Home Theater mag: Is Blu-ray going to be just another PS3 format???

[David Vaughn]

In the end it doesn't matter, and for the record I think they did get money/incentives. I hope they did at least, if they were being waved around.

The difference is that I'm not going to talk about that payment as if it was a fact, or call someone naive if they don't think it happened. I have no proof either way, and apparently nobody does.

I didn't quote it as fact...I said I had been told by a reliable source. There is a big difference there. One thing we do know for sure, Sony bet the farm on Blu-ray and wasn't going to let it get pushed aside by HD DVD...there was WAY too much riding on it for them. They did what they had to do (with/or without money) to make sure they didn't have another Betamax on their hands.

As someone said earlier...Blu-ray won, lets enjoy the movies. It's why we're here, right?

[DaveS1138]

How about... because Howard Stringer, Sony's CEO, somehow felt it necessary to personally negotiate the deal with Warner?

As reported here. And in the Times here.

See, when you're in negotiations with someone, and those negotiations are successfully concluded, it's safe to assume that something was, in fact, negotiated.

And if your negotiations required the personal intervention of Sony's CEO, it's fairly safe to say that what you negotiated is a pretty big goddamn deal.

So, here's what we know: We know about Toshiba's deal with Paramount. We know Toshiba was running around pretty much with a blank check to swing Warner. And now we know that Howard Stringer personally intervened on BD's behalf to negotiate with Warner.

And yet, if we are to believe some of you guys, Howard Stinger gets personally involved - and brings nothing to the table? Doesn't even match Toshiba's offer? So why the hell is he involved?

Please.

Can I put a dollar amount on what was negotiated? No.

But mega-conglomerates Sony's size acquire companies all the time without the CEO's direct involvement. So, tell me, how a big deal does it need to be to require Howard Stringer to get personally involved?

Hey, believe what you want, but, frankly, it's getting silly. Again, we know something was negotiated with Warner, and that something necessitated the personal attention of Sony's CEO. You do the math.

However, as you pointed out there is no way to know what was discussed in these meetings. So to jump to the conclussion that it was a massive payout from Sony is clearly wrong.

From the articles you quote.

The studio is mainly waiting on holiday sales figures for each of the standards to make its choice, the publication says.

Behind the studio’s decision are industrywide fears about the sagging home entertainment market, which has bruised the movie industry in recent years as piracy, competition from video games and the Internet, and soaring costs have cut into profitability. Analysts predict that domestic DVD sales fell by nearly 3 percent in 2007, partly because of confusion in the marketplace over the various formats.

“Consolidating into one format is something that we felt was necessary for the health of the industry,” Barry M. Meyer, the chief executive of Warner Brothers, said in a telephone interview. “The window of opportunity for high-definition DVD could be missed if format confusion continues to linger.”

“This market is absolutely critical to our future growth,” he said in a telephone interview. “You couldn’t put a number on that.”

For his part, Mr. Meyer said, “We’re not in this for a short-term financial hit.”

It certainly sounds to me like they were looking at what was in the best interest of their future market and not just looking for a short term cash injection like Paramount.


But here is an alternative for you....

It is well known that Warner favoured the enhanced features offered by HD-DVD. Many of their top titles were only made available on HD-DVD because Blu-ray did not offer the same PiP and web features. Perhaps the head of Warner was looking for a personal assurance from the head of Sony that they would finally get their act together and make the PS3 profile 2.0
It is very easy to imagine that Warner would have picked HD-DVD instead of Blu-ray if Sony had not been able to show that the PS3 (the vast majority of the Blu-ray player market even to this day) would be able to do this. That is certainly something that the head of Sony would have wanted to assure Warner in person if it meant Warner dropping HD-DVD.

[Dave J]

It certainly sounds to me like they were looking at what was in the best interest of their future market and not just looking for a short term cash injection like Paramount.

'Consumer confusion' behind decision to drop HD-DVD
Warner Bros Home Entertainment chief Mike Tsujihara says the public's confusion over the two high-definition formats drove the company to drop HD-DVD

[nextoo]

I believe it is time to not confuse consumer "confusion" with consumer "apathy".

Consumer confusion in my opinion has been a smoke screen. Consumer apathy should be the greater concern.

[David Vaughn]

Apathy and a shitty economy...not a good combination.

[nextoo]

Google 2006 expectations. For HDM.

They have been halved on more than one occasion. On both the hardware and software side.

The results were written off as confusion. I tend to agree.

Lack of interest is the challenge. And it remains so.

[HiDefFanboy]

I didn't quote it as fact...I said I had been told by a reliable source. There is a big difference there.

Some people consider Amir to be a 'reliable' source. (see above )

One thing we do know for sure, Sony bet the farm on Blu-ray and wasn't going to let it get pushed aside by HD DVD...there was WAY too much riding on it for them. They did what they had to do (with/or without money) to make sure they didn't have another Betamax on their hands.

Oh My god Man, are you saying Stringer blew Bewkes?

As someone said earlier...Blu-ray won, lets enjoy the movies. It's why we're here, right?

Yeah, what does it matter who calls who's father a child murderer - there's no proof either way so let's just enjoy the picnic.

[David Vaughn]

My source was not Amir, that much I will say.

[theflux]

I didn't quote it as fact...I said I had been told by a reliable source.

I didn't say you did, Dave. I was referring to Josh who called people naive, and that they had a form of psychosis. He stated it as if it was a fact despite providing no evidence.

[HiDefFanboy]

My source was not Amir, that much I will say.

But then again, what does it matter even if Amir was your source...