It's a Mad Mad Mad Mad Discworld

Via Slashdot^[1] I found this interesting article by Client DeBoer on the competing Blu-Ray and HD-DVD formats, both touted by their respective backers as the replacement for the DVD format. DeBoer posits that neither of the two will catch on with the general public, and lists the top ten reasons for them failing to do so. The point that rings most true to me is this one:

3. HD DVD and Blu-ray are NOT Quantum Leaps in Technology
Consumers came over in droves when CDs were released back in 1982. The new format offered not only a new digital media, but also a way to instantly access tracks across an entire album. Convenience, not technology, drove this format to almost instant consumer adoption. Fast forward a bit to 1997 when the first DVD player was released. Again, convenience, not technology, drove people to the market en masse. Unlike VHS tapes, the new DVD format was smaller, easily navigated and would not wear down over time like existing tape-based formats.

Exactly right. The introduction of the DVD was nothing short of a revolution. Blu-Ray? HD-DVD? Okay, so it's better than DVD, but is it better enough?
DeBoer also mentions the spectacular failure of SACD and DVD-Audio, two competing format intended to replace the CD. The first thing I thought the first time I heard of either a couple of years ago was "eh." Audio CDs are good enough. Perhaps not for those of you with golden ears, but for us mere mortals they most certainly are.

Besides, I wouldn't spend money on a player of one format or the other until I'm absolutely sure the one I'm picking is the format that will ultimately prevail. Let's just say I'm in possession of waaay too many Betamax tapes for me to get into the early-adoption game again. Another important issue is backwards compability; I'm not going to replace my DVD collection^[2], so any player I buy had better support DVDs as well.

Though, unlike the VHS and Betamax, Blu-Ray and HD-DVD have the exact same dimensions, and I can't imagine it being to difficult to create a player that could handle both Blu-Ray and HD-DVD discs. The end result might be much like the format war between the DVD-R and DVD+R burnable DVD formats: ultimately all burners just supported both, the format war essentially ending in a tie.
For the time being I'm sticking with my DVD collection, though. Until HVD comes along, that is.

^[1] Oh, don't start.
^[2] Which numbers well over 200 at this point. My salary is way too high.

Downloading this blog entry is a criminal offense punishable by death

In the past few years or so, just about every DVD I purchase features this unbypassable antipiracy advertisement that starts the minute you pop the DVD into the DVD player. The ad goes something like this:

"Waah! Waah! Stealing is bad! Waah! Waah! Instead of making 11.5 gazillion dollars last year, we only made 10.5! Waah! Waah!"

Granted, they do have a point. If everyone just downloaded all the movies they wanted to see, the movie companies would go bankrupt. Of course, one could then argue that if your business model doesn't work, perhaps it would be prudent to change business model. But that's for another blog entry (or not).
But here's where they're completely off the mark: Since I've purchased the DVD in the first place, I don't fucking need to be lectured about the virtues of buying goods! I'm with you on the whole capitalism-as-an-economic-system paradigm! And I particularly don't need to be lectured about it on every single DVD that I buy, and every single time I sit down to watch a freakin' DVD.

And while I'm in a complaining mood, what's up with those warning labels on cigarette packets?
"Smoking can cause cancer."
"Smoking is bad."
"No, seriously, smoking is really bad."
"If you smoke this, you will die a horrible and painful death."
What purpose do they serve? Are there any habitual smokers out there, who upon noticing the warning labels think to themselves "Waah! I had no idea smoking was hazardous for your health! I better stop smoking immediately!" I think not.