VS. Battle: HD-DVD VS. Blu-Ray

VS.

---

There have been a number of arguments on both sides regarding the better format for Hi-Definition DVDs. Finally, it appears a winner is emerging.

For the most part, these formats are fairly identical, with little difference that's of much consequence to the consumer. Access seems to be the determining factor in this battle, since most homes are late at acquiring the latest technology. Not only are the players scarce at retail stores, they're also considerably more expensive than typical DVD players, which have become ubiquitous in their newfound cheapness. While you can buy an old-school DVD player for anywhere from $30-$120, the new Hi-Def players tend to cost anywhere from $300-$600+. It could be that most consumers don't fully understand the advantages of either technology, so the war of the formats could very well come down to customer training--the first to show consumers the value, capabilities, and need for the new players will take the prize. It's obvious to project that the Christmas gift of 2007 is going to be the Hi-Def player. By then, prices will have come down enough to warrant entry for average adopters, and the winner of the DVD format wars will hopefully have vanquished the competition. But which of these should all you vidiots buy now?

HD DVD

Things have not been looking good for the HD DVD format. Smaller storage, little support from the movie and video game industries, and inferior playback resolution seemed to mean this format was doomed to failure. But things have lately taken a turn for the better.

Pros:

• HD DVDs are less expensive. The players themselves are much cheaper than Blu-ray players, which often run in the $600+ range. In contrast, Toshiba sells an HD DVD model for a mere $349. Easy access may, in fact, be the determining factor that establishes the HD DVD format.
• HD DVD manufacturing is easier and less expensive than Blu-ray's BD-ROM.
• Sold as add-ons with the Microsoft XBox 360, HD-DVD players are quickly becoming the first format to be adopted by the masses. 1 million people own XBoxes already. The numbers aren't available for how many of these have purchased the HD DVD player, but at $199, it's obviously the easier format to adopt by the majority. Furthermore, the XBox is appearing to be a superior gaming console to the PS3 for several reasons, including value (XBox is drastically cheaper than PS3) , XBox Live, and higher rendering capabilities. Also, having a disconnected HD-DVD player is better than having an integrated disc drive. When your HD-DVD player ceases to function, you can just buy another one, not have to shell out more money for a replacement XBox.
• The knock out punch: Porn distributors are leaning toward the HD DVD format; Sony is repeating the major mistake it made with the Betamax by making things difficult to implement for the porn industry. Indeed, this could be the deal breaker that forces Blu-ray into the ground, once and for all. Never underestimate the power of porn!
  

Cons:

• Smaller capacity. 30 GB of storage on a dual-layer disc, vs. 50 GB for a dual-layer Blu-ray disc. Single layer discs are half of that space for each format.
• HD DVD’s upper resolution limit is currently 1080i. Although an upgrade to 1080p output is expected in the near future, you would need a 1080p-capable television to take advantage of this feature anyway. Also, resolution difference between the 1080i and 1080p output are difficult to notice, unless you're some sort of TV resolution geek.
  

Blu-ray

Blu-ray has quietly been making inroads and gathering a posse that could easily rival both Crips and Bloods in a bloody LA turf war.

Pros:
According to the Sony website, Blu-ray has the following advantages:

• 1080p Progressive Scan - The highest resolution available in a consumer setting.
• Superior sound - Uncompressed, up to 7.1 Surround Sound capability.
• Enhanced Interactivity - Better navigation without interrupting your program.
• Maximum verstility - Apparently, you can use Blu-Ray for more than movies. Movies, games, software, and data can be used with Blu-Ray as well. Though I have no idea why most people would need it.
  
• Unmatched capacity - More than 50GB of information on each dual-layer disc. That equals 9 hours of HD viewing, or 23 hours of standard definition video. This is a distinct advantage over HD-DVD. But most movies don't run 9 hours anyway, so it's really not as important as one might be led to believe.
  

Additional goods:

• Blu-Ray is integrated in the PS3. If you shell out the cash for a PS3, you have instant access to Sony's huge library of Hi-Def DVDs.
• The Blu-Ray seems to be favored by both video game developers and a majority of the movie studios. Of course, higher cost of production means higher profits for them as well, hence their interest in the better format.
  

Cons:

• Blu-Ray is integrated in the PS3. If the drive breaks, good luck finding a replacement for your PS3. Also, sales for the PS3 have been an enormous flop, furthering the difficulty in getting this technology in the hands of the masses. At $499 for the entry console, you might want to consider the less expensive option--namely, to buy a $349 Toshiba brand HD DVD player. The poor sales of the horrendously overpriced PS3 are causing widespread industry panic that will no doubt hurt Sony for a long time to come. If it were plausible to break out the Blu-ray drive and make it an add-on, the way Microsoft had done with the XBox, it would be to their distinct advantage.
  
• Blu-ray discs are more expensive because of their inherently greater capabilities.
• Costly production facilities must be modified or replaced to produce the discs.
• A Blu-ray player usually costs $600+. Sony's own BDP-S1 Blu-ray player costs $999.95!
• The porn industry is not happy with the Blu-ray format.
  

Conclusion
If history is any indicator of who will win the battle between these lumbering giants, we can look at the famous war between VHS and Betamax that took place in the early 80s. VHS eventually won, most notably because the adult industry preferred it (and because consumers like their porn). Sony is committing Seppuku by denying the porn industry. If they don't fix this situation soon, they might as well pack up their bags and leave the stadium with their heads hung low.

Ultimately, maybe neither of these formats are very important? The trend is moving toward digital downloads anyway, which might eliminate the advantages of either format.

For now, citing greater access, support by the porn industry, and inexpensive production, I have to side with an obvious format.

Winner: HD DVD

VS. Battle: iPod vs. Zune

VS.



Honestly, who cares? They both play music; they both play videos; they're both priced stupidly. The only person who benefits from this is the consumer, so good for us.

Honestly, all this does is make it an even more open playing field for someone else to step in and blow all the competition away. We've seen this kind of product warfare in the form of gaming consoles. Frankly, one-party systems are broken and in need of reform (as proven by our recent election). Something needed to step up and keep the iPod from slipping into redundancy. Fortunately, most systems can't even function for long as dualities. It will be interesting to see who is the third party to come to the table with a product that's even more outrageous.

If I had to put my $250 somewhere, I would put it on the Zune, just because it's the new kid on the block and needs to be successful to launch an inevitable MP3 arms race.

Winner: Zune

VS Battle: Hell's Kitchen vs. Top Chef

VS

In this week's VS. Battle we have two Reality TV giants: Hell's Kitchen in one corner and Top Chef in the other. Since Top Chef debuted last week on Bravo, it's time to bring this post back and remix it.

Like all Reality TV shows, each of these programs have positive and negative traits that make them variably appealing to different types of viewers. The real question is: which is better?

Hell's Kitchen (FOX) pits aspiring chefs against each other as they try to run a restaurant, all while being chastised and berated by master chef, Gordon Ramsay. Ramsay is nothing short of foul in his method of hurling insults, sometimes referring to chefs as "fat pigs" and "donkeys." He is nothing less than obnoxious, rude, cheauvanistic, pompous, arrogant and downright cruel. He does everything in his power to give Brits a bad name. Unfortunately, Ramsay's petulant tirades are one of the show's more appealing aspects, because Hell's Kitchen certainly doesn't do anything to showcase the food or the skills of the competitors. In the end, the winner is not the best cook of the bunch, but the most capable of taking abuse while prepping kitchen service. If the aspiring chefs on this show are taught anything about food, the viewers rarely see it. Sadly, the sole judging by Chef Ramsay leaves a lot to be desired, opening various opportunities for favoritism or worse, personal prejudism.

Problem:

• Challenges don't really change from week to week. The chefs merely engage in cooking for Hell's Kitchen, angering patrons, getting yelled at by Chef Ramsay, then being punished for their poor performance when they lose, or being inadequately rewarded when they win. This makes for tedious television after week four, when Ramsay's insults start falling on the deaf ears of everyone, including the competitors.
• This show seems to be pandering to the lowest common denominator. The sad thing is that Hell's Kitchen could easily be reproduced in any industry. All it takes is someone with a big mouth and 20 people willing to take his crap.
  

Top Chef (Bravo), on the other hand, features chefs of considerable skill and budding talent cooking their own dishes. This season's opener has thrown down the gauntlet. These people know how to cook! The focus here is the food, not the egotistical rantings of a solitary judge on a quest for better book sales. In fact, the presence of multiple judges makes for a more egalitarian selection when it comes to winners and losers. Where Hell's Kitchen is like a vile dictatorship, Top Chef is run like a true republic. When someone wins this show, they truly deserve it on the basis of their cooking talent. Challenges change from week to week, so by the end of the program, the viewer has been treated to seeing a cook's true repertoire. But the lack of a power-mongering troll on Top Chef doesn't take away from the dramatic flair or conflict here; in fact, this show is ten times more anxiety-inducing than Hell's Kitchen because of the spicy interrelationships of the competitors. Perhaps most importantly, this show is educational. Viewers are treated to looking at food in an entirely new way: namely, from the perspective of an educated consumer, or foodie. The sophisticated things being done with food will make you want to sign up at the nearby Cordon Bleu school.

Problem:

• Being on Bravo places this show in an unfortunate cable ghetto. One of the large networks needs to buy this one and put it on Primetime fast; clearly, Top Chef is better than most of the fodder that the networks have there currently.
• Watching Top Chef will make your mouth water. A viewer is repeatedly stricken with remorse as the show features demi-glazed lamb shanks or black truffles. Definitely watch this one after you've eaten your Big Mac and fries. Here's a link to this week's winning recipe! How cool is that?!?!
  

Winner: Top Chef