Why was DVD+r was created if DVD-R works ok in most players?

[tomasine17]

anyone know? what is the difference between the two formats? help a newbie out here!

[bladestorm]

Why, because (without trying to start a war) it is technically a better format. Go here to find out more.

http://www.cdfreaks.com/article/113

[Cornucopia]

bladestorm, it sure sounds like you're trying to start another war.

Anyway, to sidestep that mess and look at the big picture, I'll give you a few scenarios.

1. Pioneer had the technology for DVD-R and got DVD Forum approval for it. Phillips wanted to cash in and add on some of their royalties of patents built on CD-RW. It wasn't a better format, so Pioneer and the Forum wouldn't budge, so Phillips took a divergent tack.

2. Same thing, except Phillips thought if it could go solo, it wouldn't have to cater to other corporations' interests.

3. Same as (1), except Pioneer said OK, but Phillips was Not-Ready-For-PrimeTime, and so was nudged out.

4. Same as (1), except it WAS a better format, but Pioneer was greedy and convinced the Forum that it shouldn't have an In-Forum competitor.

5. Same as (1), except Phillips was originally thinking it was just for consumer data use and was waiting to beat up on Panasonic's DVD-RAM instead and then they switched tactics midstream (about that time when they went from v1.0 3GB to v1.1 4.7GB).

6. It was a race to the finish line, Pioneer got there 1st with a cruder system, Phillips stumbled along the way but then finished later with a more streamlined system (probably learning a thing or 2 from their competitor along the way).

Whichever scenario you choose to believe (only the DVD-Forum and pertinent corporations really know for sure), it mainly boils down to :

ROYALTIE$ 8)

Scott

[LanEvo7]

The whole thing boils down to money. Philips didn't want to pay for dvd-forum fees for using the -R so they create a format +R.

[disturbed1]

Why, because (without trying to start a war) it is technically a better format. Go here to find out more.

http://www.cdfreaks.com/article/113

For data, that is true.

Philips decided to give the DVD recordable format a try. They failed for 2 years to make anything of it. Along came Pioneer and perfected DVD recording, Philips rushed to get their format stable.

Philips had DVD recording on paper first. The first discs were around 3 gig. Pioneer, Toshiba, Panasonic, and Hitatchi came along and perfected the DVD-R format.

The DVD-R format was marketed for professionals while the DVD+R format was marketed for the home user, only for Data at first, once the Pioneer A03 took off, Philips started pushing towards the video side of DVD also.

As a result, the DVD+R format needs/should be written with a different book type to have a decent DVD Video compatibility. Without altering (hacking) the book type bit setting, DVD+R's stand alone playback is horrible. With the book setting set to "DVD-ROM", this allows better (not the best) playback compatibility.

If your main interest is Video, DVD-R is the approved and licensed format. DVD+R is capable of better data back up (the drives that support the enhanced features are not produced YET), but not nearly as good as DVD-RAM.

Since my main interest is in both DVD Video, and DVD Data, I use Panasonic drives, that write to both DVD-R media, and DVD-RAM. I also have Toshiba DVD-ROM units that read DVD-RAM media.

Depending on how you plan to purchase your media, should decide which burner to get. If you plan to buy your media at local stores (Best Buy, Office Depot etc), a dual format could be the best choice, since that would allow you to take advantage of sales on both -R and +R media. If you shop online, DVD-R prices are rock bottom.

Dual format burners run $200-$300. Pioneer A05 (4x DVD-R) $150, NEC 1100 (4x DVD+R) $140, Toshiba SD5002 (2x DVD-R) $120.

With newer DVD Players, there is little fight to the compatibility issue, most play both DVD+R and DVD-R.

With DVD-R there many choices for media brands. A few of these brands are cheap crap.

With DVD+R, they produce fewer discs, and the discs are usually of high quality.

The prices of branded DVD+R and DVD-R are close to each other, with DVD-R winning at online stores, and being about equal in local stores.

There is no clear winner between DVD-R and DVD+R. Both can record data and video to a disc, which could be read by most playback devices.

[bladestorm]

Alright, i'm sorry I said anything.

[Network Enforcer]

bladestorm, it sure sounds like you're trying to start another war.

Anyway, to sidestep that mess and look at the big picture, I'll give you a few scenarios.

1. Pioneer had the technology for DVD-R and got DVD Forum approval for it. Phillips wanted to cash in and add on some of their royalties of patents built on CD-RW. It wasn't a better format, so Pioneer and the Forum wouldn't budge, so Phillips took a divergent tack.

2. Same thing, except Phillips thought if it could go solo, it wouldn't have to cater to other corporations' interests.

3. Same as (1), except Pioneer said OK, but Phillips was Not-Ready-For-PrimeTime, and so was nudged out.

4. Same as (1), except it WAS a better format, but Pioneer was greedy and convinced the Forum that it shouldn't have an In-Forum competitor.

5. Same as (1), except Phillips was originally thinking it was just for consumer data use and was waiting to beat up on Panasonic's DVD-RAM instead and then they switched tactics midstream (about that time when they went from v1.0 3GB to v1.1 4.7GB).

6. It was a race to the finish line, Pioneer got there 1st with a cruder system, Phillips stumbled along the way but then finished later with a more streamlined system (probably learning a thing or 2 from their competitor along the way).

Whichever scenario you choose to believe (only the DVD-Forum and pertinent corporations really know for sure), it mainly boils down to :

ROYALTIE$ 8)

Scott

That was very profound!

[txpharoah]

Disturbed1, that was beautifully written. I'm saving that.

[gmatov]

Disturbed 1,
All too true. It boils down to "We don't want to pay you, we want you to pay us."
If we can get a jump on you,we'll sell stuff. If you get a jump on us, we'll pay you till we figure a way around you, and get a leg up. All commerce is like this.
Where the heck would we be without an AMD to challenge Intel? Still at thousand buck 1 gig CPUs? Could be.

[disturbed1]

I like the fact that there is both DVD-R and +R formats. It does add competetion and makes the companies develope better products.

The AMD, Intel comparisson is a prime example of what this brings.


I wonder if the DVD+RW camp has anything up their sleves for when Blue Ray hits mainstream.

We also have 8x DVD-R burners hitting the market this winter.


In my opinion, both DVD-R and DVD+R lost the battle/fight/war whatever. In the USA the dual format burners out sold both single formats.
I posted in another thread (now locked), that Panasonic held 70% of the market share, I didn't read a few lines It was for set top DVD Recorders, not PC recorders. I can see that number dropping because of Apex's cheaper DVD+R unit being sold at Walmart.

I think pricing will keep one format around longer than the other. That's the main reason Apex DVD Players are so popular. Doesn't make it the best player, just the best seller.


I think what Cornucopia wrote is as close to the "truth" we will ever get.

[gmatov]

To all,
I hope this isn't off topic, but, as I was at the store this past PM, I saw machines that copied DVD to DVD. They were about 200 bucks, cheaper than some of the DVD burners we're interested in. I have to assume they make bit for bit copies, macrovision and all, but as we are, after all, backing up our own DVDs, who cares?

[dcsos]

GMATOV,
first, a consumer DVD to DVD copier will be unable to back up a commercial DVD..It may be hack able to do what you call a bit for bit copy..
And when these devices arrive (I suspect what you saw was
A dual unit WITH A dvd PLAYER AND cd BURNER) they will cost much more.
the first of the dual dvd burner units released in MAY 2003,
The Pioneer PVR (with more features than 2 DVD burners in a SETTOP)
is US $3000

[andkiich]

My answer to this is a bit simpler, one word - competition.

Welcome to the free market.

[Kennyshin]

Well, it does not seem to matter to some OEM buyers now. They can buy LG's TRIPLE format DVD writers for US$130 or less per unit. Even at that level, it's profitable enough for both Hitachi and LG Electronics. No more cost increase. Also good for the Taiwanese and South Korean media manufacturers. Whether they will increase DVD-RAM production capacity, I'm not sure. The unit price of DVD-RAM 2x is about US$5.0 to US$4.5 while that of DVD+RW 2.4x is about US$1.5 to US$1.0.

[indolikaa]

Why was DVD+R created if DVD-R works OK in most players?

So that dvdrhelp.com members could have something to bitch about.

[Bob W]

Why, because (without trying to start a war) it is technically a better format. Go here to find out more.

http://www.cdfreaks.com/article/113

Beta was better than VHS and look what happened there.

[poopyhead]

"better" format was never, ever considered as a reason..... Philips wasn't thinking "oh, crap.....that DVD-R just ain't working...better come up with something that actually works." :P

"better" was most likely an advertising slogan AFTER THE FACT. afterall, DVD-R does still work great.

so, bottom line....GREED... plain, old, simple.... GREED

Pioneer was first...Philips didn't want to pay the royalties..didn't want to be "second chair"... so made a competing format.

[indolikaa]

Beta was better than VHS and look what happened there.

Amen!

Pioneer was first...Philips didn't want to pay the royalties..didn't want to be "second chair"... so made a competing format.

Yep. The smug undertones are not lost on a reader who might happen to browse the Philips' Licensing website.

[CloudBurst]

I really hate to beat a dead horse with a wet noodle here, however after reading countless posts (a.k.a flame wars) about differnt formats...I still don't get it. Don't get me wrong, sometimes I think I have an IQ of over 65, but I still don't get it. With the majority of newer player's being able to read eveything including tin can tops nowadays it seems like it really doesn't matter anymore whether you buy the + format or the - format or even the new and improved and ultra clean /. format, there really doesn't seem to be anything to get this emotional about to have post threads that are longer than war and peace. So maybe somebody can help me understand why people care so much about this format or that format cuz I still don't get it.

Dropped on my head too much as a baby,

CloudBurst

[poopyhead]

@CloudBurst,

lemme take a stab at your question there.

ppl are inclined to defend what they do, no matter what. psychologically, it makes them feel like they're doing the right thing. i.e. if i'm a DVD-R user, then i would defend DVD-R over DVD+R so that i can feel secure in using DVD-R myself. if more and more ppl use DVD-R, then my use of DVD-R would be more justified.

even if DVD+R is better, the DVD-R user would defend DVD-R so that he/she wouldn't feel that what he/she has done with DVD-R wasn't a waste....

in general, even if something better comes along, an "old foggie" would still stay with the old ways because that's the only "way" the old foggie knows how to do things. the old foggie is afraid that the "new way" might negate all his/her previous work using the old way.

--------------

more specific for DVD-R/+R wars....there shouldn't really be any...you're right... as most NEW players support basically everything...even xVID and DIVX... however, DVD+R is technically a little better than DVD-R, but most users won't ever notice the difference. also, it's with the OLD dvd players where there's a problem. because DVD-R came out earlier than DVD+R, older dvd players may only support DVD-R and not +R. this extra compatibility seems to be the main focus of -R supporters, including yours truely. but, since most new players support both formats...including the cheapo $30 ones, the compatibility difference between the 2 formats should be dropping.

[lordsmurf]

<- beating dead horse

Just had to use it once. Looked like a good place.

[rhegedus]

I've read countless times that -R is better for video and +R is better for data. But surely, it is all data - it's what the data represents that differs?

I can watch video on +R disks and back up my files on -R, with no noticeable difference.

Could someone clear up the video/data issue for me?

[poopyhead]

I've read countless times that -R is better for video and +R is better for data.

Could someone clear up the video/data issue for me?

the only reason this would be true is because -R has a slightly higher dvd player compatibility. since a lot of ppl still watch DVDs on a standalone DVD player (as opposed to DVD-ROM in a PC), DVD-R/+R compatibility is a main issue.

as i just pointed out, most new standalone players (including those $30 cheapo ones) can play both formats with no problem. where DVD-R has an advantage in compatibility is with older DVD players that can only read -R, but not +R. this is most likely because -R was released earlier than +R.

[rhegedus]

But increased set-top compatibility for -R shouldn't make it less good at data than +R....

[poopyhead]

But increased set-top compatibility for -R shouldn't make it less good at data than +R....

dunno then

[Faustus]

I know what this thread needs!

lordsmurf: THIS is exactly why I want to add that emote to the board.


poopyhead: On your comment about justifiying using the format by being its champion... true. But remember that comment switch ALL directions, not just one way.

[rubberman]

the never made cd+r so why dvd+r?

[poopyhead]

the never made cd+r so why dvd+r?

GREED


.... i'll let someone else elaborate on this one

[VEFF]

As said above, it all comes down to money.
I am sure the industry insiders laugh when they hear people fighting for one format or the other.
Sure +RW technology may have a few extra benefits, but to the average user these are NEVER even noticed.

I own a -RW, a +RW and a dual burner (all relatively cheap thanks to 'Hot Deals'), so I have no vested interest in making one format look better than the other...

[dat]

I don't know which format is better, but none of my friend or family member's standalone players can read -R disc. I have 3 dvd players which only play +R, therefore I chose +R. I think you should test your player compability before chosing a format. I don't think -R has more compability than +R now