If you're going to criticize someone elses' facts, better get yours right. HDDVD and Blu-Ray not even 2 years old????
First Sony DVR-Blue prototypes appeared 8 years ago in 2000, name changed to Blu-Ray in 2002. First Sony consumer units appeared in stores April 10, 2003. Sony and Toshiba began meeting 3 years ago in 2005 to try and work out a single format agreement... That didn't work.
Also, the VHS/Beta war ended way before Sony made their first VHS unit. The loser can be obvious without changing sides.
You can never have the same quality as Blue-ray HD, common sense. You will never get the quality of 40+ GB in a 2~4 GB movie. However, Apple made a step in the right direction. Maybe if few years when at least 10 mbps internet connection become more common and cheaper we can see better quality online HD movies (My internet connection is 10 mbps). For now, Apple TV looks pretty much the best choice for online movie rental.
Eventually, but not that far out, Verison intends to take FIOS to 150Mbs. Beyond that, they have plans to go to 1Gbs.
I have no doubt that as the backbone gets faster, which will happen with Cisco's new switches and routers, we will get these speeds. Once storage at Akamai, and others, gets much bigger as well, they will be able to store, and serve these much bigger files.
At that time, we won't be as concerned about compression artifacts on our 100" OLED screens.
how many people here remember when Real started to send music over the internet at a max of 64Kbs? It was amazing that it could be done at the time, as most had dialup.
Personally, I have noted a significantly superior resolution all the way down to the 32" 1080p
Unless you tell us how far you are sitting from the TV, this is absolutely useless testimony. And if you are sitting more than about 7 or so feet from that 32" TV, I'm throwing the BS flag. And if you are sitting between 4-7 feet, you are seeing better than 720, but not full 1080.
It doesn't have to do with how "good" your eyesight is. Assuming you are seeing 20/20 (focusing accuracy), there is still a limit to the resolution the human eye can see. There are only so many rods and cones (the light sensing cells) in your retina. And no matter how much vitamin A you take, everyone has more or less the same density. Saying you can see a higher resolution image than that is like saying you can take a 4 megapixel photo with a 2 megapixel camera.
So, with that out of the way, is your 1080p a better image quality than the 720p. Probably. But not because of the increased resolution (sitting 7 feet from your 32" TV). If you are watching a 1080p signal, you are likely watching blu-ray. And as the article clearly states, the true advantage of blu-ray is bandwidth. For any given resolution, the extra bandwidth allow more accurate color, less color banding, smother motion, etc. If you look at the screen shots, you not only see sharpness differences but also color differences. And like others have already posted, if you were to see motion, you'd likely see motion artifacts as well.
Is blu-ray superior? Definitely! But unless you have a large screen or are sitting very, very close, don't try to tell me it's the resolution. It's much more due to those other aspects. Trying to assess image quality based purely on one measure (resolution) is as foolish as voting for President based on their position on a single issue rather than their overall platform (hmm, perhaps that's not the best analogy to use with my fellow Americans )
Apple has made a good compromise here. I'd much rather have a high quality 720p movie than an overly compressed 1080p movie as would be required to make downloading practical. Most (note, I said "most," not "all") people would gain little in resolution benefit in exchange for losing a lot in overall picture quality.
One final note, I agree with others that the article is very biased towards Apple. However, as long as you take it in open minded, it's still useful information to help educate us all on our options.
If you're going to criticize someone elses' facts, better get yours right. HDDVD and Blu-Ray not even 2 years old????
First Sony DVR-Blue prototypes appeared 8 years ago in 2000, name changed to Blu-Ray in 2002. First Sony consumer units appeared in stores April 10, 2003. Sony and Toshiba began meeting 3 years ago in 2005 to try and work out a single format agreement... That didn't work.
Also, the VHS/Beta war ended way before Sony made their first VHS unit. The loser can be obvious without changing sides.
Jim
The meaning has to be clarified. One could refer to the blue laser technlogy, when the name was trademarked, when the first players were announced, when the first players were for sale, when the first commercial titles were released, etc.. None of this happened at the same time, and depending on your POV the answer may be different and you both may be correct.
I think the next 2 years will be very interesting. Despite Amazon, Vudu etc offering downloadable movies, I think Apple and the Apple TV Take 2/iTunes system has validated the market and will now allow downloads vs. High Def discs to play out.
CDs quickly overwhelmed and ended vinyl records reign because of the dramatic (orders of magnitude) increase in quality, durability, and convenience. No technically superior medium has beat CDs (Super SACD, DVD-audio, etc) beause... CDs were good enough.
DVD's even MORE quickly overwhelmed VHS for the same reasons: dramatic improvement in quality, durability, convenience.
HD-DVD and Blu-Ray are technically superior, but not THAT much better than upscaling DVDs. The fact that Sony and Toshiba let a battle ensue for 5 critical years has allowed download technology to catch up.... potentially enough.
Blu-Ray is technically superior... but download is VERY convenient and pretty darn good. Blu-ray just might not be able to overcome this new threat.
Unless you tell us how far you are sitting from the TV, this is absolutely useless testimony. And if you are sitting more than about 7 or so feet from that 32" TV, I'm throwing the BS flag. And if you are sitting between 4-7 feet, you are seeing better than 720, but not full 1080.
It doesn't have to do with how "good" your eyesight is. Assuming you are seeing 20/20 (focusing accuracy), there is still a limit to the resolution the human eye can see. There are only so many rods and cones (the light sensing cells) in your retina. And no matter how much vitamin A you take, everyone has more or less the same density. Saying you can see a higher resolution image than that is like saying you can take a 4 megapixel photo with a 2 megapixel camera.
So, with that out of the way, is your 1080p a better image quality than the 720p. Probably. But not because of the increased resolution (sitting 7 feet from your 32" TV). If you are watching a 1080p signal, you are likely watching blu-ray. And as the article clearly states, the true advantage of blu-ray is bandwidth. For any given resolution, the extra bandwidth allow more accurate color, less color banding, smother motion, etc. If you look at the screen shots, you not only see sharpness differences but also color differences. And like others have already posted, if you were to see motion, you'd likely see motion artifacts as well.
Is blu-ray superior? Definitely! But unless you have a large screen or are sitting very, very close, don't try to tell me it's the resolution. It's much more due to those other aspects. Trying to assess image quality based purely on one measure (resolution) is as foolish as voting for President based on their position on a single issue rather than their overall platform (hmm, perhaps that's not the best analogy to use with my fellow Americans )
Apple has made a good compromise here. I'd much rather have a high quality 720p movie than an overly compressed 1080p movie as would be required to make downloading practical. Most (note, I said "most," not "all") people would gain little in resolution benefit in exchange for losing a lot in overall picture quality.
One final note, I agree with others that the article is very biased towards Apple. However, as long as you take it in open minded, it's still useful information to help educate us all on our options.
When we get into these disputes, I like to put my friends website up as a link. He's well known in the industry, and has much good info on his site:
Eventually, but not that far out, Verison intends to take FIOS to 150Mbs. Beyond that, they have plans to go to 1Gbs.
But Verizon is only in a very limited market, and how long did it take them to get even that far?
You are lucky if you can get it. I can't. The best DSL I can get is advertised as 3 mbps, but I'm lucky to get 1.5 - 2. I could get cable up to about 5-6 (advertised), but at a cost 3x my DSL.
Not that it would stop me from upgrading the cable modem, I could afford it if I wanted to. But those of you in FIOS-land are very, very much in the minority.
The meaning hasn't to be clarified. Once could refer to the blue laser technlogy, when the name was trademarked, when the first players were announced, when the first players were for sale, when the first commercial titles were released for it. None of this happened at the same time and depending on your POV the answer may be different and you both may be correct.
But Verizon is only in a very limited market, and how long did it take them to get even that far?
You are lucky if you can get it. I can't. The best DSL I can get is advertised as 3 mbps, but I'm lucky to get 1.5 - 2. I could get cable up to about 5-6 (advertised), but at a cost 3x my DSL.
Not that it would stop me from upgrading the cable modem, I could afford it if I wanted to. But those of you in FIOS-land are very, very much in the minority.
Very true, but that's where capitalism comes in. Right now, ATT has been advertising that their fiber is as good as Verison's. But, it's not. ATT's fiber only goes to the neighborhood, and then is copper all the rest of the way. FIOS is fiber to the home, and has about four times the bandwidth.
But, what ATT hasn't been publicizing, is that they do have fiber to the home in new neighborhoods, where they have to lay cable the entire way anyway. Eventually, they will have to compete with Verison. Between the two, they can sign up about 85% of all households, and you just know that the rest must follow, or go out of business.
This is why I said to have patience. It won't happen overnight, but it will happen. In five years, far more people will have fiber than do now, and in ten, most people will be covered.
Look at how long it took for 90% of people on the net to get broadband! It just now hit that number.
Yup, that's the one. I've used it before, too. Just didn't have the link handy when I posted. Thanks for providing the reference!
I'm often amazed when people tell me that they have a 42" hi def set, sit 15 feet away, and insist that they see 1080p, or even 720p. They sure don't! Hell, they barely see 480p!
The meaning has to be clarified. One could refer to the blue laser technlogy, when the name was trademarked, when the first players were announced, when the first players were for sale, when the first commercial titles were released, etc.. None of this happened at the same time, and depending on your POV the answer may be different and you both may be correct.
Something to backup what I am saying...
According to Wikipedia:
• The first DVR Blue prototypes were unveiled at the CEATEC exhibition in October 2000
• February 2002, the project was officially announced as Blu-ray
• The first consumer devices were in stores on April 10, 2003. This device was the Sony BDZ-S77; a BD-RE recorder that was only made available in Japan. The recommended price was US$3800. However, there was no standard for pre-recorded video (BD-ROM) and no movies were released for this player. The Blu-ray Disc standard was still years away
• The Blu-ray Disc physical specifications were finished in 2004
• The BD-ROM specifications were finalized in early 2006
• The first BD-ROM players were shipped in the middle of June 2006, though HD DVD players beat them in the race to the market by a few months
• The first Blu-ray Disc titles were released on June 20, 2006.
• The first mass-market Blu-ray rewritable drive for the PC was the BWU-100A, released by Sony on July 18, 2006
• The earliest releases used MPEG-2 video compression, the same method used on DVDs. The first releases using the newer VC-1 and AVC codecs were introduced in September 2006
• The first movies using dual layer discs (50 GB) were introduced in October 2006
For me, Blu-ray is less that 2 years old because the first titles are less than 2 years old. Id est, my only real world interest in Blu-ray is to watch Hollywood films.
PS: If you want see what makes 1080p look like iPod Nano resolution check out the image at the link below:
The meaning has to be clarified. One could refer to the blue laser technlogy, when the name was trademarked, when the first players were announced, when the first players were for sale, when the first commercial titles were released, etc.. None of this happened at the same time, and depending on your POV the answer may be different and you both may be correct.
Sol, you must be tired, why did you post this part of your other post, again?
Of course Betamax had 100% in 1975. You can only have 100% dominance when there are no other competitors -- this is implied! When VHS was introduced in 1976, it only took a couple years to become the new dominant player. VHS overthrew a giant! There was only a short while when both were at 50% market share. Both Bluray and HD-DVD came on the scene around the same time, with neither being the market leader to date.
Why was the VHS/Betamax format war not over until SONY finally release a VHS machine in 1988? Because Sony made Betamax? Does that mean that if theoretically, the Zune somehow attains 75% market share, Microsoft wouldn't be the dominant player until Apple made a Zune?
Ha ha, your facts are certainly wrong when you ignore the fact that it wasn't a war between two formats. It seems that Americans (again) don't know history. V2000 anyone?
Of course Betamax had 100% in 1975. You can only have 100% dominance when there are no other competitors -- this is implied! When VHS was introduced in 1976, it only took a couple years to become the new dominant player. VHS overthrew a giant! There was only a short while when both were at 50% market share. Both Bluray and HD-DVD came on the scene around the same time, with neither being the market leader to date.
Why was the VHS/Betamax format war not over until SONY finally release a VHS machine in 1988? Because Sony made Betamax? Does that mean that if theoretically, the Zune somehow attains 75% market share, Microsoft wouldn't be the dominant player until Apple made a Zune?
Dude- you're flat out wrong. Here's your exact quote: "The battle of HD-DVD/Bluray market dominance has been going on longer than Beta/VHS did."
Know your facts.
1.)The HD format battle has been less than 2 years. Even if I use your dates, 1975-1980 is 4 years- duh!-End of story. I am now leery of any more figures you post.
If you're going to criticize someone elses' facts, better get yours right. HDDVD and Blu-Ray not even 2 years old????
First Sony DVR-Blue prototypes appeared 8 years ago in 2000, name changed to Blu-Ray in 2002. First Sony consumer units appeared in stores April 10, 2003. Sony and Toshiba began meeting 3 years ago in 2005 to try and work out a single format agreement... That didn't work.
Also, the VHS/Beta war ended way before Sony made their first VHS unit. The loser can be obvious without changing sides.
Jim
Hello? By 2 years old I mean by when units were released to the public. Any 5 year old could figure that out. By your reasoning I'm sure Beta was under R&D since the 1960's which still wins my argument.
I beg to differ. This is perhaps the best and least bias comparison i've seen yet.
Hell, I have a PS3 and far prefer it to the AppleTV. Yet I still don't feel the author was biased toward the AppleTV.
There certainly are details missing from the article. But that is more a result of the situation being extremely extremely complicated. If there really was an obvious way to deliver this content, then everyone would be jumping all over it. If there really were an obviously superior product, it would be borne out by sails figures.
Yet none of the consumer electronics manufacturers, nor the content industry, have succeeded yet. Each of the offerings has shortcomings... Hence the value of articles like these, despite the fact that they may not necessarily stress the features or tradeoffs that you personally consider paramount.
Sorry, but to me it's clear the missing details were missed not by accident but to mislead and put the AppleTV in a better light. If you're going to put together a table like the one in this article, you should get all the facts straight and present all of the relevant facts. The PS3, TiVo, and 360 can all do the same streaming functionality that the AppleTV allows and also perform a variety of other functions that the AppleTV currently does not allow yet all of that was left out. And all of these features have a direct bearing on the importance of price.
Likewise, as I mentioned, just the very wording of items in the table is an attack on the AppleTV competitors. For example, in the "HD Death Format" row, the AppleTV is "unlikely" whereas Vudu is "running scared" and even Blu-Ray only gets a "less likely" (which I assume puts it behind the AppleTV). Or the "bargain bin" comments in the HD DVD comment; As a PS3/Blu-Ray owner, I eagerly await HD DVD's official death but I have yet to see a single HD DVD disc sitting in a bargain bin at ANY retailer. And again the "onerous DRM" that Blu-Ray and HD DVD require for PC playback. It's odd because on a PC capable of Blu-Ray playback, I can pretty much guarantee it would be easier to play one of those discs than an iTunes video file (especially if you have already authorized 5 computers, you won't be able to get that iTunes movie to play at all). For Mac users, its a moot point because Apple hasn't deemed to allow Blu-Ray or HD DVD movies to play on their computers yet.
Ha ha, your facts are certainly wrong when you ignore the fact that it wasn't a war between two formats. It seems that Americans (again) don't know history. V2000 anyone?
Are you sure you want your first post on AI to be a blanket statement insinuating 300 million people from one nation are ignorant fools?
Comments
HD HDVD and Blu-ray are not even 2 years old!!!.
Ooops TeckStud,
If you're going to criticize someone elses' facts, better get yours right. HDDVD and Blu-Ray not even 2 years old????
First Sony DVR-Blue prototypes appeared 8 years ago in 2000, name changed to Blu-Ray in 2002. First Sony consumer units appeared in stores April 10, 2003. Sony and Toshiba began meeting 3 years ago in 2005 to try and work out a single format agreement... That didn't work.
Also, the VHS/Beta war ended way before Sony made their first VHS unit. The loser can be obvious without changing sides.
Jim
You can never have the same quality as Blue-ray HD, common sense. You will never get the quality of 40+ GB in a 2~4 GB movie. However, Apple made a step in the right direction. Maybe if few years when at least 10 mbps internet connection become more common and cheaper we can see better quality online HD movies (My internet connection is 10 mbps). For now, Apple TV looks pretty much the best choice for online movie rental.
Eventually, but not that far out, Verison intends to take FIOS to 150Mbs. Beyond that, they have plans to go to 1Gbs.
I have no doubt that as the backbone gets faster, which will happen with Cisco's new switches and routers, we will get these speeds. Once storage at Akamai, and others, gets much bigger as well, they will be able to store, and serve these much bigger files.
At that time, we won't be as concerned about compression artifacts on our 100" OLED screens.
how many people here remember when Real started to send music over the internet at a max of 64Kbs? It was amazing that it could be done at the time, as most had dialup.
Now, we grouse about Hi Def movies.
Patience, patience!
It will happen, we just have to give it time.
Personally, I have noted a significantly superior resolution all the way down to the 32" 1080p
Unless you tell us how far you are sitting from the TV, this is absolutely useless testimony. And if you are sitting more than about 7 or so feet from that 32" TV, I'm throwing the BS flag. And if you are sitting between 4-7 feet, you are seeing better than 720, but not full 1080.
It doesn't have to do with how "good" your eyesight is. Assuming you are seeing 20/20 (focusing accuracy), there is still a limit to the resolution the human eye can see. There are only so many rods and cones (the light sensing cells) in your retina. And no matter how much vitamin A you take, everyone has more or less the same density. Saying you can see a higher resolution image than that is like saying you can take a 4 megapixel photo with a 2 megapixel camera.
So, with that out of the way, is your 1080p a better image quality than the 720p. Probably. But not because of the increased resolution (sitting 7 feet from your 32" TV). If you are watching a 1080p signal, you are likely watching blu-ray. And as the article clearly states, the true advantage of blu-ray is bandwidth. For any given resolution, the extra bandwidth allow more accurate color, less color banding, smother motion, etc. If you look at the screen shots, you not only see sharpness differences but also color differences. And like others have already posted, if you were to see motion, you'd likely see motion artifacts as well.
Is blu-ray superior? Definitely! But unless you have a large screen or are sitting very, very close, don't try to tell me it's the resolution. It's much more due to those other aspects. Trying to assess image quality based purely on one measure (resolution) is as foolish as voting for President based on their position on a single issue rather than their overall platform (hmm, perhaps that's not the best analogy to use with my fellow Americans
Apple has made a good compromise here. I'd much rather have a high quality 720p movie than an overly compressed 1080p movie as would be required to make downloading practical. Most (note, I said "most," not "all") people would gain little in resolution benefit in exchange for losing a lot in overall picture quality.
One final note, I agree with others that the article is very biased towards Apple. However, as long as you take it in open minded, it's still useful information to help educate us all on our options.
Ooops TeckStud,
If you're going to criticize someone elses' facts, better get yours right. HDDVD and Blu-Ray not even 2 years old????
First Sony DVR-Blue prototypes appeared 8 years ago in 2000, name changed to Blu-Ray in 2002. First Sony consumer units appeared in stores April 10, 2003. Sony and Toshiba began meeting 3 years ago in 2005 to try and work out a single format agreement... That didn't work.
Also, the VHS/Beta war ended way before Sony made their first VHS unit. The loser can be obvious without changing sides.
Jim
The meaning has to be clarified. One could refer to the blue laser technlogy, when the name was trademarked, when the first players were announced, when the first players were for sale, when the first commercial titles were released, etc.. None of this happened at the same time, and depending on your POV the answer may be different and you both may be correct.
CDs quickly overwhelmed and ended vinyl records reign because of the dramatic (orders of magnitude) increase in quality, durability, and convenience. No technically superior medium has beat CDs (Super SACD, DVD-audio, etc) beause... CDs were good enough.
DVD's even MORE quickly overwhelmed VHS for the same reasons: dramatic improvement in quality, durability, convenience.
HD-DVD and Blu-Ray are technically superior, but not THAT much better than upscaling DVDs. The fact that Sony and Toshiba let a battle ensue for 5 critical years has allowed download technology to catch up.... potentially enough.
Blu-Ray is technically superior... but download is VERY convenient and pretty darn good. Blu-ray just might not be able to overcome this new threat.
In 2 years, we'll know.
Jim
Unless you tell us how far you are sitting from the TV, this is absolutely useless testimony. And if you are sitting more than about 7 or so feet from that 32" TV, I'm throwing the BS flag. And if you are sitting between 4-7 feet, you are seeing better than 720, but not full 1080.
It doesn't have to do with how "good" your eyesight is. Assuming you are seeing 20/20 (focusing accuracy), there is still a limit to the resolution the human eye can see. There are only so many rods and cones (the light sensing cells) in your retina. And no matter how much vitamin A you take, everyone has more or less the same density. Saying you can see a higher resolution image than that is like saying you can take a 4 megapixel photo with a 2 megapixel camera.
So, with that out of the way, is your 1080p a better image quality than the 720p. Probably. But not because of the increased resolution (sitting 7 feet from your 32" TV). If you are watching a 1080p signal, you are likely watching blu-ray. And as the article clearly states, the true advantage of blu-ray is bandwidth. For any given resolution, the extra bandwidth allow more accurate color, less color banding, smother motion, etc. If you look at the screen shots, you not only see sharpness differences but also color differences. And like others have already posted, if you were to see motion, you'd likely see motion artifacts as well.
Is blu-ray superior? Definitely! But unless you have a large screen or are sitting very, very close, don't try to tell me it's the resolution. It's much more due to those other aspects. Trying to assess image quality based purely on one measure (resolution) is as foolish as voting for President based on their position on a single issue rather than their overall platform (hmm, perhaps that's not the best analogy to use with my fellow Americans
Apple has made a good compromise here. I'd much rather have a high quality 720p movie than an overly compressed 1080p movie as would be required to make downloading practical. Most (note, I said "most," not "all") people would gain little in resolution benefit in exchange for losing a lot in overall picture quality.
One final note, I agree with others that the article is very biased towards Apple. However, as long as you take it in open minded, it's still useful information to help educate us all on our options.
When we get into these disputes, I like to put my friends website up as a link. He's well known in the industry, and has much good info on his site:
http://www.carltonbale.com/
This goes directly to the rez, size, and seating distance charts. I print them out back to back on one sheet, and give them out. Very useful:
http://www.carltonbale.com/2006/11/1080p-does-matter/
Eventually, but not that far out, Verison intends to take FIOS to 150Mbs. Beyond that, they have plans to go to 1Gbs.
But Verizon is only in a very limited market, and how long did it take them to get even that far?
You are lucky if you can get it. I can't.
Not that it would stop me from upgrading the cable modem, I could afford it if I wanted to. But those of you in FIOS-land are very, very much in the minority.
The meaning hasn't to be clarified. Once could refer to the blue laser technlogy, when the name was trademarked, when the first players were announced, when the first players were for sale, when the first commercial titles were released for it. None of this happened at the same time and depending on your POV the answer may be different and you both may be correct.
Good point.
When we get into these disputes, I like to put my friends website up as a link. He's well known in the industry, and has much good info on his site:
http://www.carltonbale.com/
This goes directly to the rez, size, and seating distance charts. I print them out back to back on one sheet, and give them out. Very useful:
http://www.carltonbale.com/2006/11/1080p-does-matter/
Yup, that's the one. I've used it before, too. Just didn't have the link handy when I posted. Thanks for providing the reference!
But Verizon is only in a very limited market, and how long did it take them to get even that far?
You are lucky if you can get it. I can't.
Not that it would stop me from upgrading the cable modem, I could afford it if I wanted to. But those of you in FIOS-land are very, very much in the minority.
Very true, but that's where capitalism comes in. Right now, ATT has been advertising that their fiber is as good as Verison's. But, it's not. ATT's fiber only goes to the neighborhood, and then is copper all the rest of the way. FIOS is fiber to the home, and has about four times the bandwidth.
But, what ATT hasn't been publicizing, is that they do have fiber to the home in new neighborhoods, where they have to lay cable the entire way anyway. Eventually, they will have to compete with Verison. Between the two, they can sign up about 85% of all households, and you just know that the rest must follow, or go out of business.
This is why I said to have patience. It won't happen overnight, but it will happen. In five years, far more people will have fiber than do now, and in ten, most people will be covered.
Look at how long it took for 90% of people on the net to get broadband! It just now hit that number.
Yup, that's the one. I've used it before, too. Just didn't have the link handy when I posted. Thanks for providing the reference!
I'm often amazed when people tell me that they have a 42" hi def set, sit 15 feet away, and insist that they see 1080p, or even 720p. They sure don't! Hell, they barely see 480p!
The meaning has to be clarified. One could refer to the blue laser technlogy, when the name was trademarked, when the first players were announced, when the first players were for sale, when the first commercial titles were released, etc.. None of this happened at the same time, and depending on your POV the answer may be different and you both may be correct.
Something to backup what I am saying...
According to Wikipedia:For me, Blu-ray is less that 2 years old because the first titles are less than 2 years old. Id est, my only real world interest in Blu-ray is to watch Hollywood films.
PS: If you want see what makes 1080p look like iPod Nano resolution check out the image at the link below:
The meaning has to be clarified. One could refer to the blue laser technlogy, when the name was trademarked, when the first players were announced, when the first players were for sale, when the first commercial titles were released, etc.. None of this happened at the same time, and depending on your POV the answer may be different and you both may be correct.
Sol, you must be tired, why did you post this part of your other post, again?
Ah, I see.
Sol, you must be tired, why did you post this part of your other post, again?
Sorry, hit the wrong button. Took a while to hunt down the Blu-ray timeline I researched a few days back.
Sorry, hit the wrong button. Took a while to hunt down the Blu-ray timeline I researched a few days back.
You're lucky you found it at all.
Of course Betamax had 100% in 1975. You can only have 100% dominance when there are no other competitors -- this is implied! When VHS was introduced in 1976, it only took a couple years to become the new dominant player. VHS overthrew a giant! There was only a short while when both were at 50% market share. Both Bluray and HD-DVD came on the scene around the same time, with neither being the market leader to date.
Why was the VHS/Betamax format war not over until SONY finally release a VHS machine in 1988? Because Sony made Betamax? Does that mean that if theoretically, the Zune somehow attains 75% market share, Microsoft wouldn't be the dominant player until Apple made a Zune?
Ha ha, your facts are certainly wrong when you ignore the fact that it wasn't a war between two formats. It seems that Americans (again) don't know history. V2000 anyone?
Of course Betamax had 100% in 1975. You can only have 100% dominance when there are no other competitors -- this is implied! When VHS was introduced in 1976, it only took a couple years to become the new dominant player. VHS overthrew a giant! There was only a short while when both were at 50% market share. Both Bluray and HD-DVD came on the scene around the same time, with neither being the market leader to date.
Why was the VHS/Betamax format war not over until SONY finally release a VHS machine in 1988? Because Sony made Betamax? Does that mean that if theoretically, the Zune somehow attains 75% market share, Microsoft wouldn't be the dominant player until Apple made a Zune?
Dude- you're flat out wrong. Here's your exact quote: "The battle of HD-DVD/Bluray market dominance has been going on longer than Beta/VHS did."
Know your facts.
1.)The HD format battle has been less than 2 years. Even if I use your dates, 1975-1980 is 4 years- duh!-End of story. I am now leery of any more figures you post.
Ooops TeckStud,
If you're going to criticize someone elses' facts, better get yours right. HDDVD and Blu-Ray not even 2 years old????
First Sony DVR-Blue prototypes appeared 8 years ago in 2000, name changed to Blu-Ray in 2002. First Sony consumer units appeared in stores April 10, 2003. Sony and Toshiba began meeting 3 years ago in 2005 to try and work out a single format agreement... That didn't work.
Also, the VHS/Beta war ended way before Sony made their first VHS unit. The loser can be obvious without changing sides.
Jim
Hello? By 2 years old I mean by when units were released to the public. Any 5 year old could figure that out. By your reasoning I'm sure Beta was under R&D since the 1960's which still wins my argument.
I beg to differ. This is perhaps the best and least bias comparison i've seen yet.
Hell, I have a PS3 and far prefer it to the AppleTV. Yet I still don't feel the author was biased toward the AppleTV.
There certainly are details missing from the article. But that is more a result of the situation being extremely extremely complicated. If there really was an obvious way to deliver this content, then everyone would be jumping all over it. If there really were an obviously superior product, it would be borne out by sails figures.
Yet none of the consumer electronics manufacturers, nor the content industry, have succeeded yet. Each of the offerings has shortcomings... Hence the value of articles like these, despite the fact that they may not necessarily stress the features or tradeoffs that you personally consider paramount.
Sorry, but to me it's clear the missing details were missed not by accident but to mislead and put the AppleTV in a better light. If you're going to put together a table like the one in this article, you should get all the facts straight and present all of the relevant facts. The PS3, TiVo, and 360 can all do the same streaming functionality that the AppleTV allows and also perform a variety of other functions that the AppleTV currently does not allow yet all of that was left out. And all of these features have a direct bearing on the importance of price.
Likewise, as I mentioned, just the very wording of items in the table is an attack on the AppleTV competitors. For example, in the "HD Death Format" row, the AppleTV is "unlikely" whereas Vudu is "running scared" and even Blu-Ray only gets a "less likely" (which I assume puts it behind the AppleTV). Or the "bargain bin" comments in the HD DVD comment; As a PS3/Blu-Ray owner, I eagerly await HD DVD's official death but I have yet to see a single HD DVD disc sitting in a bargain bin at ANY retailer. And again the "onerous DRM" that Blu-Ray and HD DVD require for PC playback. It's odd because on a PC capable of Blu-Ray playback, I can pretty much guarantee it would be easier to play one of those discs than an iTunes video file (especially if you have already authorized 5 computers, you won't be able to get that iTunes movie to play at all). For Mac users, its a moot point because Apple hasn't deemed to allow Blu-Ray or HD DVD movies to play on their computers yet.
Ha ha, your facts are certainly wrong when you ignore the fact that it wasn't a war between two formats. It seems that Americans (again) don't know history. V2000 anyone?
Are you sure you want your first post on AI to be a blanket statement insinuating 300 million people from one nation are ignorant fools?