miller wrote:Dale wrote:So, I will not give up on having one prevailing format just because many of us chose to shoot the dice ahead of the main event and came up with craps. I realize we were wooed into our ownerships and we might find satisfaction from blaming our seducers, but who hasn't lost a few hundred to the seducers of this world? It's part of life's education and what is then left to do but to go on to a better informed future? If we dwell on regrets, what do we get? Let's grow up, stop crying over spilt milk and get behind the idea of one format succeeding in the open marketplace. If history is any teacher we won't be sorry for making that choice.
Miller: Let me see if I can peel out your main points from above:
1. So you're saying that having one format is worth disenfranchising and alienating 1 million+ consumers on one side or the other?
That is a perfect interpretation of what I said, yes. Reality is harsh and unrelenting but when you have two sides in a football contest one has to lose and one has to win. I cannot help the laws of nature that govern such yin and yang things and so I have to accept it. I can add that a creative idea can make all the difference in the world in mitigating unpleasant inevitabilities and those who are creative know exactly what I mean.
Miller: 2. You're claiming that since everyone knew about the format war that the consumer should be surprised to have the rug jerked out from under them
?
I think you mean that the consumer should NOT be surprised. Sure, that is what I mean. I mean (please forgive my use of this football analogy again) if you are suited up and in a football game and someone tackles you and throws you for a loss, is it any surprise? You can't tell me that you didn't know there were two formats and that one might have to go. You have been too vocal too long for that story to be believed.
Miller: I guess #1 is subjective. I mean, if WB can live with that, I guess that's what the bean-counters in corporate advised.
The greater good is what has to be served at this time or it's all lost.
Miller: But regarding #2, I ask you to take a look at all the articles published in the past year, even from your own publication. The vast majority of the media in the past 12 months have been claiming that (loosly paraphrased): "There will be no winner, so feel free to pick a side". I don't recall a single article off the top of my head in the past year that has advised to wait.
I recall many such articles in quality publications like the New York Times, Wall Street Journal, and USToday. I am going from recall but it is my business to know these things as co-publisher of HDTV Magazine. If you want me to do the research to find you the references, I will.
I will note that against my council my partner did publish an article which recommended the HD DVD as the choice to buy now. He is paying a little price for that piece (and receiving praise too) now and I am sure he has learned some things about what you can and cannot do in this field if you are to survive for a good long time. I am sure you all join me in hoping Shane grows enormously in this field and is a wise and trust council to our readers for years to come.
My views have been consistant since the start of this high def DVD movement. I continue to say as I did from the start that the decision on formats should not have been left up to the public, for it is too complex for that. See my article with an interview with Mark Knox, spokesperson for Toshiba published in HDTV
http://www.hdtvmagazine.com/articles/20 ... hd_dvd.php
Miller: In my opinion (not that you apparently care about consumer opinion), the easiest path to consumer satisfaction is to have all studios release in both formats.
I spent 26 years in pro bono service to this cause
for the public with a 26 year public record to prove it. You might want to match that before you hurl your insults.
But I have no argument with your solution except that by serving the million you want to protect from any losses you add cost to hundreds and hundreds of millions of disks for the life of the formats for 100% of the people who have high def players of any kind. There is added cost to double sided pressing if for no other reason than the quality control issues. There is a higher failure rate (not to mention the time taken in testing) in HD DVD pressing due to jitter. Both sides have to be scan checked for it. I have to also mention that it's not the same media for both formats.
Miller: Then the consumer could truly decide the best platform on their merits, not on what political/financial deals their favorite studio happened to make with one side or the other.
If you accept democracy that is exactly what happend. The consumer swung to Blu ray by a narrow margin and even if you don't like the fact that Sony boosted the vote by including Blu ray in their PS3, it's still a vote. (it was reported at this year's CES that 83% of PS3 owners use that machine for their Blu ray movie viewing).
Miller: For the past 30 years we've been living with movies being available in multiple formats. And not once in those 30 years, until now, have studios been bribed to only release on a single format. The studios are to blame for this format war, and they are to blame for not letting the consumer decide the market direction.
Sorry, I was in the financing business for motion pictures in the 60s and 70s and what you say doesn't jibe with reality. There all kinds of deals made daily which you can call bribes. Product placement is a bribe in your sense of the term since money is exchanged for exposure by the film industry to a product or service.
All studios do not huddle in a corner and decide these things nor could they legally (anti-trust violation). The fact that studios or people disagree is hardly news. We don't agree so who is to blame, me or you? It could be that the power of the product is such that all come to an agreement, but that did not happen this time. But since you want to blame someone let's start with Toshiba. They chose a system design that was cheapest for the movie industry to start up their high def strategy. It does not cost a great deal to retrofit existing DVD pressing plants for HD DVD production. Toshiba's very well known strategy was to use this low cost of entry to attract all of the studios to their system. That strategy has now backfired in 5 out of the 7 studios. Toshiba did not have your interest at heart but had their focus on getting all of Hollywood to support THEIR hardware. Nothing wrong with that. Business is business and Sony is no less devious. But let's not put halos where they don't belong.
And back to this "bribe" business. I suspect you are talking about the "report" that Warner's was somehow paid for their decision. When Warners was questioned at the Blu ray press conference in Las Vegas about this the response from Warners was an absolute NO and the question itself provoked a great deal of laughter from all the insiders present. The Warners guys quickly added, "But don't I wish.
Miller: I will finish my response with a question: Why did WB switch to a single format? It wasn't what the consumers were asking for.
What consumers are you talking about? More than half who entered the market spoke for a side. Do you just count the HD DVD owners as the consumers?
Miller: Dedicated hardware sales were neck-and-neck in 2007, indicating an equal preference. Disc sales were 2:1 in Blu-ray's favor, but WB was already releasing in both formats, so they were probably doing better than most studios. Was WB losing money on HD DVD? I wouldn't blame them for switching for that reason. Their decision (and reason given) just baffles me.
Good question. I think to get to the answer we have to listen to what the movie company has said. They said that due to the conflict in the high def DVD marketplace not only were sales for high def discs less than projected but that the conflict had spilled over to impact DVD sales for all Hollywood products. (standard DVD sales were down 3.6% over 2006). But here are the officials figures:
January 08, 2008
Figures compiled by the Digital Entertainment Group and released at the CES trade show in Las Vegas indicate that sales and rentals of DVDs declined some 2% to $23.7 billion in 2007. Earlier VideoScan had reported that unit sales of DVDs were down 5% for 2007, but sales of higher-priced TV-on-DVD units meant that the total for the DVD market in the U.S. declined only 3.6% from $16.6 billion to $16 billion.
They attributed this 3.6% decline ($600,000,000) occuring in a "good movie" year to the "wait and see" attitude of the general public, who we know have been resistant to acquiring either high def formats and at the same time curbing any expansion of their library in the traditional DVD standard (fear of obsolecence). They feel if by making a decision to end the format confusion all forces will ignite and catalyze the new business and strip away these impediments and doubts.
Here is what Jeffrey Jolson, long time Hollywood reporter (and grandson of legendary entertainer, Al Jolson) reported in his online publication, HollywoodToday.net.
"Further cementing Warner
