Slashdot Mirror
Intel Delays TV Chip Launch
portscan writes "The Financial Times is reporting that Intel has dropped a planned technology that would have halved the price of big-screen televisions by year end. This is the latest mistep in Intel's consumer market strategy. Slashdot has reported on the technology, LCOS, before."
Intel might use DMCA or something to convince the courts that it is in fact illegal to make something that others were planning to make?
The system had the verbosity of HTML combined with all the readability of compiled assembly viewed as bitmap images
I think this is more of an anglicised expression than a legal dig at competitors, although I agree with your comments and wouldn't be surprised if it was selected for the subtext that it conjours up. The quote came from David Mentley - an analyst at Stanford Resources, not the reporter - so I'd expect him to be the kind of guy that chooses his words for effect.
Then again, I personally don't agree with Mr Mentley's opinions. If you asked me 5 years ago whether Intel or TI would succeed in the LCOS/DLP or large size TV arena, I would've said TI. The lead wasn't stolen - not even in the metaphorical, it's just that Intel were always second and still haven't got their act together. Citing 'clear product differentiation' as a reason for pulling a product usually translates to 'we spent so much time on it, it's not any better than what's out there now...'
"Steal" is used here to mean moving stealthily, as in the baseball term "stealing a base". (I believe the words steal and stealth have the same origin.)
So much for Intel's Commitment to LCOS and the Future of HDTV.
But seriously, what does this mean for LCOS? Manufacturers (e.g., Philips and Fujitsu) are still making and selling LCOS TVs or working on the technology. Does it just mean that they won't get as cheap as fast?
Entry level DLP front projectors like the Benq PB6100 and InFocus X1 are now sub-$800, and will be less than that by XMAS.
These are now priced within range of the average consumer, and will kill sales of the overpriced flatscreen TV's.
There is a reason that Best Buy et al do not place these projectors anywhere near their TV department. They don't want the consumer to walk out of the store with an $800 (or less, by XMAS) purchase when they can suck them into to paying $2000 or more for plasma/LCD flatscreens or rear projectors.
Intel might have missed the boat on this one. It wouldn't be the first time.
-Rick
Intell seems to be delaying everything. Are there that many bugs, or did testing reveal that they were behind AMD and they are redesigning the entire lineup?
Professional Politicians are not the solution, they ARE the problem.
"double the profit on big-screen televisions"
No doubt they have "dropped" this technology until someone else threatens to do it. Why kill the market? There are plenty of suckers out there willing to pay $50/mo for the rest of their lives to own a giant tv. Especially with the holiday season upon us.
Don't foret the x8086 machines, at some point, were $3000.
kulakovich
Intel doesn't make a DLP competitor today, so it would add revenue for Intel. For TV manufacturers, likely you will find one or two who will choose to be first movers and take advantage of the price competition. The TV manufacturer would likely not pass the entire savings on to the consumer giving themselves a period where they are making a higher margin until competition forces them to reduce that margin. In the end the TV manufacturers who are first movers on the technology could make more revenue selling cheaper TVs than the more expensive TVs. Remember that the DLP engine is a $1500 to $2000 part alone in big screen TVs. It's by far the most expensive part. So the margins on DLP TVs is not very big.
In the past, the CRT RPTVs were the cheapest way to get a big screen, and well, they still are.
The DLP ones are very thin, sometimes half as deep (or less) as the CRTs. You should at least know what you are dissing.
I personally don't see a point in the displays that are thin, like plasma and LCD panels. I don't see a point in the display being thinner than the accompanying components are deep, because the components would protrude or you'd have a big air gap behind the display, if the display is flush with the DVD player, amp, etc. So I'd consider a 15" to 20" depth to be pretty comfortable.
The reason why 16:9 screens are more expensive than 4:3 screens is two-fold.
Firstly many wide-screen TVs are high definition. This necessitates a whole load of extra technology and a significantly higher-spec display, which costs more money.
Secondly TV manufacturing was geared up to 4:3 screens, and to produce 16:9 screens means having to start over. Demand for 16:9 screens in some markets like Europe has now caught up with 4:3, where wide-screen generally isn't high-def yet. In North America wide-screen TVs are almost exclusively high-def, so there's a double price premium to be paid, and demand for 16:9 screens is a tiny fraction of that for 4:3 screens.
This article...7 864
http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=1
mentions that Intel is scrapping their 1 megapixel implementaion (I'm assuming 1280x720) for a 2 megapixel (I assume 1920x1080). Seems like a smart move to me. I'd rather have a set upscaling 720p rather than downscaling 1080i. And if they do this right, they could support 1080p24. And if HD DVD movies are created properly, as 1080p24 with support for Telecining on the fly for older sets. Then you're talking something I'd like to buy.