"Jeff Rife" wrote in message
...
Chet Hayes ) wrote in alt.tv.tech.hdtv:
You may consider it all blather and not want to read it, but I found
it quite interesting.

The quotes contained nothing of actual substance, so I guess a blank
screen
would be "quite interesting" to you.

The main point was that for TVs of the same size the models without the ATSC
tuner are far outselling those with the tuner. The way companies want to
respond to this is by moving up the date by which all TVs need to have an
ATSC tuner. That way consumers won't even have a choice! I am one of many
consumers that have cable and hence don't need the ATSC tuner. I am
appalled that the government is trying to force me to buy a $300 tuner that
I don't need.

From your other comments in your reply it is clear that you didn't really
understand the article. Next time you flame someone you should at least
know what you're talking about.

Brad

Chet Hayes ) wrote in alt.tv.tech.hdtv:
If you followed Bob's post, the comparison was made for the same size
sets sold with and without the built in tuner.

No, it only specified that in *one* set to give a comparitive price
difference (and even so, was wrong...see below).

In reality, they grouped all sets larger than 36" as one group, and
compared them. Read it again.

This means that the huge number of sets that aren't expected to have an
ATSC tuner *ever* (because they have *no* tuner at all) which sell fairly
well (because they are high-margin items for stores and get pushed) are
in the group of sets that "people choose instead of ones with ATSC tuners".

There is no actual breakdown to show that people are avoiding the sets with
tuners, or that retailers are avoiding the sets with tuners.

The issue is
it appears consumers are doing the logical thing and avoiding same
sized sets with built-in tuners because they cost $300 more.

No, consumers aren't doing this. They *are* buying $8000 50" plasmas with
no tuner instead of buying $3000 50" RPTVs that have ATSC tuners built in,
and that *is* because of what stores are stocking...what makes them the
most cash.

Likewise, the non-integrated sets left in the manufacturer's inventory
are being discounted to retailers, so they are more appealing *right now*
to stores, since they can sell them for the same price (or slightly less)
they did 3 months ago, and pay 10-20% less.

This is exactly what many of us expected to happen. And it appears
the manufacturer's clever solution, which appears to have gone by some
of you, is to pull in the 100% phase in dates so that consumers will
have to eat the higher cost without recourse. BTW, what ever happened
to the notion that this wasn't going to happen, that the tuners would
roll in at no noticeable cost?

They are, if you look at the right sets, and compare apples to apples.

An example, straight from the article:

"It's one thing to stack up a 50-inch Hitachi widescreen LCD projection
set at $3299.97 against the very same set, only sans an ATSC tuner, for
$2999.97."

Unfortunately for Bob's claims, Hitachi does *not* make "the same set"
(at least for 50" LCD projection TVs) with and without an ATSC tuner.
Last year's model does not have the tuner, while this year's model does.
Along with the tuner, the new model has extra or improved features, which
include (from Hitachi's web site):

- 2 stage lens system
- 3 extra zoom modes
- 7:1 fresnel lens
- Digital Color Management II (the "II" part is new)
- 40 watt 3-way speakers (as opposed to 24 watt single cone drivers)
- new remote control design ("roll and click")
- USB input
- 2 HDMI inputs (instead of zero)
- RS-232C control interface

I suspect that all these new features (some of which, like the *four* extra
speaker cones, cost real money, not just R&D) *plus* the fact that the old
sets are being discounted to eliminate them from manufacturer's inventory
are enough to make up a $300 difference all by themselves.

--
Jeff Rife | "Space. It seems to go on and on forever. But
SPAM bait: | then you get to the end and a gorilla starts
| throwing barrels at you."
| -- Philip J. Fry, "Futurama"

On Sun, 14 Nov 2004, Chet Hayes wrote:
The issue is
it appears consumers are doing the logical thing and avoiding same
sized sets with built-in tuners because they cost $300 more. That's
$300 for a tuner the vast majority of consumers will never need or use
because they have cable or sat.

Bull****. Integrated TV sets cost about the same as the monitors; some
are even cheaper. The problem is that, currently, there isn't very much
selection in integrated TV sets.

Actually, "monitor" is somewhat of a misnomer since many are actually "HD
Ready" analog TVs. If you want to talk about "useless", an NTSC tuner is
completely useless for someone with satellite, and most TVs won't let you
delete it from the video source rotation.

The fact that a standalone ATSC tuner may cost as much as $300 is
meaningless. Standalone NTSC tuners for use with monitors used to cost
that much as well. Some of us are old enough to remember the Profeel and
the Beta and U-Matic portapacks.

-- Mark --

http://staff.washington.edu/mrc
Science does not emerge from voting, party politics, or public debate.
Si vis pacem, para bellum.

Matthew L. Martin wrote:
Chet Hayes wrote:


BTW, what ever happened
to the notion that this wasn't going to happen, that the tuners would
roll in at no noticeable cost?


If you did some research you would find that many integrated HDTVs have
an MSRP less than the HD monitors that they are replacing. WalMart has a
direct view HDTV for under $800.

Matthew

The point is not about replacement units it is about the same current
model units with and without tuners. In fact that is the issue in the
original article. The CEA wants to eliminate the possibility that the
consumer can choose between the two by eliminating those with no tuners.

Bob Miller

Mark Crispin wrote:
On Sun, 14 Nov 2004, Chet Hayes wrote:

The issue is
it appears consumers are doing the logical thing and avoiding same
sized sets with built-in tuners because they cost $300 more. That's
$300 for a tuner the vast majority of consumers will never need or use
because they have cable or sat.


Bull****. Integrated TV sets cost about the same as the monitors; some
are even cheaper. The problem is that, currently, there isn't very much
selection in integrated TV sets.

Because the ATSC tuner cost the manufacturer real money and they can't
get the customer to pay for it. Either they make fewer of them or they
have to discount them to a similar price that would be paid for a unit
without a tuner in which case they lose money, the cost of the receiver
whatever it is.

Having a mandate doesn't in any way influence a customer to pay more for
a TV set because it has an ATSC tuner unless he values it. The customer
will evade it as they are doing. If the mandate covers all TV sets the
customer will evade that by buying a monitor with no tuner at all. The
FCC got cute there by requiring all TV sets that are cable ready to
include an ATSC tuner. So the customer will buy a monitor that is cable
ready I would expect.

If there is someway for the manufacturer to get the 8-VSB receivers for
free the above scenarios can be dismissed. If they cost as little as $20
the above holds true.

Even $20 is a big deal in this game called supply and demand. It is a
stupendous edge in the market. Right now the cost of that integrated
8-VSB receiver is probably around $110. No one is going to give it away
in the retail market. Somehow or other it will be reflected in the
retail price or if it won't sell in a discounted loss situation.

Bob Miller

Actually, "monitor" is somewhat of a misnomer since many are actually
"HD Ready" analog TVs. If you want to talk about "useless", an NTSC
tuner is completely useless for someone with satellite, and most TVs
won't let you delete it from the video source rotation.

The fact that a standalone ATSC tuner may cost as much as $300 is
meaningless. Standalone NTSC tuners for use with monitors used to cost
that much as well. Some of us are old enough to remember the Profeel
and the Beta and U-Matic portapacks.

-- Mark --

http://staff.washington.edu/mrc
Science does not emerge from voting, party politics, or public debate.
Si vis pacem, para bellum.

Bob Miller wrote:
Matthew L. Martin wrote:

Chet Hayes wrote:


BTW, what ever happened
to the notion that this wasn't going to happen, that the tuners would
roll in at no noticeable cost?



If you did some research you would find that many integrated HDTVs
have an MSRP less than the HD monitors that they are replacing.
WalMart has a direct view HDTV for under $800.

Matthew

The point is not about replacement units it is about the same current
model units with and without tuners. In fact that is the issue in the
original article. The CEA wants to eliminate the possibility that the
consumer can choose between the two by eliminating those with no tuners.


You are really being moronic. Please cite a single instance of otherwise
identical units (with no other difference than an ATSC tuner) selling at
that level of price difference.

Matthew

--
Thermodynamics and/or Golf for dummies: There is a game
You can't win
You can't break even
You can't get out of the game

Brad Griffis ) wrote in alt.tv.tech.hdtv:
The main point was that for TVs of the same size the models without the ATSC
tuner are far outselling those with the tuner.

Again, it was not about "same size". It was about *all* TVs over 36", and
the data was aggregated. In addition, they appear to have done their
"research" based solely on ads, not on actual stock or on what is actually
selling.

It has *some* information about what stores "ordered by the truckload for
the holidays", but that doesn't tell the true story, because stores order
what they can make the most money on. For anything that sells, if the make
money by volume, then that's what they order. If them make money by
higher profit margins, then that's what they order. If manufacturers give
them an incentive because they have leftover inventory, then stores will
naturally order those items.

That way consumers won't even have a choice! I am one of many
consumers that have cable and hence don't need the ATSC tuner.

Blame the government, then, for not mandating the correct thing: OTA *and*
cable-ready digital tuners. This is what is mandated for analog tuners,
and there is no reason that digital should be any different.

From your other comments in your reply it is clear that you didn't really
understand the article.

I understand the article perfectly. It's an attempt to prove a claim by
using only a small percentage of the actual facts of the matter.

--
Jeff Rife |
SPAM bait: | http://www.nabs.net/Cartoons/CloseTo...ePollution.gif
|
|

On Sun, 14 Nov 2004, Psycho Bob Miller wrote:
Because the ATSC tuner cost the manufacturer real money and they can't get
the customer to pay for it.

"Real money"? What, a whole five dollars? Why, that's going to make that
$3000 plasma screen TV cost $3005, and nobody can afford that!

Having a mandate doesn't in any way influence a customer to pay more for a TV
set because it has an ATSC tuner unless he values it.

This statement makes no sense, since there is no such thing as a pair of
TVs on the market today which differ only by the presence of an ATSC
tuner.

The few TVs available with built-in ATSC tuners are all moderately priced.
The purpose of the mandate is twofold:
1) the broaden the variety of TVs with built-in ATSC tuners
2) to provide a guarantee to the market that is no longer subject to the
winds of change.

It is that second purpose that scares Bob Miller.

The customer will evade
it as they are doing.

Nonsense. Nobody is "evading" ATSC capability in TVs.

The only reason why I bought a TV without an ATSC tuner 18 months ago is
that there weren't any suitable TVs with an ATSC tuner back then. I
wouldn't even think of buying a TV without an ATSC tuner today.

As matters stand, I'm stuck with *two* set-top boxes in order to have
picture-in-picture capability. This is a bug, not a feature.

I wouldn't have bought that HDTV at all until TVs with ATSC tuners were
more widely available with a wider selection. I probably still would be
holding off until the mandate had thoroughly kicked in. However, my 25"
Sony XBR analog TV smoked and forced a replacement; and there was no way
that I was going to get another 4:3 analog TV.

Right now the cost of that integrated 8-VSB
receiver is probably around $110.

Where does that number come from? If true, how is it that was able to buy
an ATSC set-top box for $90? [Let me guess, now you're going to claim
that those evil Koreans are now dumping ATSC tuners at below-market prices
in the US in an attempt to seize control of the market.]

Even if it were true, $110 represents about 3.6% of the cost of a $3000
plasma TV.

In high-end electronics, $110 is less than the price differential between
the earlier more expensive "A" model, and the 6-month later less-expensive
and more featureful "B" model.

-- Mark --

http://staff.washington.edu/mrc
Science does not emerge from voting, party politics, or public debate.
Si vis pacem, para bellum.

Mark Crispin ) wrote in alt.tv.tech.hdtv:
Even if it were true, $110 represents about 3.6% of the cost of a $3000
plasma TV.

In high-end electronics, $110 is less than the price differential between
the earlier more expensive "A" model, and the 6-month later less-expensive
and more featureful "B" model.

It's also less than 10% (as you point out), which means *any* store will
happily knock that price difference off to make a sale.

--
Jeff Rife | "Wheel of morality,
SPAM bait: | Turn, turn, turn.
| Tell us the lesson
| That we should learn"
| -- Yakko, "Animaniacs"

"Mark Crispin" wrote in message
. washington.edu...
On Sun, 14 Nov 2004, Brad Griffis wrote:
I am one of many
consumers that have cable and hence don't need the ATSC tuner. I am
appalled that the government is trying to force me to buy a $300 tuner
that
I don't need.

Standalone NTSC tuners also ran about $300, e.g. for Sony's Profeel line.

By your logic, then, it was wrong to incorporate NTSC tuners into TVs.

-- Mark --

I'm not saying it's wrong to incorporate a tuner into a tv. If consumer
demand dictates it then the companies will create it. I'm saying it's wrong
for the government to mandate that it be incorporated.

Brad