As some of you have probably seen, there's been a bit of debate over this.. mostly by Xbox fans trying to downplay PS3's Blu-Ray by saying it's just a repeat of the Betamax format from the '70s.
I've been doing some quick research, and have come up with some interesting facts that blow most of the "Betamax all over again" arguments right out the window.
It seems to be a common misconception about Beta vs VHS that VHS was cheaper, as HD-DVD is cheaper. This actually wasn't the case.. both the players and the tapes were about the same between the two.
It IS true that Beta was the "superior" format from a technological point. On paper, it's image quality was superior to that of VHS, but on actual televisions, this difference went completely unnoticed. So it may have been better, but it wasn't THAT much better. And, in fact, it had lower-quality audio than VHS, until they released a "Betamax Hi-Fi" version after the launch of VHS. Remember "hi-fi"? How quaint.. hehe.
Market penetration: In fact, Beta was first. Their initial market penetration was 100%.
So what killed them? Two things killed them, and porn was not one of them, at least not directly, and not in regards to cost:
1) Licensing problems. For whatever reason, Sony had the damndest time getting other companies to make Beta players and tapes. When VHS launched, it was simply outnumbered, as JVC was able to get more people on-board from the start.
2) And this is the big one... Storage Space. VHS could hold two hours of video (i.e. one feature-length movie). Beta could hold only ONE hour of video. Which meant if you wanted to tape a movie off of television (which was the primary draw of both Beta and VHS), your only real option was VHS. With Beta, you'd have to swap tapes halfway through. I believe this also killed off the movie-rental/sales business for Beta, since movies would have to be on two tapes instead of just one, as VHS movies were. THIS is why the porn industry chose VHS.. not because of cost, but because they could fit two hours of smut on a single tape. In a way, it did come down to cost, but only in that they'd have to spend money on more tapes to get the stuff out to market.
To summarize, the current "war" between HD-DVD and Blu-Ray is almost entirely different than the Beta/VHS war of two decades ago. The two things that killed Beta are NOT present in Blu-Ray. And, in fact, the more important of those reasons, storage space, now belongs to HD-DVD.
All this information is right there on the web.. just do a Google for "betamax vhs", you'll find three or four sites right on the first page of results. Wikipedia has several good articles on the subject.
You'll hear them continue to tout on the "lower cost" of HD-DVD compared to Blu-Ray. But what good is that lower cost, really? That really IS like the Betamax thing... Hollywood could easily end up spending more on HD-DVD films. If you have to use two HD-DVDs for a movie + extras, whereas Blu-Ray could hold it all on one disc... it actually becomes cheaper to use Blu-Ray. Let's say that an HD-DVD costs 7.5¢. A Blu-Ray disc costs 10¢ (these are off the top of my head, not official numbers). If they're forced to use two discs with HD-DVD, it now costs 5¢ more per copy of the film to manufacture. That may not sound like a lot, but if they manufacture ten million copies of the film... That's $500,000 extra spent on the HD-DVD version. Which do you think they'll choose? Which do you think the porn industry will choose? That's why they went with VHS, remember.
I've been doing some quick research, and have come up with some interesting facts that blow most of the "Betamax all over again" arguments right out the window.
It seems to be a common misconception about Beta vs VHS that VHS was cheaper, as HD-DVD is cheaper. This actually wasn't the case.. both the players and the tapes were about the same between the two.
It IS true that Beta was the "superior" format from a technological point. On paper, it's image quality was superior to that of VHS, but on actual televisions, this difference went completely unnoticed. So it may have been better, but it wasn't THAT much better. And, in fact, it had lower-quality audio than VHS, until they released a "Betamax Hi-Fi" version after the launch of VHS. Remember "hi-fi"? How quaint.. hehe.
Market penetration: In fact, Beta was first. Their initial market penetration was 100%.
So what killed them? Two things killed them, and porn was not one of them, at least not directly, and not in regards to cost:
1) Licensing problems. For whatever reason, Sony had the damndest time getting other companies to make Beta players and tapes. When VHS launched, it was simply outnumbered, as JVC was able to get more people on-board from the start.
2) And this is the big one... Storage Space. VHS could hold two hours of video (i.e. one feature-length movie). Beta could hold only ONE hour of video. Which meant if you wanted to tape a movie off of television (which was the primary draw of both Beta and VHS), your only real option was VHS. With Beta, you'd have to swap tapes halfway through. I believe this also killed off the movie-rental/sales business for Beta, since movies would have to be on two tapes instead of just one, as VHS movies were. THIS is why the porn industry chose VHS.. not because of cost, but because they could fit two hours of smut on a single tape. In a way, it did come down to cost, but only in that they'd have to spend money on more tapes to get the stuff out to market.
To summarize, the current "war" between HD-DVD and Blu-Ray is almost entirely different than the Beta/VHS war of two decades ago. The two things that killed Beta are NOT present in Blu-Ray. And, in fact, the more important of those reasons, storage space, now belongs to HD-DVD.
All this information is right there on the web.. just do a Google for "betamax vhs", you'll find three or four sites right on the first page of results. Wikipedia has several good articles on the subject.
You'll hear them continue to tout on the "lower cost" of HD-DVD compared to Blu-Ray. But what good is that lower cost, really? That really IS like the Betamax thing... Hollywood could easily end up spending more on HD-DVD films. If you have to use two HD-DVDs for a movie + extras, whereas Blu-Ray could hold it all on one disc... it actually becomes cheaper to use Blu-Ray. Let's say that an HD-DVD costs 7.5¢. A Blu-Ray disc costs 10¢ (these are off the top of my head, not official numbers). If they're forced to use two discs with HD-DVD, it now costs 5¢ more per copy of the film to manufacture. That may not sound like a lot, but if they manufacture ten million copies of the film... That's $500,000 extra spent on the HD-DVD version. Which do you think they'll choose? Which do you think the porn industry will choose? That's why they went with VHS, remember.
. In an E3 interview from Gameinformer a MS guy said Blu-ray is expensive and is too much for gaames. But its not the games it was meant for, its kinda like nintendo saying DVD wasnt necessary for game cube or CD's werent for N64.
. sorry guys if a mod could delete this post i would be most pleased 
Stupid VAT!
