Cost Comparison: P2 vs. XDCAM

John Rivers

John Rivers

Active member
This came out of the recent thread referencing an article on the pros and cons of P2 and XDCAM (Blu-Ray) storage mediums. A good number of posts tend to mention how cost effective Blu-Ray is in comparison to P2.

So I did some number crunching...

COST COMPARISON OF XDCAM and P2 Media:

P2 COSTS

8GB P2 Card = $1350
4GB P2 Card = $600
CURRENT COST PER GB = $165

Lifecycle of P2 Card (as rated by Panasonic) = 100,000

Divide by 2 (to account for insert/removal in both camera and offload device)

= Actual Recording Lifecycle = 50,000

Total Potential Data Transfer of 8GB P2 Card = 400,000 GB (8GB Card x 50,000 recording and offloading sessions)

Cost to be able to record up to 400,000 GB worth of footage = $1350

Cost to backup said footage onto hard disk= $432,000
(derived from $2700 cost of 2.5TB LaCie Tower, multiplied by number needed to store 400,000GB, which is 160 units)

*let me add that this is being pretty generous, since I KNOW LaCie gives discounts off the list price when buying in bulk, so the actual cost would be less*

Total Cost to Record and Archve 400,000 GB with a single 8GB P2 CARD= $433,350

BLU-RAY COSTS
Scenario 1: Using Blu-Ray discs to both record and archive

23GB Sony Pro Disk = $30

Disks needed to record 400,000 GB worth of data = 17,392

Total Cost to Record and Archive 400,000 GB worth of data with Sony Blu-Ray XDCAM Disk= $521,739

CONCLUSION
An 8GB P2 has about a $90,000 cost savings for recording and archiving 400,000 GB of data compared with Sony's Blu-Ray XDCAM format.


These are the CURRENT estimated costs. Note that costs are going to fluctuate, so this will all be changing (obviously). With every P2 card update, assuming they follow a similar "double capacity for same cost every several months", the efficiency of the P2 card will DOUBLE (more data transferred per lifecycle). Hard Drive Storage prices only decrease, so though it will be necessary to buy twice as much storage, the cost to purchase will be lower, so the overall cost should either be similar or lower. I also didn't factor into the XDCAM cost analysis the price of equipment needed to use Blue-Ray. The article DID say that "you don’t need a special drive to transfer P2 data to your computer" (though such options are available), while with the XDCAM, there is the "deck needed to view and transfer content". This would increase the price of the Blu-Ray medium by at least $10,000. However, since I'm not POSITIVE that a special deck will be needed to offload footage, I'm just keeping this cost out. Just wanted to mention it, as it might well be a realistic added cost.

Read into this as you like, correct me if I'm wrong (because I am NOT a mathematician by any stretch). Is this a decently fair analysis of the cost differences? Hope this might lend to some discussions. :)

SCENARIO 2 - COSTS IF NOT USING BLU-RAY FOR ARCHIVING...

Sony Blu-Ray can be re-used up to 1000 times. So let's now assume that you didn't want to archive onto Blu-Ray then. How much would it cost to use Blu-Ray like P2 and record over the data, archiving onto external hard drives?

We'll give the Blu-Ray the same treatment we gave the P2 and cut the life cycle in half, meaning it's reusable 500 times.

23GB x 500 = 11,500GB data per disc can be recorded over the span of its life

How many discs would be needed then to record and archive 400,000GB of data? 400,000/11,500 = 34.78 (we'll say 35 discs) x $30 = $1043

Add in the archiving costs we applied to the P2 = $433,350

Total cost of reusing Blu-Ray Discs and archiving to external hard disks for 400,000GB worth of data = $434,393

*What this does is place Blu-Ray in the SAME cost bracket as P2 (heck, P2 is still a little less!). That's when you look at features. Personally, I think the P2's abilities for instant recording, hot-swapping, pre-recording, etc., make it a better option STILL. But then again, it's all user-preference. YOU decide!* :)

*All costs were obtained from various legitimate and authorized online retailers as of 5-10-2006*
 
Hmmm...okay...here's some more math for you:

50,000 uses per 8gb card x 20min max storage capacity (using 24pn) = 1,000,000 min of footage

1,000,000 min of footage / 60 min per hour = 16,666 hours of footage

16,666 hours of recording + 16,666 hours to offload = 33,332 total work hours

33,332 work hours / 40 hours in an average work week = 833.3 weeks

833.3 weeks / 52 weeks in year = 16 years

The likelyhood of you using a single 8gb card for 16 years = 0%

With enough equations, one can prove anything...

P2 is still better than Xdcam though... :)
 
Cam-Ra said:
Hmmm...okay...here's some more math for you:

50,000 uses per 8gb card x 20min max storage capacity (using 24pn) = 1,000,000 min of footage

1,000,000 min of footage / 60 min per hour = 16,666 hours of footage

16,666 hours of recording + 16,666 hours to offload = 33,332 total work hours

33,332 work hours / 40 hours in an average work week = 833.3 weeks

833.3 weeks / 52 weeks in year = 16 years

The likelyhood of you using a single 8gb card for 16 years = 0%

With enough equations, one can prove anything...

P2 is still better than Xdcam though... :)
Click to expand...

lol, I can only imagine a gathering of DVX tech geeks surrounded with papers, the theme from "A Beautiful Mind" playing in the background, creating this massive theorem to state once and for all "Eureka! XDCAM DOES suck!...BOOYA!"

yea, DVX community rocks. :)

Much agreed with the time thing. It was the only standardized way of comparing the two formats I could come up with. The main purpose is just to show that XDCAM isn't exactly the P2 Killa that some claim it is, not "Why you will only need ONE 8GB CARD FOR THE REST OF YOUR LIFE!!!$!!$#$^&#!!!"

But just to note: the offload time wouldn't technically be the same as the record time, since you don't need to capture in real time like you do with tape.:cheesy: Cool thing is, even if you factor in buying newer and bigger P2 cards on occassion, the cost difference is STILL in favor of P2.

So yea, point is, P2 still rocks.
 
Last edited:
I think one shouldn't forget the amount of data a Blu-Ray disk can store. While you would have to dump the 8gb p2 card 2 and a half times more to achieve a 1 disk blu-ray dump, in therms of capacity.

Anyway, I'm an HVX owner and am happy with my camera. The dvcpro hd is a blessing, and I didn't need to upgrade my powerbook for editing in HD, which is a plus. My Powermac also works flawlessly with the footage... If it was HDV (In any form), this scenario wouldn't happen, at least on the notebook front...

As for archiving, seeing the 400 000 dollar quote made me shoke...
 
Xdcam is the shizzle. Better than tape. Simplier than P2. Honestly I don't see P2 being the the leader in the near future if sony makes a xdcam less than $10k. Just think if the fx1 shot to disc and had higher hdv bitrate. The reason why is soon sony will have 50gb xdcam discs. Man that is good stuff. If sony makes a burner that allows you to burn data to xdcam discs sony will win. Backing up hdv to a 50gb disc you could fit a whole show with audio,graphics,and video files. Blu ray burners are coming soon in 1 year they will be under $500 and can play hdv.

Panasonic realizes that P2 is a future format but by the time the future gets here something new will come. Panasonic has already announced a new format that will transfer at half the bit rate. This means that they should be able to use 2 or 3 compact flash cards instead of 4 sd cards for the P2 cards. This will result in a massive price drop. also they could make the P2 card longer and add 4 compactflash cards. the HVX wont be able to use these P2 cards without some type of converter thou. remember Panasonic did not say anything about 16gb P2 cards at NAB. This should worry some people.
Has anybody read the creativecow magazine article comparing the xdcam to the varicam. well just so you know they preferred the sony PDW-F350 XDCAM HD CAMCORDER over the varicam. I think that is huge.
 
Nik Manning said:
remember Panasonic did not say anything about 16gb P2 cards at NAB. This should worry some people.
Click to expand...

Yea, except that Panasonic DID say something about 16GB P2 cards at NAB...
 
blue lasers?

blue lasers?

i think short term , that is if you dont shoot the ammount of hours u use in your example..then blu ray is seriously cheaper .. i'll show my maths and examples if anyone is fussed.

However i just would find it hard to trust a laser on a revolving disk to record my footage on a camera that is moving. I take it that blu ray uses this method?

when i burn dvd/cd's at home , i tiptoe around my room as it is !!...i just think the chance of messing up the recording flow with that compared to solid state of P2 is a major difference.

i admit i dont know how reliable the process is..do people with dvd camcorders have problems like that????


also as we are talking about a moving disc and laser optics...wear and tear comes into the calculation..again i think thats something that solid state has hands down in its favour, and is the main reason i find P2 exciting when compared to wear and tear on other recording mediums like tape heads ect.

so is it a proven reliable method of recording on the move?
 
Schmovies production said:
And what panasonic say about 16 gb cards at Nab....?
Click to expand...

"Aware of the main objection to its P2 format for acquisition of SD in HD content -- the exorbitant cost of the P2 solid state memory cards compared to Sony's XDcam disks -- Panasonic emphasized that its 4GB P2 cards now cost $550 compared to the $1400 those same cards cost just a year ago at NAB. They also reminded the audience that 8GB flash cards are now available, with 16GB cards on the way."

http://www.broadcastnewsroom.com/articles/viewarticle.jsp?id=39860

16GB solid state, that's pretty sweet.

But lemme emphasize this: I understand the hours and GB and costs I used seem outrageous, and I by no means assume people are going to be shooting 400,000 GB worth of data with one card. But alot of studios WILL be shooting that much footage (multiple cameramen, multiple news stories, etc.). Even with multiple cards, the costs and benefits STILL seem to beat out XDCAM. (Disclosure: I am NOT a Blu-Ray hater, I think it is definitely going to be the next "big format", the way DVD is today. I'm just trying to seriously look at the "lower cost" argument for recording formats.)

I'm not (entirely) crazy!!!...I hope!!!:kali:
 
Last edited:
I too have problems with the idea of any kind of spinning recording medium. I don't know that it is a big problem with the DVD cameras, but keep in mind that the data rate is much lower there, so the chance or a bump or vibration causing issues is less likely (especially if they employ some kind of "buffer underrun" type of technology). Blu-Ray, on the other hand, recording high-def seems much more prone to issues. But only time will tell there.

The biggest factor that seems to be overlooked in this debate is the cost of the camera-- if the cameras both cost about the same, then it seems Blu-Ray would be cheaper. However if the Blu-Ray camera cost much more, then you would spend much of your savings on the media repaying the difference in price of the camera.
 
Smoke and mirrors calculations. The intial investment is WAY more on P2 and you made absolutely no factor at all for the amount of TIME is takes to back-up all that data. Also, your data to be safe for that long needs to be in a RAID5 that periodically gets backed up to... tape or maybe even spanned across BR discs.

There is almost NO chance that either format will be around in 16 years. P2 is bridge tech aimed at ENG shooters IMHO. The problem with P2 is that it totally skips the optical stage which is most likely the next mass medium for the pro-sumer. You have to get enough CONSUMER interest to drive costs down, BR will do this. It is my opinion that destructive media will never be in the mainstream, that is not to say that at some point, p2 or other solid state media might become so cheap that it can be used like tape...


ash =o)
 
AshG said:
Smoke and mirrors calculations. The intial investment is WAY more on P2 and you made absolutely no factor at all for the amount of TIME is takes to back-up all that data. Also, your data to be safe for that long needs to be in a RAID5 that periodically gets backed up to... tape or maybe even spanned across BR discs.

There is almost NO chance that either format will be around in 16 years. P2 is bridge tech aimed at ENG shooters IMHO. The problem with P2 is that it totally skips the optical stage which is most likely the next mass medium for the pro-sumer. You have to get enough CONSUMER interest to drive costs down, BR will do this. It is my opinion that destructive media will never be in the mainstream, that is not to say that at some point, p2 or other solid state media might become so cheap that it can be used like tape...


ash =o)
Click to expand...

You dont think BR is a bridge tech? XD Cam is nothing new...its been around for a few years with regular DVD. Its getting all this new attention because of BR. Which we all know is unproven in the marketplace. HD-DVD has not been enjoying a wonderful debut...with complaints about players, costs, etc. BR as a whole has suffered delays and is even more expensive.

All these optical formats are intermediary until something like holographic disks become affordable and mainstream. I highly believe this will be the next mainstay optical technology.

P2 is exploiting the next step in solid state aquisition formats. Assuming Panasonic does NOT make the same mistake as Sony and allows other manufacturers to use P2 in their products and cameras, then it could very well endure a long and prosperous life in the production and ENG world. Much the same as CF/SD cards in the photography world.

I've said it before. I do not like the idea of shooting an optical format...especially handheld or run and gun. And furthermore I do not want to shoot a format that still has potential to be DoA and lack support with the coming year. Sony is not the company they once were, and neither is their technology.
 
Last edited:
AshG said:
Smoke and mirrors calculations. The intial investment is WAY more on P2 and you made absolutely no factor at all for the amount of TIME is takes to back-up all that data. Also, your data to be safe for that long needs to be in a RAID5 that periodically gets backed up to... tape or maybe even spanned across BR discs.
ash =o)
Click to expand...

Well, yea, the initial investment is more. But assuming people don't have a format changing party every 8-12 months, the long term price is what matters. As for the amount of time to backup, last I checked, PCMCIA and P2 was faster than the read speed of 36-56 Mbps Blu-Ray is currently rated at. Same goes for transferring back and forth from a professional storage system. As for backing up the backups, that's a cost you could associate with both P2 and Blu-Ray formats I feel. Would you feel comfortable keeping all your family photos and memories onto a single CD today? Or all your music in a single folder on one hard drive? Neither would be ideal.

AshG said:
There is almost NO chance that either format will be around in 16 years. P2 is bridge tech aimed at ENG shooters IMHO. The problem with P2 is that it totally skips the optical stage which is most likely the next mass medium for the pro-sumer. You have to get enough CONSUMER interest to drive costs down, BR will do this. It is my opinion that destructive media will never be in the mainstream, that is not to say that at some point, p2 or other solid state media might become so cheap that it can be used like tape...
Click to expand...

Thats why you really can't interchange "time" with "capacity". Cam-Ra made a perfectly sane point before saying you'll never use an 8GB P2 card for 16 years to go through 400,000 GB. But a studio or news company with multiple cameramen all shooting 1080 24p? Not as far fetched they'll shoot that much data.

And while consumer interests WILL eventually drive the cost of Blu-Ray down, think about how long it took for DVD-Rs to become decently priced to buy in bulk. Tons of consumers don't even have an HDTV yet. Fact is, I think that before Blu-Ray price is lowered by consumer demand, we'll need to wait for 1) market skimming on Blu-Ray products to finish, then 2) Mass production of Blu-Ray devices, with 3) Extremely low cost HDTVs. How long might THAT take?
 
Last edited:
Agreed completely with The Sarlacc. Blu-Ray and HD-DVD are going to flop gloriously; they're the next generation of DVD in the same way that DVD-Audio and SACD were the next generation of CD. Which is to say: completely ignored.

IPTV is going to do for film/movie/video distribution what iTunes did for music distribution. Optical disc delivery is an outdated distribution model, and there are very, very, very few people anxiously anticipating plunking down $1,000 to get a blu-ray disc player. The only people who are clamoring for blu-ray or HD-DVD are the manufacturers (who have pipe dreams of billions of dollars in royalties flooding their coffers) and the studios (who have pipe dreams of super-elaborate DRM schemes). The consumer couldn't be less interested.

blu-ray disc is going to be leapfrogged just like SACD/DVD-Audio were. holographic is a far, far, far more appealing technology. Which would you rather ahve: a $30 spinning disc that runs at 36 megabits and stores 50 gigabytes? or a $1 strip of film that stores 1.6 terabytes at the rate of 1gbps?

Solid state is the end format of all recording technologies; recording technologies start on tape, migrate to disc, and eventually land on solid state. But as technology progresses, so does the rate of that curve. On the very same day that Sony and Panasonic jointly announce AVC HD, look at what happens: Sony announces that they'll make AVC HD to record to spinning optical discs. Panasonic announces that they'll release AVC HD camcorders that record straight to an SD card. Which one sounds more appealing? There wasn't even a one-day gap... Sony announced they'll store up to 1.4GB on a spinning disc; SD cards are already at, what, 2GB? 4GB? They'll get faster, smaller, and cheaper every day, whereas the 8cm DVD cannot grow and cannot get faster.

(EDIT: actually, the situation is already reversed -- Sanyo put out their little HD1 8mbps MPEG-4 camcorder that records straight to SD cards, even before the optical disc version came out!)

Sorry, but blu-ray isn't the future, any more than HDV was. HDV didn't even make it a year and a half before Sony announced its successor. blu-ray isn't even DOA, it's DBA -- "Dead Before Arrival."
 
Last edited:
Barry_Green said:
Agreed completely with The Sarlacc. Blu-Ray and HD-DVD are going to flop gloriously; they're the next generation of DVD in the same way that DVD-Audio and SACD were the next generation of CD. Which is to say: completely ignored.

IPTV is going to do for film/movie/video distribution what iTunes did for music distribution. Optical disc delivery is an outdated distribution model, and there are very, very, very few people anxiously anticipating plunking down $1,000 to get a blu-ray disc player. The only people who are clamoring for blu-ray or HD-DVD are the manufacturers (who have pipe dreams of billions of dollars in royalties flooding their coffers) and the studios (who have pipe dreams of super-elaborate DRM schemes). The consumer couldn't be less interested.

blu-ray disc is going to be leapfrogged just like SACD/DVD-Audio were. holographic is a far, far, far more appealing technology. Which would you rather ahve: a $30 spinning disc that runs at 36 megabits and stores 50 gigabytes? or a $1 strip of film that stores 1.6 terabytes at the rate of 1gbps?

Solid state is the end format of all recording technologies; recording technologies start on tape, migrate to disc, and eventually land on solid state. But as technology progresses, so does the rate of that curve. On the very same day that Sony and Panasonic jointly announce AVC HD, look at what happens: Sony announces that they'll make AVC HD to record to spinning optical discs. Panasonic announces that they'll release AVC HD camcorders that record straight to an SD card. Which one sounds more appealing? There wasn't even a one-day gap... Sony announced they'll store up to 1.4GB on a spinning disc; SD cards are already at, what, 2GB? 4GB? They'll get faster, smaller, and cheaper every day, whereas the 8cm DVD cannot grow and cannot get faster.

(EDIT: actually, the situation is already reversed -- Sanyo put out their little HD1 8mbps MPEG-4 camcorder that records straight to SD cards, even before the optical disc version came out!)

Sorry, but blu-ray isn't the future, any more than HDV was. HDV didn't even make it a year and a half before Sony announced its successor. blu-ray isn't even DOA, it's DBA -- "Dead Before Arrival."
Click to expand...

Barry, I'm sorry to say this, but I believe you are wrong... Being a former programmer and someone close to the gaming industry, you must certainly know the importance of the gaming market in the overall sony business strategy. Blu-Ray is a Trojan in the new PS3. The new PS3 ( I don't know if you follow E3) as the backing of all the Major videogames players, with backing from Squareenix, Sega, etc. Seeing the success of the current ps2, in 3 years time there will be a market of millions of Blu-Ray owners.

Blu-Ray is not dead, its only beginning. I, as a content producer, would really like for either Blu-Ray or HD-DVD to penetrate well into the market. This would be great for content distribution and hard copy owning. I like to have something tht I can store In a nice box with manuals, cover and all for easy manipulation. I don't want everything to be accessed in a computer. I want a player that can both read HD-dvd and Blu-ray. I also would like a Blu-Ray Burner (since I believe this is going o be the public standard)

Anyway, P2 is great. It permits me to record in 4:2:2 colorspace wih the quality of dvcprohd. With the release of the 16gb cards and a 160gb p2store, our problems will be over. If the 16gb cards come at the price of the current 8gb ones, and the 8gb ones drop to current 4 gb ones, (And current 4 gb ones drop to, say 300), than there shouldn't be a problem anymore.

P2 doens't take the place of blu-ray. P2 merely is a transport for 4:2:2 dvcprohd and 50 medium. Consumer Blu-Ray 4:2:0 is good for distribution. Having a 4:2:2 source and after editing compress it to 4:2:0 should be better than working natively in 4:2:0.
 
There are a few problems with that though. First, the PS3 is going to be twice as expensive as the X-Box. Sony's pricing themselves out of the market.

Second, customers aren't demanding blu-ray. They really don't care. There was an article recently about mass DVD adopters, the most rabid of the rabid (I think it was called Peer DVD Review? Can't find it now in Google). These are guys who buy thousands of DVDs, who rabidly attack any new DVD release. And the survey of them said "are you going to buy blu-ray/HD-DVD?" and they basically said "who cares?"

Consumer blu-ray would be good for distribution IF the consumer would actually buy it. That's the problem. I don't care about some blu-ray vs. P2 battle, because they're totally unrelated. If blu-ray catches on as a distribution medium, I would be quite surprised. I think it'll be at least five years, probably more like 10, before more than 50% of American households have any sort of blu-ray player. Blu-ray isn't the next version of DVD, it's the next version of LaserDisc (or DIVX).

If you want to distribute high-def content, the only choices that are going to make sense are red-laser WMV9-HD DVDs, or IPTV.

But, those are just predictions; we'll see what really happens soon enough. Nobody could have predicted what happened with Cabbage Patch dolls, or Tickle Me Elmo, so maybe consumers really are just frothing at the mouth to get their hands on $1,000 high-def blu-ray players. But I'm betting the other way.
 
It seems to me that most consumers don't care about Blu-Ray or HD-DVD because most consumers still have standard def TVs. So until the players get down to the ~$300 level, most consumers are going to spend that $1000 on an entry-level high-def TV, not a player that won't get them anything more from their old display.

Moreover, I predict DRM will be what finally kills Blu-Ray and HD-DVD, not price. In todays times, consumers are used to being able to backup, copy, or transfrom their content into other formats. These days, many people wouldn't buy audio CDs if there was DRM that stopped them from ripping the songs to MP3s to use on their portable player. With HDMI, you can't even play High-Def Blu-Ray or HD-DVD's on your computer without buying a new monitor. And forget about making backups. Customers will find out quickly that neither of the new High-Def formats give them any freedom-- and as such the prices will never drop below $300.

As for the optical media issue, I still think the main problem is the same as using hard drives -- moving parts. Solid state is only better because it doesn't require moving parts, and is thus more reliable. I can't imagine any competing format driving solid state out of the market until they come up with something that doesn't require spinning disks or tape. Perhaps holographic technology is the answer. Only time will tell.
 
Both arguments actually have a point.

SPZ said:
The new PS3 ( I don't know if you follow E3) as the backing of all the Major videogames players, with backing from Squareenix, Sega, etc. Seeing the success of the current ps2, in 3 years time there will be a market of millions of Blu-Ray owners.
Click to expand...

Look at DVD. I myself never owned a DVD player before I got a PS2 back in the day. SPZ is right when he comments that the video game market is a HUGE pusher of technology, as they're the ONLY widespread consumer market which calls for better graphics and faster processors at the rate they do. Were it not for videogames, its possible we'd be years behind where we are now, as then the only markets requiring that much power would be niche and professional, and then costs would still be exhorbitant. Speaking from my own experience, my family got into buying and renting DVD as the result of my owning a PS2, then renting DVDs from blockbuster, then my dad seeing the picture and features and saying "hmm...pretty cool". Suddenly, my family of non videogame players had an interest into getting a DVD player. DVDs were bought and rented, but at that point it was only a matter of waiting for the movie catalog to expand and more players to be release until my dad just bit the bullet and got his own DVD player (and lets not forget the importance of DVD players being included in computers, and how much this pushed it along as well! I mention this later.)

PS3 WILL be pretty expensive once released, but EVERY company (Microsoft included) loses money on console sales at first release, and considering the stakes Sony has in this (heck, they spent HOW much just to develop their own CHIP!), I doubt they're going to make a stupid mistake like completely pricing themselves out of the market. The goal isn't to profit on console sales, its just to get a PS3 into as many households as possible. Where HD-DVD is going to have more difficulty is that it doesn't come built standard into XBox 360, and since its already been revealed that the add-on will be SOLELY for movies, that doesn't give GAME PLAYERS much incentive to invest in it, does it?

Barry_Green said:
These are guys who buy thousands of DVDs, who rabidly attack any new DVD release. And the survey of them said "are you going to buy blu-ray/HD-DVD?" and they basically said "who cares?"
Click to expand...

Also very true. DVD was easy because the benefits of DVD compared to VHS were apparent upon first viewing. As long as your TV had composite inputs, it would look better, sounds better, and have more features than VHS. Now were entering HD. While the benefits of true HD content are EASILY seen on an HDTV, it becomes a bit more difficult on a standard definition to tell the difference. And like Barry mentions, a lot of people just aren't going to care.

Basically, getting a PS3 into millions of homes in America isn't going to be difficult. Sony will sooner take a massive loss in console sales than let XBox become the new #1 console. Plus you have the whole "backwards compatible thing", and since a TON of people already own either a PS1 or PS2, that only adds to the incentive. But for Blu-Ray to become the next big thing in distribution for MOVIES (which will be the catalyst towards driving costs down of BR discs), HDTV prices are going to have to drop a little more quickly than they are (I'm talking about where you can get a 20" HDTV for $300 at WalMart kind of drop) where ANY consumer can pick one up. Also, movie prices are going to HAVE to quickly meet the prices of current DVDs to give consumers incentive to replace their massive collections (*this might be where BOTH HD-DVD and Blu-Ray can fail*).

Where else might Blu-Ray fail? Computers and laptops. As much as I love Apple (who is backing Blu-Ray), most computers run Windows, and since laptops are quickly becoming the standard consumer computer purchase due to lower prices and great technology, most of those computers are likely going to be equipped with HD-DVD drives. So you have this mass of computer users, casual and professional, who are going to prefer HD-DVD since it can provide an excellent picture on their TV AND on their laptop while on-the-go!

Between Blu-Ray and HD-DVD, I think Blu-Ray, due to the previously mentioned PS3 trojan horse, has more of a fighting chance. But as noted, both formats can fail at becoming "the next DVD": unless other market factors change to peak consumer interest, as Barry says, "who cares?"

(But the fact is, we're all missing the point. It's pretty clear that UMD is the way of the future!!!!!)

Personally, I'm looking forward to the Nintendo Wii (weeeeeeeeee!!!). :)
 
Last edited:
blue ray will win.
The porn industry has agreed to adopt it over HD-DVD.
They helped kill Beta.......they'll help kill HD-DVD.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top