What we see as a format war is nothing short of MS trying to gain complete control over the fundamental playback engine that could potentially be used by all movie watching homes on Planet Earth. Do you honestly think that MS would willingly divide that market up if they don’t have to? I honestly know that they won’t, if they can help it.

To say that MS is simply another supporter only demonstrates one of two possibilities: 1) You don’t understand half as much as you would have us believe, specifically about HDDVD; 2) You are in fact well informed of the real issues at hand, and are simply making yourself guilty of the very things you seem to dislike about Blu-ray supporters.

By the way, you’re welcome, and thanks for reading my post.

IN RESPONSE TO:

Comment from: @ Mr. Peabody
Hi Mr. Peabody,

HD DVD isn’t backed exclusively by Microsoft. They are simply one of it’s supporters (along with Intel). Supporting HD DVD doesn’t equal support for Microsoft… it just means that a supporter of HD DVD has something in common with Microsoft: support for HD DVD. That’s all. =)

The NY Times article that released the information about a $150 million payment/incentive to Paramount and Dreamworks also stated “Microsoft, who most prominently supports HD DVD has stated that they have not paid either company, but wouldn’t rule out the use of that tactic in the future.”

Microsoft wasn’t even involved in the decision, and has only commented on it when asked, stating they didn’t pay Paramount or Dreamworks any money, but wouldn’t rule out the use of that tactic in the future.

I don’t rally support for Microsoft. But I do support HD DVD, and do believe it to be the superior format for many reasons that I am convinced are valid and logical.

Just because I’m convinced doesn’t mean I’m not wrong. I’ve been wrong many times on various matters, and I’m not ashamed to acknowledge it. (I think we are worse off… more diluted… if we believe we’re always right even when we’ve been proven wrong). I just don’t see evidence that I am wrong.

I don’t believe that higher sales figures means one format is better than another. All we can reasonably conclude from sales figures is that one sold more than another. The reasons for that are varied and multiple. But one thing we can’t conclude is that higher sales equals better format. One only needs an intro philosophy class (with a good teacher) to see the logical fallacies abundant in that argument.

I think that Toshiba, Microsoft, Intel, Universal, Paramount, Dreamworks, Warner, and any other company that supports HD DVD and sees the advantages this format brings to the consumer are in the right.

I believe that Blu-ray has some real promise… but I believe the only real strength Blu-ray as a whole has is a good propaganda and marketing machine. That to me is the biggest thing going for Blu-ray. To me, that doesn’t make the format itself better.

The DRM specs are specific to the formats, but you are right (at least I think) that the use of the available DRM on a disc is up to the discretion of the studio producing the disc.

The reason I believe that Fox and MGM’s decision to stick with Blu-ray was motivated by the second available layer of DRM, is because I honestly see no other reason. The extra 20gb of space available on a dual-layer Blu-ray disc as opposed to an HD DVD dual-layer disc doesn’t seem to be proving itself to be that much of an advantage. It seemed like it early on… but then you see dual disc releases coming out on both formats. I don’t see the extra 20gb making Blu-ray discs any better than the HD DVD counterpart. (If anyone has a good example of where the 20gb DOES in fact make a Blu-ray disc better than the HD DVD counterpart, I really would be interested in knowing about it. Please post).

I know I’m posting on “Macdailynews.com,” but my argument that HD DVD is a better Hi-Def disc format said nothing about whether PCs are better than Macs. My argument isn’t about computers or computer companies. It’s about Hi-Def disc formats. Of which, I believe HD DVD has actually proven itself thus far to be the better format. (Not the one with the most available movies, or studio support, or marketing, or propaganda, or storage space… but the best OVERALL format for the producers of it, and consumers who buy and enjoy it).

Thanks for reading my post.

IN RESPONSE TO:

My first response to his previous post.