Source of $500 Million Warner Payoff Rumor Exposed

[Zotar]

http://www.tvpredictions.com/journalists012108.htm

Blu-ray vs. HD DVD: When Journalists Go Wrong
As they say, don't believe everything you read.
By Swanni

Washington, D.C. (January 21, 2008) -- As a longtime journalist, I am reluctant to criticize my fellow scribes for errors and other transgressions. It's a tough business and mistakes come with the territory.

However, in the last week, I have come across two reports that are so wrong -- so dumb headed -- that they demand a public airing so their wounds against the truth can be properly healed.

Let's start with Sunday's edition of The Washington Post in which tech columnist Mike Musgrove offers a stinging critique of the high-def disc format war between Blu-ray and HD DVD.



Musgrove's report suggests that digital downloads will soon replace the hard disc so people shouldn't care who wins the Blu-ray/HD DVD war.

I disagree that digital downloads, particularly for high-def, will be ready for primetime anytime soon. But it's a legitimate argument to make.

However, in attempting to make his point, Musgrove offers a whopper of a statement that couldn't be supported by any analysis, no matter how subjective:

"I've found that I can't really tell the difference between the picture cranked out by a Blu-ray player and the picture delivered by an 'upconverting' DVD player designed to make standard DVDs look their best on high-definition sets," he writes.

Now, anyone who has seen a high-def disc player in action -- as well as an upconverter player -- knows that the high-def playback is far superior. (George Ou of ZDNet recently offered a scientific analysis proving this as well.) The high-def playback is, well, high-def while the upconversion merely improves the picture on a standard-def DVD; while it's improved, it's not remotely close to an HD-quality image.

There is simply no comparison, which makes one wonder why Musgrove said there is.

I won't question his motives, but I can only guess that either he doesn't own a high-def TV (and has only seen a Blu-ray or HD DVD for a short period of time at a convention or some other event) or his HDTV isn't properly tuned.

Or he needs to make an appointment with a nearby Pearle Vision.

Now, for example two:

Syndicated columnist Don Lindich is reporting that Sony, the leader backer of Blu-ray, recently paid Fox and Warner Bros. to support the high-def format. Lindich says Fox was ready to jump ship and support HD DVD until Sony kicked in with the money. At that point, Warner decided to take a payoff as well.

Lindich quotes "sources" for his report without naming them or even characterizing them from coming from a specific unit.

I will not challenge his report -- it may even be true. But I have to point out that Lindich, a longtime HD DVD booster, also reported less than two weeks before the Consumer Electronics Show that Warner Bros. would attend HD DVD's big media event at the Las Vegas conference.

The columnist said HD DVD's attendance was evidence that Warner would not shed its neutrality in the race and support Blu-ray. (This reporter, and a few others, predicted that Warner would endorse Blu-ray.)

As we now know, Warner not only did not attend the HD DVD event -- but the event was cancelled 48 hours prior because Warner announced it had...decided to endorse Blu-ray.

Lindich was wrong about the HD DVD event. Spectacularly wrong.

So I am surprised that several online publications are now reporting his claim that Sony paid off Fox and Warner. -- without noting that his HD DVD "sources" in the past apparently led him astray.

Maybe they are leading him astray again?