Paramount's HD DVD exclusivity not for 18 months after all?

[BluDrew]

Originally Posted by shadowmoon

Remember, hes on record saying all these things. The tips that NY Times got is anonymous. Thats a HUGE difference.

But wouldn't the flip side of that be that anyone could call up the NYT claiming to be someone high up at Paramount and say just about anything "anonymously"? I'm not sure if I'd give more credence to an anonymous statement over an official, public statement, especially when the other side needs to go into 'damage control' overdrive to try and downplay this as much as possible??

[Jamh]

Originally Posted by BluDrew

But wouldn't the flip side of that be that anyone could call up the NYT claiming to be someone high up at Paramount and say just about anything "anonymously"? I'm not sure if I'd give more credence to an anonymous statement over an official, public statement, especially when the other side needs to go into 'damage control' overdrive to try and downplay this as much as possible??

Actually, the information came from Viacom executives who spoke to NYT on condition of anonymity. I highly doubt they would print something like that from a completely anonymous source.

[BluDrew]

Originally Posted by Jamh

Actually, the information came from Viacom executives who spoke to NYT on condition of anonymity. I highly doubt they would print something like that from a completely anonymous source.

True, but I don't know. It all sounds so dubious to me.

[RUR]

Originally Posted by Jamh

Actually, the information came from Viacom executives who spoke to NYT on condition of anonymity. I highly doubt they would print something like that from a completely anonymous source.

The New York Times is one of the more respected newpapers on the planet, having won countless awards for journalism. They certainly would not print statements from any Tom, Dick or Harry who calls and I'm amazed (well, not really) that the OP would suggest such a thing. Mr. Bell is the man with an agenda, having just received a very, very large check.

[The Don]

"at this moment in time" is pretty much morse code for "yes...but I can't say that because sales may not impact the same way if people knew"

remember when people asked about the PS3 price drop and the response was along the lines of "we don't have a price drop planned at this point in time"

so yeah....it's 18 months..

[BillCable]

Originally Posted by The Don

"at this moment in time" is pretty much morse code for "yes...but I can't say that because sales may not impact the same way if people knew"

Exactly... you can't expect them to come out and say "Microsoft gave us a pile of cash to get us to release on HD-DVD for the next 18 months... after that we'll be back with Blu-ray, baby!" Even though that's exactly what they'll be doing.

[IamNhobdy]

Originally Posted by The Don

"at this moment in time" is pretty much morse code for "yes...but I can't say that because sales may not impact the same way if people knew"

remember when people asked about the PS3 price drop and the response was along the lines of "we don't have a price drop planned at this point in time"

so yeah....it's 18 months..

And Disney/BuenaVista denied plans for Bad Santa & Lost season 3 a month or so before announcing those titles officially.

I'm just gonna keep buying Blu like I have been(because the CONSUMER is in charge, damn it!) and the studios are going to want my money and yours, if not now, then soon. I can keep my money longer than they can wait to get it. And I can redirect MY support just as easily as they can.

[JAGUAR1977]

Originally Posted by The Don

"at this moment in time" is pretty much morse code for "yes...but I can't say that because sales may not impact the same way if people knew"

remember when people asked about the PS3 price drop and the response was along the lines of "we don't have a price drop planned at this point in time"

so yeah....it's 18 months..

Spilling the beans this is only for 18 months and not 100% exclusive means the impact is much reduced.

Claiming this move is consumer driven is nothing but a sad joke and fools no one .

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

[scragham]

Originally Posted by BluDrew

But wouldn't the flip side of that be that anyone could call up the NYT claiming to be someone high up at Paramount and say just about anything "anonymously"? I'm not sure if I'd give more credence to an anonymous statement over an official, public statement, especially when the other side needs to go into 'damage control' overdrive to try and downplay this as much as possible??

it's certainly happened that reputable news organizations have been burned by things like this, but it's usually the oddball rogue reporter who made up sources.

in general, it's pretty unlikely that the NYT and WSJ (because the WSJ also reported this) would accept something as vague as, for example, me calling their office from a pay phone and saying through a voice distorter, "hey guys, the HD DVD promo group paid paramount $150 million dollars, i know, i'm an important source in viacom that wants to stay anonymous!!!!"

it seems far more likely that the reporters in question have contacts in the various companies that they asked for off the record remarks from.

there's a big difference between candid, honest comments that often have to be made anonymously versus the official stance on things.

[rondanto]

blockbuster is a viacom company.Does that mean no blu ray at Blockbuster?

[supersix4]

I also feel like sony exc. come xmas should bust out a new 1080p blu-ray player around 299 maybe thats asking way to much but that would surrrrre stick it to them

[Anthony P]

But wouldn't the flip side of that be that anyone could call up the NYT claiming to be someone high up at Paramount and say just about anything "anonymously"? I'm not sure if I'd give more credence to an anonymous statement over an official, public statement, especially when the other side needs to go into 'damage control' overdrive to try and downplay this as much as possible??

usually anonymous source does not mean "we have no idea who is saying this" but "we won't tell you who is saying this"

[Anthony P]

blockbuster is a viacom company.Does that mean no blu ray at Blockbuster?

they are not

[hoser]

There is no way Paramount would make $150m in the next 18 months from BD sales....the market is just not that big yet.

There is no doubt in my mind that this decision was made by MR. Sumner Redstone (the CEO of Viacom).
The guy is notorious for grabbing every buck he can.
And considering he is about 185 years old, a long term investment in a new format probably wouldn't make much sense to him.

BTW, he was the guy that decided Tom Cruise jumping up and down on Oprah's sofa was a firing offense.

[w_tanoto]

this interview is the ugliest i've ever seen. Soooo funny. He sort of admit that their HD DVD is selling more than BD.

[dobyblue]

Using "at this moment in time" and "indefinite" in the same sentence is pretty oxymoronic in my book.

[ikbradley]

$150 million would not result in an indefinite commitment. That would force a company into bankruptcy if in several years Blu-ray was the standard.

$150 million is the profit of one big movie.

The official is obviously stating commitment in a non-contractual sense.

[blackhawktraffic]

Originally Posted by rondanto

blockbuster is a viacom company.Does that mean no blu ray at Blockbuster?

I didn't even know this, that seems weird that they would say they are going to carry only Blu-Ray and then make this announcement.

[kaliraver]

Originally Posted by blackhawktraffic

I didn't even know this, that seems weird that they would say they are going to carry only Blu-Ray and then make this announcement.

Article about Blockbuster and Viacom splitting.

"Viacom, Blockbuster Split Up
Video rental giant looking for new revenue streams.
by IGN DVD

June 21, 2004 - Viacom Inc. and Blockbuster Inc. are going their separate ways, with the video retail giant being spun off from Viacom. The deal would involve Blockbuster buying out the outstanding shares from all stockholders, including Viacom.

Blockbuster anticipates paying $5 per share, or a total of approximately $905 million based on the number of shares currently outstanding. Viacom owns 81.5 percent of Blockbuster's outstanding shares, which translates into a cash windfall of $738 million for Viacom.

Blockbuster will be receiving financial help from JPMorgan, Citigroup and Credit Suisse First Boston as part of this buyout. The three financial firms will set up a $1.5 billion line of credit, from which Blockbuster will borrow the nearly $1 billion needed to finance the buyout.

Viacom expects the split to be completed some time in the third quarter of this year. This wasn't exactly the best deal for Viacom. It purchased Blockbuster in 1994 for $8.4 billion. Today, the company is worth $2.7 billion, with 8,900 stores worldwide.

Blockbuster plans to adjust its business, since right now it's losing money. Last year it lost $984 million on revenue of $5.9 billion. The company hopes that freedom from Viacom will allow for aggressive moves beyond just video rental, which is drying up in the face of video on demand and DVD rentals by mail. The company is launching an online rental program to compete with NetFlix and plans to expand in-store sales of DVDs and videogames."

[dialog_gvf]

Originally Posted by rondanto

blockbuster is a viacom company.Does that mean no blu ray at Blockbuster?

Viacom used to own Blockbuster. They spun it off in the fall of 2004. It's now a totally separate company.

Gary