High-def filler
erm, perhaps i'd find the latest high-def format more useful (and relevant) if:
[1] there was not yet another VHS/Betamax pissing match,
[2] the hardware offered truly compelling and flexible new functionality,
[3] it wasn't packed full of DRM (from the two parties known for graceless DRM hack-jobs, Sony and MS),
[4] it was priced reasonably,
[5] it was backwards-compatible, and
[6] it was not yet another half-baked solution looking for a problem, in a long series of planned-obsolescence upgrades, extending to infinity, serving no purpose other than to extract money from fools
it is ironic that Maxell announced holographic storage disks back in 2005, and the technology is now in production. the format is currently sold only to the professional media market. the disks start at 300GB, and are expected to reach 1.5TB in a few years.
the next standard is already out, but you can't hear it over the marketing noise. see here:
http://www.popsci.com/popsci/flat/bown/2007/computing/item_35.html
apart from that, the most compelling argument AGAINST hi-def is the content. most movies (i'd say 98%+) released over the last 10-20 years, don't even qualify as "renter". why the hell would i want to watch that crap in higher definition?
like spending hours, inspecting a turd with a magnifying glass: this is not anything i need to see in more detail, let alone waste between 1 and 4 hours of my life looking at in the first place.
high-def formats do nothing to address this problem. most of the content my wife and i watch, is perfectly viewable on a Mac laptop (which is exactly how it is actually viewed), and is available online, legally.