Orlando Sentinel_ Blu-Ray is a Needless Expense

The Orlando Sentinel took at look at the now years-old tech of Blu-ray players, trying to determine whether it’s worth investing in a new [[link]] player. Their conclusion: Yes and no. The articles author seems to think that the Blu-ray could eventually come into its own if you are able to use it for more than just playing Blu-ray movies. That means added functions, or a Playstation 3.(new Image()).src = 'https://capi.connatix.com/tr/si?token=995c4c7d-194f-4077-b0a0-7ad466eb737c&cid=872d12ce-453b-4870-845f-955919887e1b'; cnx.cmd.push(function() { cnx({ playerId: "995c4c7d-194f-4077-b0a0-7ad466eb737c" }).render("79703296e5134c75a2db6e1b64762017"); }); The movie critic for the paper is not as optimistic when he compared a Blu-ray player to his DVD player: “The blacks were superb, the colors clear and precise, the striations of the canyon walls in the desert locations of Apes were brilliant,” Roger Moore said. “But the ugly truth of the matter is that once you’ve got the 1080 HDTV, once you’ve bought a DVD player with HDMI cable connections, Blu-ray is superfluous. The features are fancier, but the picture? No improvement. Investing in a player (unless you already have a Blu-ray-ready PlayStation) is a needless expense. Downloads are the future, not discs in a cute blue box.” Is Blu-ray a tech destined to be out maneuvered by digital movies and downloadable content or are we [[link]] just witnesses the bitterness of former HD-DVD supporters? Only [[link]] time will tell. Should you buy Blu-ray?