Was Bluray technologically superior and more expensive? It wasn't really superior, in some ways it was better (more capacity per layer) but then lost out by us

Was Bluray technologically superior and more expensive? It wasn't really superior, in some ways it was better (more capacity per layer) but then lost out by using less efficient codec's, and requiring a significantly more powerful processor to run java rather than having a custom scripting/overlay function while lacking various features (like networking). Much of what HD-DVD had out of the box didn't manage to make it into the bluray specs until a couple years later (revision 2.0 IIRC https://www.cnet.com/culture/blu-ray-profile-1-0-1-1-2-0-explained-ask-the-editors/ https://www.cnet.com/culture/blu-ray-profile-1-0-1-1-2-0-exp...). Some things never made it, like the fact that HD-DVD was region free. The PS3 was a contributing factor but a minor one, In what basically was a studio fight over consumer friendliness (DRM, region locking, backwards compatibility with DVDs since they could be pressed on the backside, instant play requirements, etc), and which camp was willing to pay larger bribes to "win" before the dual mode players became the majority since the later hardware requirements for bluray made it basically capable of also playing HD-DVDs. Plus, streaming was becoming an ever more present topic. To this day, the bluray experience tends to be worse than HD-DVD as so few blurays ever behaved like HD-DVD (universal iirc being the notable exception since they appear to have ported their HD-DVD interfaces to bluray for a while) when it comes to just playing the movie when the disk is inserted and overlaying menus over the movie as its playing.