[Eug]

Originally Posted by jokell82 

I'm not arguing that capacity is unnecessary, I just think that optical media for computers is on the way out *regardless* of how much space is on it. Very few people right now have a need for something with higher capacity than a DVD-R (hell, dual layer DVD-R discs still aren't standard because people don't seem to want/need them).

Actually, dual-layer DVD-R discs still aren't standard because most machines can't read them. The reason for this is that the spec for dual-layer DVD-R came very late in DVD-R's life, and older drives will simply choke when present with a dual-layer DVD-R.

Many (that can read DVD+R that is) can read dual-layer DVD+R though (although part of that is because some drives flag the discs with the DVD-ROM bit, to increase compatibility with older machines).

[goMac]

Originally Posted by icruise 

So are the HD-DVD backers (Eug excepted) seriously arguing that more capacity is unnecessary? Lots of people have argued that in the past about computer-related things, and they've always been wrong. I know that I personally would love to be able to burn my iPhoto library or the entire run of a TV show without using 10+ discs. And things are only going to require more capacity in the future. I remember only a few years ago when a DVD-R seemed huge. Not anymore.

No one here is arguing that more capacity is unnecessary. I'm saying that optical disks are not cost effective, and they're not convenient. There are much better solutions available. Sure, in five years it's somewhat conceivable that consumers will need to store 50 gigs of data on a format that they can move around easily... But in 5 years we'll likely have 50 gig thumb drives, and they'll be dirty cheap. And internet connections will likely be much faster by that point, and we'll more easily be able to move that 50 gigs of data around the web.

When CD's first came out they were amazing because they were the largest medium readily available. Myst came on a 600 megabyte CD-ROM when most people's hard drives were only around 80 megabytes, and most internet connections were 14.4 kbs. That was amazing. When DVD's came out, the difference wasn't quite as large, but was still noticeable. A lot of people had 2-4 gig hard drives and DVD's were 5-10 gigs.

But optical media is no longer the best solution for user side stuff. Optical media now has less capacity than other competing formats, it's less convenient, and it's slower. With a hard drive, I can run a complete backup in the background very quickly without having to feed discs into my machine. I can plug a hard drive into my machine and let it run for 10 minutes in the background 3 times a day while it does an incremental backup. Or, I can sit at my machine and feed discs into it for a few hours while it backs up all my data. Guess which method sounds better to me?

[Eug]

Originally Posted by goMac 

No one here is arguing that more capacity is unnecessary. I'm saying that optical disks are not cost effective, and they're not convenient. There are much better solutions available. Sure, in five years it's somewhat conceivable that consumers will need to store 50 gigs of data on a format that they can move around easily... But in 5 years we'll likely have 50 gig thumb drives, and they'll be dirty cheap. And internet connections will likely be much faster by that point, and we'll more easily be able to move that 50 gigs of data around the web.

The main reason for optical discs is because they are cost effective.

Why don't we see 15 GB hard drives any more? Because it isn't cost effective to make them. The way one might think of optical discs is buying a cheap form of the individual platters of a hard drive, without having to buy all the housing, electronics, heads, and drive mechanism, etc.

[goMac]

Originally Posted by Eug 

The main reason for optical discs is because they are cost effective.

Why don't we see 15 GB hard drives any more? Because it isn't cost effective to make them. The way one might think of optical discs is buying a cheap form of the individual platters of a hard drive, without having to buy all the housing, electronics, heads, and drive mechanism, etc.

But can anyone here think of a decent example of why, today, I would need to burn 15 gigs of data? In a few years, when I might have some need to burn 15 gigs of data, flash storage will be much more cost effective, in addition to being rewritable.

As for now, I usually find myself in the position where I either need to move a few megs of data, or I need to move hundreds of gigs of data (i.e. my whole hard drive.) For smaller ~10 gig increments of data, I'm usually only moving some large video files between machines, so my LAN works just fine. I just don't honestly see any situation in which I'd actually want to burn 15 gigs of data.

[jokell82]

Originally Posted by Eug 

Actually, dual-layer DVD-R discs still aren't standard because most machines can't read them. The reason for this is that the spec for dual-layer DVD-R came very late in DVD-R's life, and older drives will simply choke when present with a dual-layer DVD-R.

Many (that can read DVD+R that is) can read dual-layer DVD+R though (although part of that is because some drives flag the discs with the DVD-ROM bit, to increase compatibility with older machines).

Whatever, dual layer DVDs. + or - is irrelevant to my point. You don't see them because no one needs them. If people really needed more than 4.7 gigs right now there would be more of a market for them. But it just isn't there.

If people aren't willing to upgrade their drives for a 9 gig disc why would they do it for a 25 gig disc?

(Again - talking about *right now* - not future capacity)

[starman]

Originally Posted by goMac 

But optical media is no longer the best solution for user side stuff. Optical media now has less capacity than other competing formats, it's less convenient, and it's slower. With a hard drive, I can run a complete backup in the background very quickly without having to feed discs into my machine. I can plug a hard drive into my machine and let it run for 10 minutes in the background 3 times a day while it does an incremental backup. Or, I can sit at my machine and feed discs into it for a few hours while it backs up all my data. Guess which method sounds better to me?

And let's bring back the point about portability. Sure you can do that on YOUR machine, but if you want to make multiple copies of a disc, then you're stuck having to buy several external drives which costs more. Guess which method sounds better to me?

[starman]

Originally Posted by jokell82 

Whatever, dual layer DVDs. + or - is irrelevant to my point. You don't see them because no one needs them. If people really needed more than 4.7 gigs right now there would be more of a market for them. But it just isn't there.

If people aren't willing to upgrade their drives for a 9 gig disc why would they do it for a 25 gig disc?

(Again - talking about *right now* - not future capacity)

You seem to throw around words like "no one" and "no market". The fact is that the drives ARE out there and people DO use them.

[goMac]

[

Originally Posted by starman 

And let's bring back the point about portability. Sure you can do that on YOUR machine, but if you want to make multiple copies of a disc, then you're stuck having to buy several external drives which costs more. Guess which method sounds better to me?

Well, this depends on what exactly you're distributing. If the files you're distributing are less than a few gigs total, than the internet is probably the best way to move those files. If you're talking about files larger than a few gigs total... What kind of files would I be moving around to multiple clients that would be larger than a few gigs? (Besides the obvious answer of digital video...) I don't think I've ever moved anything over a gig to a client, and while that probably will change eventually, I don't see it happening for a long long time.

With regards to digital video, yes, for people distributing high def video work to multiple clients, optical disks are the best solution. This is a special case though, and not something a lot of people are going to be doing. Heck, that's why these disks were designed in the first place.

[starman]

I'm not talking about clients, I'm talking about backups of personal data (isn't that what we were originally talking about?). Pictures and movies and such. 50 GB+ is not that easy to port around and buying several hard drives to do so is impractical. That's what makes optical media the better choice. I can make a copies to keep at my mom's, my sister's, work, etc.

[Eug]

Originally Posted by goMac 

But can anyone here think of a decent example of why, today, I would need to burn 15 gigs of data?

Several already have.

In a few years, when I might have some need to burn 15 gigs of data, flash storage will be much more cost effective, in addition to being rewritable.

As for now, I usually find myself in the position where I either need to move a few megs of data, or I need to move hundreds of gigs of data (i.e. my whole hard drive.) For smaller ~10 gig increments of data, I'm usually only moving some large video files between machines, so my LAN works just fine. I just don't honestly see any situation in which I'd actually want to burn 15 gigs of data.

Just because that's the way your specific setup works doesn't mean it's representative of the population at large.

Judging by your description, you'd only need CD-R and hard drives.

I other hand rarely use CD-R because it's too small, and sometimes find DVD-R wanting because the 4.37 GB on a DVD-R is not enough.

However, for the times CD-R is sufficient, I often use DVD-R anyway, because the costs are comparable these days. ie. The big benefit of plastic optical media is low cost per disc. (The main argument against Blu-ray is the cost of the hardcoat, which means it is likely that Blu-ray manufacturing costs will remain slightly higher than DVD-R manufacturing costs, whereas HD DVD-R could be basically the same cost as DVD-R.)

Originally Posted by jokell82 

Whatever, dual layer DVDs. + or - is irrelevant to my point. You don't see them because no one needs them. If people really needed more than 4.7 gigs right now there would be more of a market for them. But it just isn't there.

If people aren't willing to upgrade their drives for a 9 gig disc why would they do it for a 25 gig disc?

(Again - talking about *right now* - not future capacity)

Dual-layer DVD+R is actually fairly common. Dual-layer DVD-R is much less common.

The discs are less than $1 each too.

However, even dual-layer is a bit short disc space sometimes, for my usage.

[jokell82]

Originally Posted by starman 

You seem to throw around words like "no one" and "no market". The fact is that the drives ARE out there and people DO use them.

And they appear to be flying off the shelves, too!

I'm talking about a format becoming an industry standard. And I don't see that happening for another optical disc format before they become obsolete.

[goMac]

Originally Posted by starman 

I'm not talking about clients, I'm talking about backups of personal data (isn't that what we were originally talking about?). Pictures and movies and such. 50 GB+ is not that easy to port around and buying several hard drives to do so is impractical. That's what makes optical media the better choice. I can make a copies to keep at my mom's, my sister's, work, etc.

So now I'm confused. Are you saying you're going to burn discs and then mail them different places? A backup isn't valuable unless it's up to date. I have a drive at work, and I have a drive at home, and both are kept up to date without me thinking about it. Extremely important stuff is backed up to two different web servers.

In the event that both my drive at work and home are destroyed in some nuclear apocalypse, I'm probably not going to care as much about my /System directory as much as getting my critical documents back, which are backed up halfway around the country on a server.

I'm not sure at what point it would be valuable to actually have backups in more than two physical places.

[analogue SPRINKLES]

I really can't believe you guys still find things to argue about on a daily basis.

How many high def disks you guys have on average anyway? I have 14 BR disks but I haven't bought one in months as I am honestly finding the PS3 does such a great job upconverting DVD's I don't feel compelled to get it in HD.

[Eug]

Originally Posted by goMac 

So now I'm confused. Are you saying you're going to burn discs and then mail them different places? A backup isn't valuable unless it's up to date. I have a drive at work, and I have a drive at home, and both are kept up to date without me thinking about it. Extremely important stuff is backed up to two different web servers.

Historical backups of utmost importance for many people in many circumstances. In fact, that's the main purpose of Time Machine.

Just because you have the latest version of a file doesn't mean you necessarily have the version you want. That's the problem with most hard drive backups. It saves files, not versions.

Originally Posted by analogue SPRINKLES 

I have 14 BR disks but I haven't bought one in months as I am honestly finding the PS3 does such a great job upconverting DVD's I don't feel compelled to get it in HD.

With a medium sized TV at a moderate viewing distance, upconverted DVD looks pretty good. Move closer or get a bigger TV, and that is no longer the case.

[starman]

Originally Posted by goMac 

So now I'm confused. Are you saying you're going to burn discs and then mail them different places? A backup isn't valuable unless it's up to date. I have a drive at work, and I have a drive at home, and both are kept up to date without me thinking about it. Extremely important stuff is backed up to two different web servers.

In the event that both my drive at work and home are destroyed in some nuclear apocalypse, I'm probably not going to care as much about my /System directory as much as getting my critical documents back, which are backed up halfway around the country on a server.

I'm not sure at what point it would be valuable to actually have backups in more than two physical places.

Two points:

1) You don't have kids
2) You probably never lost anything valuable

And who said anything about MAILING? I bring a disc to my mom's or my sister's and ask them to keep it in a desk drawer. Done. What's so goddamn hard to comprehend?

[ort888]

Originally Posted by analogue SPRINKLES 

I really can't believe you guys still find things to argue about on a daily basis.

How many high def disks you guys have on average anyway? I have 14 BR disks but I haven't bought one in months as I am honestly finding the PS3 does such a great job upconverting DVD's I don't feel compelled to get it in HD.

I have exactly one HD DVD. I find the higher prices and crappy selection to be a huge turn-off.

I own 200 or so DVDs. There was this notion that when you were buying DVDs that you were getting the movie, in an amazing format, for the rest of your life. Pay $20, and own a great looking version of a favorite film to have and enjoy forever! Well, now that these HD discs are out, it's started to somewhat sour the idea of building a big library. The expense of buying a lot of movies starts to seem silly when you are reminded that formats go away. It should have been something we knew from the start, but for some reason it never really clicked for me.

The format war hurts too. I'm sure as hell not going to pay $25 for a movie when I can't even say for sure if the format will still be viable in 2 years. Sure, I may still have the player, but it won't be that same as owning everything on the defacto standard format.

[goMac]

Originally Posted by starman 

Two points:

1) You don't have kids
2) You probably never lost anything valuable

And who said anything about MAILING? I bring a disc to my mom's or my sister's and ask them to keep it in a desk drawer. Done. What's so goddamn hard to comprehend?

First, I realized I should probably explain something. I'm a mobile user, so my laptop is my work and home machine. Therefore my backup at work and home is the same.

I've certainly lost valuable things. But again, what is the likelyhood that both my hard drives containing the same backup in two physically different places are both going to get destroyed? Even if I was a parent, what's the likelihood that my rogue child is going to destroy my drive at home, then break into work and destroy my drive there, and then get into my online servers and delete my critical backups?

I also hope your backups you send out to your family are encrypted. If one of their homes got broken into you'd risk having some of your data stolen.

[analogue SPRINKLES]

Originally Posted by Eug 

With a medium sized TV at a moderate viewing distance, upconverted DVD looks pretty good. Move closer or get a bigger TV, and that is no longer the case.

Does my 50" TV count as moderate? Cuz DVD's look amazing on it.

Hey if you want to talk small market shares think about the number of TV's that are over 50" inches and have HD-DVD/BR.

[jokell82]

Originally Posted by analogue SPRINKLES 

How many high def disks you guys have on average anyway? I have 14 BR disks but I haven't bought one in months as I am honestly finding the PS3 does such a great job upconverting DVD's I don't feel compelled to get it in HD.

I only have 25 right now (though I may pick up Bourne Ultimatum tomorrow). I feel the exact opposite - I see such a huge difference between DVD and HD DVD that I wont buy DVDs anymore and I rarely watch them either.

And I have yet to spend more than $20 on a single movie.

[ort888]

Regular DVDs look great on my 51" TV as well. I can tell the difference on HD DVDs, but it isn't night and day.

Definitely nothing like the jump from VHS to DVD.

[icruise]

Originally Posted by jokell82 

I feel the exact opposite - I see such a huge difference between DVD and HD DVD that I wont buy DVDs anymore and I rarely watch them either.

Maybe you need to look at your TV or DVD player. In my experience it's not a night-and-day difference by any means. Yes, HD is noticeably better, but no so huge that I wouldn't want to watch DVDs anymore.

[Eug]

Originally Posted by analogue SPRINKLES 

Does my 50" TV count as moderate? Cuz DVD's look amazing on it.

Yes. You can get 47" LCD TVs at Wal-Mart these days for $1300.

I agree DVDs look pretty good on a 50" display at a moderate distance, but I wouldn't say they're amazing, even with a decent upscaler.

Originally Posted by icruise 

Maybe you need to look at your TV or DVD player. In my experience it's not a night-and-day difference by any means. Yes, HD is noticeably better, but no so huge that I wouldn't want to watch DVDs anymore.

Well, with my projector, it's a night-and-day difference. HD is noticeably better, and the difference is so huge that I don't want to watch DVDs on it.

In fact, for DVDs, I generally just move over to my 42" TV. There, I sit at the same distance, but the screen size is that much smaller, so the difference isn't as obvious. Yes, HD is still better, but DVD looks more tolerable on that screen.

[starman]

Originally Posted by goMac 

First, I realized I should probably explain something. I'm a mobile user, so my laptop is my work and home machine. Therefore my backup at work and home is the same.

I've certainly lost valuable things. But again, what is the likelyhood that both my hard drives containing the same backup in two physically different places are both going to get destroyed? Even if I was a parent, what's the likelihood that my rogue child is going to destroy my drive at home, then break into work and destroy my drive there, and then get into my online servers and delete my critical backups?

I'm talking about pictures OF the kids, not the kids breaking anything.

I also hope your backups you send out to your family are encrypted. If one of their homes got broken into you'd risk having some of your data stolen.

Gosh, darn. You're right. I should bury everything in the backyard instead.

[Dakar the Fourth]

My, isn't this thread lively today.

[exca1ibur]

There is a difference to me as well. I still by DVDs, but to say upscaled DVDs look as good as HD, for me personally, is stretching it. Most of my Bluray movies I get I've payed $19 for. The last two I got were $9.99. So for the price difference like that, I see no point in getting the DVD.

[goMac]

Originally Posted by starman 

I'm talking about pictures OF the kids, not the kids breaking anything.

Ok so.... Hard drive at work, hard drive at home. Everything backs up automatically. No need to swap optical disks. My back ups are always up to date.

Originally Posted by starman 

Gosh, darn. You're right. I should bury everything in the backyard instead.

Just saying...

[icruise]

Originally Posted by Eug 

In fact, for DVDs, I generally just move over to my 42" TV. There, I sit at the same distance, but the screen size is that much smaller, so the difference isn't as obvious. Yes, HD is still better, but DVD looks more tolerable on that screen.

Well, I'm only on a 50" screen right now, so that might have something to do with it.

[Eug]

Originally Posted by exca1ibur 

There is a difference to me as well. I still by DVDs, but to say upscaled DVDs look as good as HD, for me personally, is stretching it. Most of my Bluray movies I get I've payed $19 for. The last two I got were $9.99. So for the price difference like that, I see no point in getting the DVD.

Yeah, the key to adoption is not just hardware pricing, but software pricing as well. Blu-ray has been playing up this angle with their BOGO sales, especially when the HD DVD side has had big releases (like Transformers).

The sad part is that sometimes even just the DVDs are $20 for a new release, so I can see why they feel justified for charging $28 for a new release on HD DVD or Blu-ray disc.

There have been some HD DVD BOGO sales as well, but not as many.

[jokell82]

Originally Posted by icruise 

Maybe you need to look at your TV or DVD player. In my experience it's not a night-and-day difference by any means. Yes, HD is noticeably better, but no so huge that I wouldn't want to watch DVDs anymore.

The difference to me is night and day on my 42" plasma. It may have to do with my vision, though (it's *very* good).

[Eug]

Originally Posted by jokell82 

The difference to me is night and day on my 42" plasma. It may have to do with my vision, though (it's *very* good).

How far do you sit away from the TV?

I sit fairly far back from my 42" TV, which is why DVD still looks pretty good on it. At 4' away, the difference is night and day. But at 9' away, it isn't.



Now, the above graph isn't necessarily entirely accurate, but it does give you an idea about distance vs. screen size. (Click to enlarge.)

[jokell82]

Yeah I've actually posted that chart in this thread before.

I sit about 8 feet away, but I also have 20/10 vision (so most of those distances would be doubled in my case).

[macintologist]

So back to the original question: who's winning?

[analogue SPRINKLES]

Originally Posted by Eug 

Yes. You can get 47" LCD TVs at Wal-Mart these days for $1300.

So because it is on sale for cheap NOW they are already have a larger market-share than smaller TVs? Wow that was quick.

[Dakar the Fourth]

Originally Posted by macintologist 

So back to the original question: who's winning?

The Bears.

[analogue SPRINKLES]

Originally Posted by macintologist 

So back to the original question: who's winning?

For the last 12 months BR has been outselling HD by a large margin since the PS3 launched.

BR has more studio support and more movies.

PS3 sales have gone way up lately (not that it matters as HD fans will tell you 9% of PS3 owners use the BR player apparently).

HD-DVD sells more "Stand alone players" which is a big deal for some reason. Personally I think $200 is too much for something that does nothing but play movies.

[Eug]

Originally Posted by analogue SPRINKLES 

So because it is on sale for cheap NOW they are already have a larger market-share than smaller TVs? Wow that was quick.

From what I've seen, 32" - 42" appears to be the norm these days, but with lots of people going bigger. ie. 46" - 50" is very common.

BTW, "market share" usually refers to sales in a specific period of time. Your argument would be better if you said "installed base".

Originally Posted by analogue SPRINKLES

HD-DVD sells more "Stand alone players" which is a big deal for some reason. Personally I think $200 is too much for something that does nothing but play movies.

Fair enough, but even more people think $400 is too much even if it plays games, if all they want to do is watch movies.

[olePigeon]

Originally Posted by Dakar the Fourth 

The Bears.

Now wait a minute! Wait just one garsh darn minute, der!

What if -- now I'm speaking hypothetically now -- what if da HD-DVD standard was named Ditka?

[Dakar the Fourth]

...and da Blu-Ray was named Jordan?

[Eug]

For somebody called "Dakar" you'd think he'd get it right and call it "Da Bears".

Sheesh. What's this world coming to?!?

[ort888]

Originally Posted by analogue SPRINKLES 

For the last 12 months BR has been outselling HD by a large margin since the PS3 launched.

BR has more studio support and more movies.

PS3 sales have gone way up lately (not that it matters as HD fans will tell you 9% of PS3 owners use the BR player apparently).

HD-DVD sells more "Stand alone players" which is a big deal for some reason. Personally I think $200 is too much for something that does nothing but play movies.

How have they been selling much better? If you look at the numbers you'll see that it really isn't selling well at all. We do need to see the latest number with the price drop though.

I would say that at this point Blu-ray is definitely winning. The problem is that they aren't winning enough to end this stupid format war. HD DVD is clinging on to 1/3 of the market and it doesn't look like anything is going to change that anytime soon.

[olePigeon]

All I'm sayin' is dat I don't support a DVD format dat doesn't carry more layers dan I've had heart attacks, which is currently at seven der, Dark.

[Dakar the Fourth]

Originally Posted by Eug 

For somebody called "Dakar" you'd think he'd get it right and call it "Da Bears".

Sheesh. What's this world coming to?!?

Shít.

[ort888]

PS3 monthly sales since launch (US only)

October 2007 = 121,000
September 2007 = 119,000
August 2007 = 130,000
July 2007 = 159,000
June 2007 = 98,000
May 2007 = 81,000
April 2007 = 82,000
March 2007 = 130,000
February 2007 = 127,000
January 2007 = 244,000
December 2006 = 490,000
November 2006 = 197,000

In the one year period the PS3 has sold 1.9 million units.

In the same amount of time the Wii has sold 5 million and the 360 has sold 4.2 million.

[olePigeon]

HD-DVD should bundle it with the Wii. They'd suddenly be selling 5-times as many Blu-Ray

Originally Posted by ort888 

PS3 monthly sales since launch (US only)

October 2007 = 121,000
September 2007 = 119,000
August 2007 = 130,000
July 2007 = 159,000
June 2007 = 98,000
May 2007 = 81,000
April 2007 = 82,000
March 2007 = 130,000
February 2007 = 127,000
January 2007 = 244,000
December 2006 = 490,000
November 2006 = 197,000

In the one year period the PS3 has sold 1.9 million units.

In the same amount of time the Wii has sold 5 million and the 360 has sold 4.2 million.

[Dakar the Fourth]

Yeah, but how many 5 year olds care about HD-DVD?
I had to.

[Eug]

Originally Posted by ort888 

PS3 monthly sales since launch (US only)

October 2007 = 121,000
September 2007 = 119,000
August 2007 = 130,000
July 2007 = 159,000
June 2007 = 98,000
May 2007 = 81,000
April 2007 = 82,000
March 2007 = 130,000
February 2007 = 127,000
January 2007 = 244,000
December 2006 = 490,000
November 2006 = 197,000

In the one year period the PS3 has sold 1.9 million units.

In the same amount of time the Wii has sold 5 million and the 360 has sold 4.2 million.

The PS3 sold 298% more than usual (or was that 298% as much?) after the intro of the 40 GB PS3 (Nov. 2) thru Nov. 24 in North America. During that month the PS3 also outsold the Wii in Japan.

[analogue SPRINKLES]

Originally Posted by ort888 

How have they been selling much better? If you look at the numbers you'll see that it really isn't selling well at all. We do need to see the latest number with the price drop though.

The point is they are way outselling HD-DVD's for 12 months.

[TETENAL]

Originally Posted by goMac 

Ok so.... Hard drive at work, hard drive at home. Everything backs up automatically. No need to swap optical disks. My back ups are always up to date.

"Your backups are always up to date" means you don't have historical backups. That can become a huge problem when you months or years later realize you are missing some data. And that's not theoretical. I actually once lost very important data and only realized 3 years later. It was gone for good, because I didn't have a proper backup.

Since then I make a monthly backup on optical media and I carry it to a safe deposit box of my bank (I had daily backups on hard disk, but they didn't reach back far enough, and I now have daily backups with Time Machine). I can expect this backup on optical discs to be readable for at least 10 years, which is maximum time you are legally required to keep records. I don't get this with a clone of my current hard disk. Regardless of whether I have one, two or one hundred clones.

[TETENAL]

Originally Posted by olePigeon 

HD-DVD should bundle it with the Wii. They'd suddenly be selling 5-times as many Blu-Ray

No, they wouldn't. Most people wouldn't buy the bundle.

[icruise]

Originally Posted by olePigeon 

HD-DVD should bundle it with the Wii. They'd suddenly be selling 5-times as many Blu-Ray

It would nearly double the price of the console, and the price is one of the big selling points of the Wii. And of course there is the little problem of the Wii not supporting HD resolutions to begin with.