The most incompetent? Well, why don't you go and make your own and we'll call it competent. I think Blu-Ray is fantastic and a very nice media format, much more so than HD. Maybe you're thinking of the DRM, movies, encoding, etc., then that's another debate but there's nothing you'll tell me that'll lead me to believe that HD-DVD is "better" than Blu-Ray save for player inconsistencies (ie, profiles) which I will agree suck.
But, c'mon, give it up already. Blu-Ray is here to stay.
I'm glad you like Blu-ray, but I stand by my comment that it's incompetently designed. I didn't mention HD DVD, though HD DVD does lack some of BD's critical issues. Major issues include:
1. It's still exclusively hard media based, despite the world moving to Internet connectivity. There's nothing wrong with providing hard media as an option, but to use it exclusively, and to continue to make it difficult to centralize movie libraries in an age of massive mass storage is massively short sighted. It means virtually every downloads service, no matter how draconican and proprietary, has advantages strong enough to make Blu-ray's progress difficult.
2. Reliant upon blue-violet laser technology. There were alternatives such as multilevel encoding (not to be confused with multi-layer) and minor changes to aperture length that could have given roughly the same capacity per layer that BD and HD DVD gave us without drives costing any more than a standard DVD drive. Unfortunately both camps made their systems reliant upon a fairly expensive technology making it impossible to produce low cost players at any early stage.
3. BD+ - if you think the Profile1.0/1.1/2.0 issue is bad, BD+ is the underwater portion of the iceberg. BD+ is impossible to use in any practical way without guaranteeing unplayability on a wide proportion of players. The only way to be sure that BD+ is not going to prevent the main feature of a disc from playing on a valid, authorized, Blu-ray player is to test it on that player. Even with only a handful of players in existence, every single BD+ enabled title has failed to work on at least one valid, authorized, player. The studios don't care, they're continuing to use it anyway. And good luck getting a refund on the disc that doesn't work on your player.
In addition to the three above, I'd add that I've never liked Blu-ray's use of compulsory DRM (HD DVD and DVD at least made it optional), which means there'll never be cheap BD disks in the same way as there were DVDs (for older public domain content.)
These three issues, together with the consumer confusion and anger likely to result from the Profile madness, essentially render Blu-ray dead in the medium term. The fact it isn't an integrated standard able to pick up content from multiple sources means the system is largely obsolete. Issues 2 makes it expensive, and issue 3 makes it unreliable to the point that when the PS3 ceases to be the only BD player taken seriously, people are going to cease having faith in the format as virtually every release ends up causing problems for huge numbers of people unlucky enough to buy a copy.
Your AppleTV, and the Netflix box, "just work". DVD "just worked" too. HD DVD, bless it, "just worked". Blu-ray never will, because its designers are utter incompetents.
HD DVD... it was potentially half way there with point 1, but the manufacturers never bothered to implement the managed copy system so it never even got that far in practice. The issue with Blue-violet lasers also hampered its adoption. At least it didn't have BD+ however.
TV.
