Bill Hunt's latest on the format war (September 12)

[navychop]

Esox50:

Why do you not think WB will just stay neutral? For the next year, anyway?

[reiella]

Originally Posted by Beta-guy

I think he's right, though, would we all have been happy if Betamax AND VHS co-existed? that's mean we'd need a VCR that supported both format (costly) or 2 VCR one Beta the other VHS just to play the movies if the various studio's held to exclusives like they are today.

Another thing we have to look at is what are the terms that define what format will win? Blu-ray is selling roughly 2:1 ratio I've heard in Japan it's much higher, but the format war is still going on, what has to happen when all of the vast majority of studio's, retailers, and Consumers all agree the format war is over?

And don't forget with DVD. We would have had a VHS/Beta/DVD deck.

And now, the DVD deck could even be replaced with a BD/HD-DVD combo deck.

Erm.. wait.

Originally Posted by Esox50

If one is to assume that WB is the more desirable studio to have on your side when comparing Paramount/DW vs WB, then it is also reasonable to figure that the HD DVD camp went after WB first.

Shortly after the Paramount news, Nickerson "resigns".

I would challenge HD DVD'ers to find ONE piece of positive information strictly related to WBs OWN RECENT actions that would point to them going HD DVD exclusive. It's simple, there isn't any (information)...

I can do it, as a BD fan.

They're repressing [I assume they need to repress isntead of just rip off the dvd layer :P] all of their HD-DVD discs -and- lowering the price point.

And while not necessarily 'good' news, the status quo news of the lack of better BD utilization on [some] upcoming titles, while maintaining the HDi interactive advantages on their HD-DVD counterpart.

Personally, I ascribe to a wait and see idea . I was so looking forward to Transformers on Blu, but now, well I need to be cynical .

Originally Posted by Terjyn

So you have no real problem with what Paramount did? You can not have it both ways, where Paramount is backstabbing you yet Warner wouldn't be backstabbing by doing the same in reverse.

Well, presumably, because we're BD biased, we'd be far more likly to believe any stories that came out explaining why they went BD exclusive. Much as the reasons have been cited here already. Ie, the preception that Paramount jumped from the winning ship to the sinking ship, while Warner would be jumping from the sinking ship to the winning ship.

Now, further fun bit though.

The nature of the break. IE, would warner recall disks that had already been shipped to retailers for Day and Date release. That is more, my personal gripe with it [well that and disappointment]. Just all in the manner it's done.

We do know that BDA has offered Uni some nice deals/offers to go neutral. It's part of the unforunate nature of the business. Further, the spin on the decision is also part of business. So regardless, we'll get lied to, or at least potentially lied to.

[Anthony P]

So you have no real problem with what Paramount did? You can not have it both ways, where Paramount is backstabbing you yet Warner wouldn't be backstabbing by doing the same in reverse.

not at all. Let's say you were standing on the side of the street and someone pushes you, is that a good or a bad thing? If someone pushed you into an oncoming car then it is a bad thing, if they see a car coming towards you and push you out of the way then it is a good thing.

If Paramount receives a massive payout and says I don't care what consumers want, I want my $$$ and screw everyone else it is a bad thing. If Warner looks at sales and says consumers have massively bought more BD players, they have massively bought more BD movies, the consumers don't want two formats and want this over and we side with our consumers, then that is a good thing.

[Aquos]

Originally Posted by Anthony P

not at all. Let's say you were standing on the side of the street and someone pushes you, is that a good or a bad thing? If someone pushed you into an oncoming car then it is a bad thing, if they see a car coming towards you and push you out of the way then it is a good thing.

If Paramount receives a massive payout and says I don't care what consumers want, I want my $$$ and screw everyone else it is a bad thing. If Warner looks at sales and says consumers have massively bought more BD players, they have massively bought more BD movies, the consumers don't want two formats and want this over and we side with our consumers, then that is a good thing.

I thought there was a bidding war going on recently for Warner. Isn't that why they announced they're staying neutral? I think they would insist on getting paid for going exclusive to either side.

[Anthony P]

I thought there was a bidding war going on recently for Warner. Isn't that why they announced they're staying neutral? I think they would insist on getting paid for going exclusive to either side.

I don't work for Warner, so what they are thinking or why they will pick a side (when hey do) I have no idea. My point' though was simple, that a simple act (such as pushing a person or picking a side) can come about by many reasons, in my example one was a psycho that pushed someone in front of a car (evile/bad- reason) and the other a hero pushing someone out of danger (noble/good-reason). Picking a side is natural, sooner or later every studio might (will) need to do it. If WB was approached and decided to honestly stay neutral because 60:40 is too close in their opinion and will (let’s give an example) pick the larger side when it is 80:20 (or some other fixed objective) then even if they also accept money for it (but the objective does not change) then in my opinion it would not tarnish the decision (what ever side reaches that objective and whatever side they go with). Let’s face it, if in my example the person getting rescued was a millionaire and decide to give a large amount of money to the person that pushed them would you think any less of the hero?


PS obviously things are not as black and white as the example, but that is what makes examples so useful.

[richteer]

Originally Posted by Aquos

I think they would insist on getting paid for going exclusive to either side.

But that's the point: if WB went Blu-exclusive, they'd get paid by increased sales. Why? Because the war will be that much closer to being over, and mass market adoption can start, increasing profits for all companies involved.

Oh, and we'd (hopefully) win too. If they're Blu-exclusive, WB would be less tempted to give Blu-ray owners the same bit-starved video and lossy audio that they use for HD DVD.