The Universal Blu myth

[The Don]

Just read something for the 15th time on these forums...

"Universal isn't going neutral/Blu anytime soon"

pretty much like "Sony isn't cutting the price for the 60GB PS3" ?

you can't say what any company is going to do for sure as this format war has shown to be almost day-to-day with the positive news that Blu-ray has been getting lately...

now I know I have blue shades and all...but it's what it is...

...and at it's current pace, how does it not look like blu-ray will have this wrapped up by 2008?....

now we have our 1st week of 3:1 and with the recent news of stores going exclusive to blu-ray....it seems that every other day is another milestone..

so saying Universal will not go Blu anytime soon is ridiculous as they are the only big studio that is exclusive to HD DVD....so of course they are going to have to step forward and address where their loyalties are...

do you think anyone else would even consider an HD DVD player if they heard that Universal considered going Blu?...

..c'mon now..

[BStecke]

I agree . . . Universal is a business, whose end goal is to make money, despite what Graffeo says about "meeting the customer's demands." If things keep going the way they have been, Universal, from a business standpoint, would really have no choice but to back Blu, unless they want to continue to hemorrhage money for the sake of principle . . . which, I don't think corporations are really too stuck on their principles. It's a money game, and soon enough the financial advantage will be (and really already is) with Blu. Corporate game plans are subject to change at any time, so Uni could decide to go Blu tomorrow . . . I think the assumption that they're going to remain loyal to HD DVD until the end is a pretty poor assumption.

[monkyman]

Originally Posted by The Don

...and at it's current pace, how does it not look like blu-ray will have this wrapped up by 2008?....

I don't think it will be possible this year, if so I don't think we would see HD-DVD getting some of the releases they are getting.

300 will keep them going, Harry Potter is slated to be released on both formats around Christmas, not to mention they (HD-DVD) actually have more releases scheduled for the remainder of 2007 than bluray.

Universal does not need HD sales to keep them in business, yet. SD is doing fine for them.

I'm not taking their side, but they could hold out as long as they want, or until all retailers go blu.

[halon]

they better decide soon. i can't wait for the MATRIX.

[RUR]

Originally Posted by den4blu

they better decide soon. i can't wait for the MATRIX.

Matrix is a Warner title and not Universal. Warner is officially neutral and has promised a BD release at some point.

[Blu-dock Saint]

Originally Posted by RUR

Matrix is a Warner title and not Universal. Warner is officially neutral and has promised a BD release at some point.

Now if only they would change the at some point to an actual date.

[halon]

thanks for the correction. i wonder why they are taking so long to bring it out on BD?

[zombieking]

Originally Posted by den4blu

they better decide soon. i can't wait for the MATRIX.

The Matrix is Warner. It will one day be blu!!

[The Don]

Originally Posted by zombieking

The Matrix is Warner. It will one day be blu!!

yeah...it sounds like The Matrix will be available around Spring next year...even at the very beginning of spring..

[Blu-dock Saint]

Originally Posted by monkyman

I don't think it will be possible this year, if so I don't think we would see HD-DVD getting some of the releases they are getting.

300 will keep them going, Harry Potter is slated to be released on both formats around Christmas, not to mention they (HD-DVD) actually have more releases scheduled for the remainder of 2007 than bluray.

Universal does not need HD sales to keep them in business, yet. SD is doing fine for them.

I'm not taking their side, but they could hold out as long as they want, or until all retailers go blu.

Agreed, but I do want to add, if disc sales were 85/15 or 90/10, Universal would definetely have to go neutral it would be crazy of them not to. But until we see that happen or a majore decrease in SD DVD sales I dont think we'll see them on Blu anytime soon.

[Sylin]

Originally Posted by Blu-dock Saint

Agreed, but I do want to add, if disc sales were 85/15 or 90/10, Universal would definetely have to go neutral

It's NEARLY that now. It's been 66/33 for months. This week saw (from what I read) the first 75/25, which is an amazing gain in market share. I think important milestones will be the release of "300", and then all the Disney and Pixar releases this fall.

My money is on Universal going neutral before Christmas. I almost suspect that there are inner circles @ Univ. that are already prepping for Blu-ray production, because they are DEAD in the water come Xmas if they don't push something out on Blu. With all the retail space the Blu-ray PLAYERS are getting, it would be the worst gaffe in retail history if they didn't enter the market.

[Blu-dock Saint]

Originally Posted by ikcizokm

It's NEARLY that now. It's been 66/33 for months. This week saw (from what I read) the first 75/25, which is an amazing gain in market share. I think important milestones will be the release of "300", and then all the Disney and Pixar releases this fall.

My money is on Universal going neutral before Christmas. I almost suspect that there are inner circles @ Univ. that are already prepping for Blu-ray production, because they are DEAD in the water come Xmas if they don't push something out on Blu. With all the retail space the Blu-ray PLAYERS are getting, it would be the worst gaffe in retail history if they didn't enter the market.

I don't see them going neutral this year, after the dust has settled in the new year, aka 2k8, then I could see them going neutral.

[richteer]

Originally Posted by Blu-dock Saint

I don't see them going neutral this year, after the dust has settled in the new year, aka 2k8, then I could see them going neutral.

I agree. Rumour has it that Uni signed some sort of exclusivity contract for 2007, ruling out the possiblity of them coming to their sense this year. I think CES 2008 is gonna be very interesting: I expect HD DVD to be absolutely pulverised this Xmas. With all the positive Blu news (BB, BJ's, Target, Woolies, new studios, etc.) I don't see how anything else could happen.

[EricJ]

Originally Posted by The Don

Just read something for the 15th time on these forums...

"Universal isn't going neutral/Blu anytime soon"
so saying Universal will not go Blu anytime soon is ridiculous as they are the only big studio that is exclusive to HD DVD....so of course they are going to have to step forward and address where their loyalties are...

And after reading the same "It's all Universal's fault!" whine for Bill Hunt's 25th time on the Digital Bits site, I'm convinced I'm the only person on planet Earth who knows why Universal is still the "loyal" HD holdout:

Three words that seem to have occurred to no one: MICROSOFT...OWNS...UNIVERSAL.

I don't know exactly what portion of the corporation they "own", or how much quotation marks to use, but we do know that MS has been tied to the parent company of NBC ever since the formation of MSNBC (duh ), and a few ties may have even been forged back when Dreamworks was still producing "Shrek" for the Globe.
WHICH MEANS: That Universal is now on Bill Gates's "evangelism" short leash to be the face-man studio to promote HD-DVD as Not Dead Yet...And even when it is dead later this year, they'll still be forced to wave the red banner for Microsoft's post-HD sour grapes of "The future is in HD downloads!" and dump all their movies onto X-Box Live.
As long as the war is All Microsoft's Fault(TM), Universal will forever be dragged down with the ship.

I've seen no argument as to why Disney supports Blu-Ray so loyally (ie., that Steve Jobs is the major shareholder in Disney, and Apple wants to keep Blu-ray in the QuickTime family as dominant format), so I can't see why it's so hard to accept the idea of another studio being leather-slaves to their Corporate Overlords.

[GasCat]

They have likely exchanged a busness plan we are not aware of. Universal and Microsoft are best of buddies. They sit next to each other at conferences.

"Universal isn't going neutral/Blu anytime soon"

Define "anytime soon". 1 to 2 months? A week? 6 months?

The amount of HD sales are still very low now. This means that a format like downloading is still a very viable competitior. We know that M$ = downloading. Keep your guard up and don't think that anything is over. It isn't.

[Sylin]

Originally Posted by EricJ

And after reading the same "It's all Universal's fault!" whine for Bill Hunt's 25th time on the Digital Bits site, I'm convinced I'm the only person on planet Earth who knows why Universal is still the "loyal" HD holdout:

Three words that seem to have occurred to no one: MICROSOFT...OWNS...UNIVERSAL.

I don't know exactly what portion of the corporation they "own", or how much quotation marks to use, but we do know that MS has been tied to the parent company of NBC ever since the formation of MSNBC (duh ), and a few ties may have even been forged back when Dreamworks was still producing "Shrek" for the Globe.
WHICH MEANS: That Universal is now on Bill Gates's "evangelism" short leash to be the face-man studio to promote HD-DVD as Not Dead Yet...And even when it is dead later this year, they'll still be forced to wave the red banner for Microsoft's post-HD sour grapes of "The future is in HD downloads!" and dump all their movies onto X-Box Live.
As long as the war is All Microsoft's Fault(TM), Universal will forever be dragged down with the ship.

I've seen no argument as to why Disney supports Blu-Ray so loyally (ie., that Steve Jobs is the major shareholder in Disney, and Apple wants to keep Blu-ray in the QuickTime family as dominant format), so I can't see why it's so hard to accept the idea of another studio being leather-slaves to their Corporate Overlords.

This is some of the most narrow-minded, ignorant FUD I've ever read on these forums. Nothing personal, but your facts are incorrect.

MS doesn't "own" NBC or Universal. They have alliances and I am sure some ownership crossover, but NBC and Universal are both owned by GE. And even still, all of these companies you mention operate 100% autonomously, meaning they call their own shots. Matter of fact, Microsoft owns less than 20% of MSNBC (the network--they are 50/50 on the web site).

Secondly, people need to stop vilifying Bill Gates. It comes off as envy. Bill Gates is more a spokesman/mascot and does not call the shots at MS... he hasn't for years. There are many other executives who are making the decisions for MS's various departments and branches. Some are good and actually make sense, and some don't. But it's a capitalist nation so they are no worse than 90% of the other American companies.

You know where Bill Gates was last week? Not in some super-secret underground lair plotting to take over the government. He was in Nashville for a bridge tournament (his hobby), after his foundation just recently cut some very big checks to some very worthy charities that do good for others.

Do I think the man is a saint? No--very few people in the public eye are. But I'm not a hater, and I know he DOES do some good. How much money did you contribute to charity this year?

[GasCat]

Originally Posted by ikcizokm

Secondly, people need to stop vilifying Bill Gates. It comes off as envy. Bill Gates is more a spokesman/mascot and does not call the shots at MS... he hasn't for years. There are many other executives who are making the decisions for MS's various departments and branches. Some are good and actually make sense, and some don't. But it's a capitalist nation so they are no worse than 90% of the other American companies.

You know where Bill Gates was last week? Not in some super-secret underground lair plotting to take over the government. He was in Nashville for a bridge tournament (his hobby), after his foundation just recently cut some very big checks to some very worthy charities that do good for others.

Do I think the man is a saint? No--very few people in the public eye are. But I'm not a hater, and I know he DOES do some good. How much money did you contribute to charity this year?

A few things I don't like about Gates:
He took most of his US funds and traded it for Euros further weakening the dollar.
He wants the US government to issue more work visas so that more jobs can be taken away from American programmers.
Do you know that giving money away is one of the worst ways to help someone? The problem is it doesn't provide a sustainable source of income. Ask any economist and they will say the same thing. He started a business which employs thousands. That is great;that is what the people in Africa need. If they do not have viable businesses they will continue to hold their hands out for money.

The funny thing is Gates' income being given away is what I and probably everyone else here payed for overpriced software after he drove the competition out of business illegally. I can find better heroes than Bill Gates.

[BorrowedTime]

Originally Posted by ikcizokm

You know where Bill Gates was last week? Not in some super-secret underground lair plotting to take over the government. He was in Nashville for a bridge tournament (his hobby), after his foundation just recently cut some very big checks to some very worthy charities that do good for others.

Do I think the man is a saint? No--very few people in the public eye are. But I'm not a hater, and I know he DOES do some good. How much money did you contribute to charity this year?

That's kind of an unfair comparison to make. If Bill Gates donates 60 million to charity, and as you ask above "How much money did you contribute to charity this year?" I certainly know that I don't have that kind of money to throw around. I use $60M as an example, I don't know if that is in the ballpark of how much he donates, but even at $600M (which I highly doubt) it's only a drop in the bucket compared to his worth. At $60M, it represents a 0.1%of his overall net worth, at $600M, 1%. I know people that contribute as much as 10-15% of their yearly income to charities, not to mention their time in volunteerism. I highly doubt Bill Gates would miss, or bat an eye at dropping 1% of 60 Billion dollars. I don't know about you, but I think people that donate 10% of their annual income of say 50000-100000 dollars, and their time, sacrifice and contribute a hell of a lot more than Mr. Gates does.

Sorry, I get annoyed when people think that simply because they have the means to throw a ton of money at a charity, that their contribution is worth more than when someone with much less literally sacrifices more (and in many cases could use the money and time to better their own situation).

[The Don]

Originally Posted by EricJ

And after reading the same "It's all Universal's fault!" whine for Bill Hunt's 25th time on the Digital Bits site, I'm convinced I'm the only person on planet Earth who knows why Universal is still the "loyal" HD holdout:

Three words that seem to have occurred to no one: MICROSOFT...OWNS...UNIVERSAL.

I don't know exactly what portion of the corporation they "own", or how much quotation marks to use, but we do know that MS has been tied to the parent company of NBC ever since the formation of MSNBC (duh ), and a few ties may have even been forged back when Dreamworks was still producing "Shrek" for the Globe.
WHICH MEANS: That Universal is now on Bill Gates's "evangelism" short leash to be the face-man studio to promote HD-DVD as Not Dead Yet...And even when it is dead later this year, they'll still be forced to wave the red banner for Microsoft's post-HD sour grapes of "The future is in HD downloads!" and dump all their movies onto X-Box Live.
As long as the war is All Microsoft's Fault(TM), Universal will forever be dragged down with the ship.

I've seen no argument as to why Disney supports Blu-Ray so loyally (ie., that Steve Jobs is the major shareholder in Disney, and Apple wants to keep Blu-ray in the QuickTime family as dominant format), so I can't see why it's so hard to accept the idea of another studio being leather-slaves to their Corporate Overlords.

the reason why we question is because every other big studio is on Blu-ray and the disc sales only prove it as being the major force in this format war...

we question Universal because they are the only ones holding back the format war...and if Disney went neutral it would just make things murky...

Universal is one of the few companies that can single-handedly end this war..

[dialog_gvf]

Originally Posted by The Don

Just read something for the 15th time on these forums...

"Universal isn't going neutral/Blu anytime soon"

pretty much like "Sony isn't cutting the price for the 60GB PS3" ?

Unless Toshiba and Microsoft is there paying Sony not to drop the price of the PS/3, it is a rather different situation.

If you look bad you'll see that insiders were hinting a change was coming early this year, and the silence at CES seemed to confirm something was up. But, then Universal came out gung ho anti-Blu-ray HD DVD-rulz and the insiders were (publically) expressing puzzlement at the cross signals.

To me that probably means that Universal was talking to BD interests, finding out replication issues, encoding software, ROM-Mark licenses, etc. and were ready to make the wise business move, and then something big happened to grab 2007 away. We also saw announcements for The Matrix, and an HD DVD/DVD Star Trek combo with lots of PR of them being exclusive.

The rumour (myth? ) is that MS-Toshiba paid for 100 titles from Universal for 2007. 2008 is a brand new year, and if BD has the Q4 we all expect then CES 2008 could see the neutrality announcement.

Perhaps the laptop announcement by Toshiba might have already given Graffeo hope he can save his reputation and he will give HD DVD yet another year. But, we have to wonder if Graffeo really never wants to work in the industry again. Because, at some point, dragging on the war is going to have reprecussions and the studios are going to say "enough".

Gary