They are "bad" because Levin chose the losing format or "bad" because it was inferior? That's what I thought...

Also, if he had done more homework, he would have known that Warner was once exclusive HD-DVD and switched to dual support in the 2006 before either format hit the store shelved. In another word, even as far back as 18 months ago, HD-DVD was losing the battle.

And lastly, Blu-ray is not a "Sony" format. It's an open industry standard supported by all kinds of hardware manufacturer, including Apple. And there is no truth to Levin's suggestion that "Sony" paid Warner to go exclusive Blu-ray. Warner was responding to its customer (the retailers) who saw the sales data and did not want to continue to devote shelve space to both formats, especially when one was vastly outselling the other.

Okay, now I nothing from nothing about this subject, but I did read Levin's article and your post. And your saying that Warner was "responding to its customer" does not refute Levin's assertion that Sony paid Warner Bros. $500-600 million to go Blu-ray. Are you denying that this money was paid? Or are you saying that all that money had nothing to do with Warner's decision (which seems unlikely)?

I think Blu-ray is larded up with a lot more Digital Rights Management than HD-DVD was. Techies think DRM is anti consumer. So, that's at least one reason to consider Blu-ray the bad guy.

I don't know all the details of the legal arrangement, but this is *clearly* Sony's baby - they have invested a TON of money, they made a HUGE sacrifice in the current-gen console war to get Blu-Ray in, and their stock price went up six bucks on the Toshiba flag waving. The format war was won based on Sony and its partners ramming through the more profitable format, not consumers choosing the one that best met their needs (and pocketbook).

I didn't have a horse in this race, so I don't really care - but it's easy to see how blu-ray is the "bad guy." Consumers are going to pay significantly more for the same picture quality.

"They are 'bad' because Levin chose the losing format or 'bad' because it was inferior? That's what I thought...

I can't speak for Levin, but to my mind, what makes Blu-ray "bad" compared to HD-DVD, is simple and obvious: Cost. Blu-ray players are more expensive to buy, and licensing is more expensive for producers.

In other words, under Blu-ray, both video producer and watcher pay more, yet neither gets any discernible added benefit for that added expense. I consider it "bad" when expenses are driven up but no benefit accrues to that added expense. Just as you would probably consider it "bad" if you walked into a store and found that the price of everything had gone up 50% but products are no better, larger, etc. than before.

By any standard you can name, this totally-unnecessary, completely-unrecompensed added cost is "bad."

Another casualty of Blu-ray is orthography. The last thing the increasingly-ignorant American public needs is another example of poor spelling staring them in the face whenever they watch a video. In my dictionary, and in every English dictionary I know of, "blue" is spelled "blue," with an "E." Why leave it off? I have no idea, and I suspect neither do the folks who chose to mispell "Blu-ray."

Blu-Ray is not a misspelling of Blue Ray. Any more than Toys 'R' Us is a mispelling of "We produce Toys." It is a Proper name. I'm surprised you couldn't figure that one out.

The cost factor is what hurt Toshiba. The only reason that their prices were so low was that they were essentially the only ones making them. LG had a dual player, RCA had a rebranded Toshiba. Everyone decided that they didn't want to join in on the hardware leaving Toshiba to keep hacking away at its prices in a futile attempt to gain market share. The reason (so I've been told) that it's Blu-ray and not BLUE is that you cannot trademark certain everyday words (like colors). It's not the Blu-ray Associations attempt to dumb down the public.

The "Blu" part of the name "Blu-ray" is absolutely a misspelling. It is also intentionally misspelled, since as I pointed out, all English dictionaries clearly disclose that "blue" is the spelling for the color of the sky, not "blu." Nowhere in the English-speaking world is it "blu," except in two places: Kindergartens, and the ad agency that came up with "Blu-ray."

That it is a proper noun is completely irrelevant. It is STILL a misspelling, every bit as much as "Led Zeppelin" and "Def Leppard" are intentional misspellings. Like them, the misspelling in "Blu-ray" is just as much a marketing gimmick, and is just as juvenile. As for "Toys R Us" (with the reversed, dyslexic "R"), that is even more juvenile, in addition to being insulting to people who actually are dyslexic.

Which makes it all the more inexcusable ... the "intentional misspelling as a marketing ploy" has been done already and needs to be retired. That others have done it before does not constitute permission to continue this childish tactic. (Didn't anyone ever tell you, "Two wrongs don't make a right"?) If anything, those precedents actually make it less acceptable, since we now know how transparent and stupid it is.

Well I don't think any corporation really markets toward the obsessive compulsive disorders of people with intentional misspelling obsessions.

Why on earth are you so worked up over it.

BTW, here are few more examples of Blu used as commercial names:

blurestaurant.com
bludot.com
blu-nightclub.com
zippoblu.com
bluonhudson.com
martiniblu.com
bluoceanproductions.com
www.blu1029.com
www.elblu.com
www.bockandblu.com
www.martiniblu.com

That took me all of 8 seconds to find by typing Blu into google search. There are thousands more examples.

Blu-ray is quick and snappy. Blue ray sounds more like something I caught on a charter boat last weekend

That so many businesses have chosen to misspell "blue" does not, and cannot, make it right. As I explained before, and you missed ... two or more wrongs do not make a right. (I'm not sure why your mother never taught that to you, but consider yourself informed now.) I guess there are a lot of people who would lose "Are You Smarter Than a 5th Grader," since 5th graders have generally learned how to spell "blue."

As for being "obsessed" with it, I explained already that it does people a disservice to be faced with an intentional misspelling. Intentional misspellings are "bad" because the people who come up with them, learned better back in 2nd grade. Intentional misspellings are a transparent marketing ploy, and the last thing the world needs more of.

I'm not sure why you choose to defend stupidity, but you do.

Blu-ray is a registered trademark. The name was conceived that way from day one so the licensing process would not run into the public domain issue and anyone using it would be subject to infringement penalties in the court system.

Now that the issue of format has been settled, we are going to hear both positive and negatives from users of both formats. Its always been about cost and convenience of what you purchased. How many audio/video formats have there been in the last 30 years? About 10 come to mind. How much did you spend on all those? I have spent too much on those "obsolete" media as well, just to see them replaced by something else. It does pay to hang back and hold on to your wallet when the latest and greatest become available. Just because the Blu-ray format won doesn't mean I'm going out and invest in it. In fact I'm going to wait at least a year or so to see how the format pans out cost wise and availability. Downloads are nice, but dollar for dollar are a losing deal for a one shot deal. I rather save/keep what I pay for on disk so I can watch at my conveience and often.