Re:How much of it is just the name? (Score 1)

I really don't see your point here. HD-DVD and Blu-Ray are both basically improved DVDs. They are discs that contain video; neither format does anything strikingly different. So again, HD-DVD sounds like what it is. Blu-Ray sounds like something other than what it is.

Well, if are just talking about the technical aspects of the media, that's correct. But that's not the main factor you were saying that would cause people to choose one over the other. You were saying that name (or lack of knowledge of Blu-Ray vs HD-DVD). Yes, both *are* improved DVDs. But that's technical. You were bringing up the point that the name's would distract/confuse the consumers. I'm saying that if the name "HD-DVD" was the ONLY factor then yes, HD-DVD would win. But *with* the existence of more storge combined with proper marketing, consumers could be educated on the features of Blu-Ray and not give up anything to boot. And... I don't think a "fish" is what people think when they first hear Blu-Ray in a video store. So, I don't believe that "Blu-Ray sounds like something other than what it is." Not in the context of a video store or tech magazine. Maybe in a Bait and Tackle shop or a Fishing Trade magazine.

HD-DVD also uses a blue laser. Furthermore, who cares?

Yes, I know. But Toshiba is not pushing that term because they don't have to. They already have the DVD name. Again, if all we were going by what the naming convention is, then HD-DVD has the edge. But with marketing, pricing, technology, and name. I'd say that Sony will win format war because they have too much going for it. Regardless of the lack of a familiar name (DVD). That's not enough for Toshiba. "Come with us! We have a familar name, but less storage than Blu-Ray!"

So, "who cares (about the blue laser)" is not the question. It's what benefit does it provide the consumer that a company like Sony use a term like Blu-Ray in order to attract customers and manufacturing attention? This is just one factor in a field of many.

So, I wasn't just saying that just because Sony's media uses a blue laser that, *that* would be the end all determining factor. I was mentioning the blue laser because you said that people think of a "fish" or "rock band" when they hear the term Blu-Ray. I disagree with that. If Sony publishes in a Fishing magazine, then yes. But they wont do that. Most of the marketing will be center around technology channels.

Also note that the term Blu-Ray is the trademark. The media will actually be called BD-ROM or BD-R or something like that. It's like we don't see COMPACT DISC on all the media, we see CD. We don't see DIGITAL VERSATILE DISC on all the media, we see DVD-ROM. So, the larger terms will be trademarked on the media, but the actually media will be categorized as BD-ROM.

What's your point? HD-DVD players will do this as well. This is not a win for either format; it's to be expected.

My point is that that feature is part of the over all package. It's not a hindrance or risk if someone buys a Blu-Ray PLAYER. Yes, HD-DVD player would have that too. But why do that if you can enjoy the extra storage benefits that Blu-Ray would provide that HD-DVD does not.

Sony is using a VHS model. They are taking what's made the VHS successful. Better in the case of Beta was that the picture quality was actually more clearer. That's a technical aspect. But another aspect not related to quality was storage space on the VHS tape vs the Beta tape.

So, when the consumer thinks, which one is better. That "better" could be related to storage space on the tape. Beta was *not better* in that area because they didn't have the same amount of record time as the VHS tapes did. So, VHS was more practical.

Well, guess what? Blu-Ray is taking this same approach. They are providing the users and manufactures that more space per disc. This is a form of "better." And not related to the actually picture quality. That's another issue. Which is what Beta was trying to proove: "We are better becasue the picture quality is clearer. Oh, but our tapes dont' have as much space as VHS! But ignore that." This time Blu-Ray is using practicability (function over features) as their main marketing tool: more storage!

I stand by my belief that it will all come down to marketability.

Yes, I do too. But that contradicts you statement that the naming convention will be too much for Sony to overcome in marketing. Or at least that's what it seemed that were implying.

I'm saying that when you break out the pros and cons of each format. Blu-Ray clearly offers more (better in storage space and better marketing). Even if Toshiba has an edge in the current DVD name.

HD-DVD
Pros:
* Better version of DVD
* Familiar name

Cons:
* Less storage than Blu-Ray

Blu-Ray
Pros:
* Better version of DVD
* More storage than HD-DVD

Cons:
* Unfamiliar name

Now, if you take marketing into account. I'd say that Sony has to market their new media better than Toshiba. You are right on that. But the technology in terms of storage space had to exist before the marketing started.

All things being equal, I'd say...pick the one with more storage. It's better for the consumer.

Personally, I had to find out what each media format was offering. Then, I had to figure out which one had a good marketing plan. Lastly, I had to look at the big picture and ask myself, "What's important to me?"

Backwards compatibility and storage space. Blu-Ray wins out at least for me.