If you count limited audio options and no extras as the same experience, right?

It was basically Warner that asked for these discs and this is why ....

"They got that through a couple of important concessions from Blu-ray. The format will now include a low-cost red-laser option that will allow studios to create a Blu-ray version of the DVD-9, a “BD9.” Cardwell said that since the costs of manufacturing blue-laser-based Blu-ray discs “are unknown to us,” Warner wanted to ensure there was some level of expenses the studio could more accurately project.

The studio plans to use the red-laser option for shorter programs that don’t require all the storage capacity of a blue-laser disc or for budget-priced titles that might not justify the higher costs."

Videobusiness.com

Sometimes you follow up something so intelligent with a shill remark and it is so frustrating. If you said "Supporters of next gen formats shouting about the greatness of the new formats should realize they could have the exact same experience via a $200 DVD player with VC-1 decoding" I would have been there with you 100%. But you tried to turn your analysis into a knock on only the HD format. It really is knock on both. At least HD is in the neighborhood of $200.

Lamenting the lack of that $200 player isn't worth anyone's time though. Let's deal with what products are actually going to come to market. As has been beaten to death, BD has a technical advantage in disc space, and HD has the advantage of much lower entry prices into the format. Who will win? Cloudy is the future...

One thing I see happening (and this is unfortunate for BR) is that studios doing double duty will create their transfer and design the interface and extras for the less-capable format (HD) and port the HD version over to BD. Now I am sure Sony will utilize the interactivity of BD to its fullest, but will the other studios? Side by side will there be any difference at all between HD and BD versions of movies?

Limited how? Only DD5.1 and DTS are available right now for use with HD-DVD.

Sorry, its a habbit

I really don't believe that it is a knock against Blu-Ray. Blu-Ray fills the need of a high capacity optical medium better than HD-DVD. DVD can fill the need of a cheap HD capable optical medium better than HD-DVD. I just don't see what need HD-DVD fills.

It is unfortunate that consumers are now forced to adopt a new standard for HD movies, when it is not needed. But that is what happens when a few companies own the patents, and other companies want in on the royalties. HD-DVD was originally seeking a red laser solution, which probably would have been a much more secure DVD with slightly more data storage, but they were forced away form that when Sony successfully created a blue laser option with much more storage. The original HD-DVD solution would have been best for consumers, but we are too far beyond that now, and its too late for studios to support it now.

"Right now" being the operative phrase.

Sure, but it wouldn't be an issue if HD on DVD was implemented as I see fit:

*Stands on Soapbox*

- Video encoded at 1080p24 would be placed on a single, dual-layer DVD
- Regional audio and extras would be placed on a second dual-layer DVD
- Players would have a mandator 20GB HDD and Internet connection
- Regional audio would either be transfered from the second DVD to the HDD, or worldwide audio could be downloaded via the Internet to the HDD
- Video would be played off the disc, audio off the HDD, combined into a single output
- HDD could also be used to store managed copies of the movies (using video from the disc and audio from the HDD)

*Steps off Soapbox*

I'm sure I could think of a few more cool features, but I just came up with this.

What does Yoshihide Fujii, president and CEO of Toshiba, mean with these types of statements:

and

I assume it isn't all hype... he is the CEO so he should have something to back this stuff up. But I can't find any more information on it.

Now I finally get it. You are insane. That's ok. Now we know for sure.