WHEN IS NEW NOT BETTER??
When
is the public not well served by an emerging new standard?
There's
a new electronic battleground forming, and it's for the next standard of
high-capacity DVDs (digital video discs) and their players. This one's starting to look like the old Betamax vs VHS wars, and when the
smoke clears it may well be that the consumer will be the ultimate loser.
Those
who back up the data on large hard drives want a new, higher density optical
format. The new hard drives are so large
that even at 4.7 Gb per
single layer DVD, many DVDs are needed to completely back up a hard drive. But to make a new format fly successfully
(i.e. be cost-effective), they need more numbers, and DVDs for movie playback
remain the number one application. The
movie studios would like to start again with a new standard, too, but for
reasons of their own: they'd like another kick at the copy-protection can, in
an effort to control consumer dubbing of copyright material. Not that anybody but the algorithm creators
seriously thinks that new copy protection schemes will remain secure for any
great length of time!
The
canard that's being floated right now is that the consumer will have to
purchase a new high-cap DVD player in order to have movie-length HD content for
her new DTV. This is not even
approximately true, as we will soon see.
But that's the start of the argument for this new standard.
Two
mutually incompatible formats have emerged: Blu-Ray
and HD-DVD. Both replace the infrared
laser inside conventional DVD with a blue laser for higher resolution. Where the regular DVD can store 4.7 Gb/layer,
HD-DVD offers 15 Gb/layer and Blu-Ray
offers 25 Gb/layer.
HD-DVD
naturally enough has some similarity to DVD, but Blu-Ray
is essentially a reinvention of the old wheel, and is different enough that the
prospect of a dual-mode player that can play either format is away off in the
future, if ever. A player for
CD/DVD/HD-DVD/Blu-Ray would need four lasers of four
different wavelengths, and focussing at four diverse depths, for starters. It's much more likely that there will be
different players for each of the new formats, and different copies of software
(movies) available until a winner shakes out, followed by rapid abandonment of
the losing format and the poor unfortunates that have already bought into
it. Hey, that's why it's called the
"bleeding edge!"
The
irony is that this is not even remotely necessary for consumers. Present DVDs are encoded with MPEG-2; a
simple upgrade to a more efficient codec such as MPEG-4 would allow
movie-length HD DVDs without any change in players except a relatively simple
programming upgrade.
But
can the equipment manufacturers be made to see it that way?
We've
already seen what happens when the manufacturers can't agree on a common
standard: have
you purchased memory for your digital camera or PDA lately? There must be at least six different types of
memory cartridge, and several sub-types.
Is this necessary? Is it in the
public's interest that so many different form factors have become available for
what is essentially the same thing? We have compact flash (types I and II),
secure data (SD) and mini SD, multimedia card (MMC), memory stick, memory stick
Pro and memory stick Duo, smart media, and XD picture card. All because manufacturers don't want to pay
royalties for someone else's design, and they all want to drive the bus!
Consumer
backlash seems to be the last hope: for every twenty or so formats that the
manufacturers devise, maybe one survives the first year or two. Consumers, faced with too many choices, often
opt to do nothing, and the new format dies on the vine. Lest we forget: elcaset,
R-DAT, Selectavision videodisc, laserdisc, minidisk,
quadraphonic (in QS, SQ, and CD-4 flavours). Soon to join them (maybe): SACD and
DVD-audio.
In
order to cheerfully accept change, consumers need a clear choice and an obvious
improvement over the status quo, at the very least. Trying to tell consumers that they need to
replace their entire DVD library and adopt a dubious new technology isn't
likely to be a hit, even with so-called "early adopters," especially
if there is no backward compatibility.