[rixrex]

I agree that equivalency in number of titles and disregarding what titles they are is not a useful comparison. Why would I want to buy a format that has 400 titles with 75% baloney, vs a format that has 400 titles with 75% good stuff. I'm not saying either BD or HD is 75% bad titles, but that the comparison used isn't so fabulous.

Also, I don't like the vagueries in his source material descriptions. He uses percentages from the Fall HDTV studies, and the studies are "of our membership and visitors on a periodic basis", definitely too indistinct and non-specific as to survey make-up. No use of empirical methodology and easily could be skewed all sorts of ways.

Also regarding this comment:

"Paramount got paid $150 million for HD DVD support - True, but let's not pretend money is not changing hands all over the place in this contest. It's business, and that's how business is done."

I find this to be a distasteful acceptance of graft and anti-competition trust-building. It's not how business is done in any sort of business that has to answer to regulatory agencies. It's not accepted business practice by anyone in business who is ethical and accepts competition.

Money changing hands isn't in itself indicative of graft, it could merely be payment for services or goods, yet if the intent for, and result of, the payment is to stifle competition, then this is not business, this is monopolistic and is anti-business. This writer may be a "Chief Technologist" but he's definitely not a business nor marketing analyst.

I am always amazed at the number of people who are technologically aware and intelligent, yet have not realized that both Sony and Toshiba are attempting to create de facto monopolies with their exclusivity arrangements. There should be no exclusivity agreements allowed, and the formats can then fail or succeed based upon their quality AND value to the consumer.