7 Reasons to Forget Blu-ray

7 Reasons to Forget This Silly Blog

* XStreamHD: This is your first argument against Blu-ray? A technology that may or not materialize months or years from now with no clear indication what it will deliver and at what price? Pretty shaky premise.

* Toshiba: Sure, now that Toshiba can't sell it's own HD DVD players, you're now buying into their strategy of going back to DVD and trying to artificially improve the image of a 10-year-old technology? I bet you were one of the last hold-outs with VHS.

* Comcast: Right, cable systems have proven to be such strong providers or high-technology and great and reliable customer service. You're banking your future entertainment experience on their promises? And at what quality high-def clarity?

* Verizon: More future promises. Blu-ray is here now and offers permanent storage and back-up that electronic services can never offer.

* Vudu: Yes, putting a disc in a player is such an arduous task. And you noted all the disadvantages of Vudu already. So, why is this a reason to forgetBlu-ray?

* Apple TV: More future, more promises. If and when it delivers on those promises at the scale and quality promised, then maybe it can be an ancillary or alternative device. For now, it's not ready for primetime.

* WNBC: Huh? A few local network affiliates in part-time high-def and on a fixed schedule is an alternative to feature films and TV shows in full 1080p high-def 24/7 on-demand?

I think you were trying to grab attention with your headline that is not supported at all by these points.

Scott Hettrick of CA @ Feb 20, 2008 13:53:09 PM

Nice try, but...

...this list is nothing more than a string of pretenders, rental services and TV stations. "True" 1080p and 7.1 surround over cable or satellite? Not happening with today's tech; it'll look like a pixelated nightmare. How does that translate to competition for true HDM? It's like comparing a Ruth's Chris steak to that $3.50 "sirloin" at the Waffle House.

What all the critics out there seem to forget is that DVD overtook VHS because consumers demanded quality, and DVD delivered. And they were willing to pay for it--early DVD players cost as much as Blu-ray players, and early DVD's cost more than most Blu-ray movies.

There is also a sharp contrast between consumers who primarily rent, and those who primarily buy (or rent, THEN buy). I can see HD OnDemand and AppleTV thriving with the rental crowd, but the fact remains that most movie lovers will seek a means to OWN their films, instead of paying exorbitant rental rates. Especially if owning it comes with all the bonuses such as true 1080p video, lossless audio, and a ton of bonus features.

So thanks for the list, Dave, but the bottom line is that this is an apples to oranges comparison here.

ikcizokm of TN @ Feb 20, 2008 13:51:23 PM

Wow, he doesn't even read the news...

You should really read some tech news sites before posting something like this:

http://news.zdnet.com/2100-9584_22-6230960.html

Charles Fultz of IN @ Feb 20, 2008 13:45:15 PM

What a Genius

We are still using CD Dave ......................

of MO @ Feb 20, 2008 13:42:40 PM

Bitter Tears

Yet another bitter tears response to the Blu-Ray victory.

Sure, Internet downloads and pay-per-view and TV are great options, but so is Blu-Ray. These options will coexist and consumers will use a mix of all of them regardless of how many bitter pundits try to rain on the Blu-Ray parade.

moviefan of TX @ Feb 20, 2008 13:42:21 PM

Uh, wow?

Downloading is downright awful right now. The infrastructure isn't there, and there are secondary issues (do you "own" the movie, or are you just renting it? what happens if you lose your data?). Physical media, and in this case, Blu-ray, will always have leg up on these newer downloadable technologies. And let's not forget: most downloadable HD content isn't even 1080p, it's at a lowly 720p with a horrid bitrate (which leads to artifacts similar to an overcompressed JPEG image).

As to over the air (OTA), no thanks.. I don't like sitting through advertising and movies that have been edited for TV.

Will of WA @ Feb 20, 2008 13:41:27 PM

Mmmm, compression

I guess if you're a really big fan of compression and smooth, detail-less movies, or films in fake, upconverted HD, any of these options would be ok . . . I'd rather see films the way they were meant to be seen without blocking and compression artifacts.

Brandon of FL @ Feb 20, 2008 13:40:42 PM

your an idiot

I'll stick with Blu

Roger E Rowley of VA @ Feb 20, 2008 13:38:07 PM