Slashdot Mirror
No Business Case for HDTV?
Lev13than writes "The head of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation argues that there is no business model for HDTV. Speaking at a regulatory hearing being held by the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC), CBC president Robert Rabinovitch noted that 'There's no evidence either in Canada or the United States that we have found for advertisers willing to pay a premium for a program that's in HD.' In order to cope with infrastructure and programming costs that are roughly 25 per cent higher, Rabinovitch proposes that the CBC start charging cable and satellite companies to carry their signal, and to limit over-the-air transmission. HDTV — good for Best Buy, bad for broadcasters?"
Canadialand is the Nintendo of countries: Graphics simply do not matter.
I wonder if I use bold in my signature, people will notice my posts.
Good gosh, HDTV would fly by itself if the industry practiced a little common sense about the rollout. I remember in 1998 a sales guy trying to talk me into buying a sexy looking HDTV on demo on the floor. Yeah, I was drooling.
This unit came sans tuner, and the universe as we know it was still pretty much standard definition tv, i.e., if you could find any HD content, it was for eye candy only, nobody was broadcasting HD anywhere on anything remotely regular.
I told him I'd wait for the prices to come down, and the for some content to show up -- he shook his finger at me, "These prices [$10,000 for the unit I was looking at] won't come down and might go up! And, there's more and more new HD content available every day"
Prices went way down (though still way too high) and content eventually showed up. The problem? Way too many ways to set up for HD with way too many ways to find out your setup isn't correct after spending big bucks.
The minefield that is setting up for HD is too confusing, too expensive, and yeah, if I were an advertiser I'd find it a tough sell to pay any extra for an uncertain market.
It's too bad, I eventually settled on a Samsung 50" DLP a 2 years ago, absolutely LOVE it, but no thanks to any help I got from anyone anywhere! Freak, even the Comcast HD cable box is still a piece of garbage that regularly freezes, never behaves, and offers a very limited range of HD (not entirely their fault, come on networks!).
Toss in the confusing choices and still uncertain future of HD on DVD, sheesh, it's a wonder the market is as penetrated as it is.
Hey, and toss in the $50 HDMI cable lots of people have to buy, they didn't even know about it until "after". Yeah, and what about the almost non-existent HD On Demand (another unfulfilled promise... aside from incredibly poor selection, Comcast's On Demand movies have only a few HD, and all of them (HD and standard) are so compressed, it hurts to watch on a good TV). Oh, and don't forget, or don't forget to plan for, DRM. Don't assume what's true today will still be true by the time you set up your system, but assume if it's not the same it's going to be more restrictive.
Shit, the more I prattle, the less I like about HD. I'm in as deep as I want for what the market has offered so far, but am not chomping at the byte for any more investment until the industry sorts itself out.
Or do they not matter in all this?
People love HD TV. I am not a marketing exec, but I can see that paying to advertise on these services could end in profit.
The entrenched content providers, with their legislatively protected markets, have long rested on their laurels at providing (actually) improved service - as opposed to market-speak improved ("ooh look - 100 more channels of stuff you don't care about but we can charge you more for"). The consumer has a difficult time insisting on improvement in any market when the amount of competition is so lacking - hence the need for regulation to encourage competition and improvement among the entrenched parties.
The only money the CBC makes is on the backs of the Canadian Tax payer; in the unlikely event they actually have a show that makes money they cancel it.
If it wins awards, but doesn't win over advertisers they run it for years. All 3 audience members appreciate it.
CBC is nothing but a profiteering organization. They aren't about producing good television, they are about justifying their existence and salaries.
HDTV is a solution in search of a problem. If it is so darn good, why phase out the old broadcast standard? Only so we all have to buy new TVs and converters for the old. The makers get rich and fat off of a bought FCC and the consumer gets screwed. Only Canada had the balls to call it as they saw it.
McF
Beware of Sales Reps bearing gifts.
1) I much prefer to watch HD programming. Especially sports. I will not watch SD football
2) All of the HDTV I watch is over the air.
3) I'm still in a bad mood since my local PBS station decided to only broadcast about 4 hours of HD programming each day.
That said, I'm not saying that HD commands higher ad rates - but it should. Too bad HD programming usually has SD commercials.
Doesn't he know who he represents? How the hell are these companies supposed to make a profit, keep the stockholders happy and keep their executives in luxurious vacation homes.
Seriously thought, hooray for Canada (don't tell anyone I said that) and hooray for common sense!
Not going HD would be like cable companies saying "No need for us to build high speed infrastructure - everybody likes dial-up."
My other sig is funny.
Oh, I know this will initially be modded flame bait or troll, but it's oh-so-funny!
What is important is money for big corporations.
Why should we use television technology that hasn't been updated in over half a century?
Sure I can watch sports in the current non-HD and like it but I like it more in HD. I would still watch whether it's HD or not though so of course the networks can't charge advertisers more. Suck it up and improve your equipment because if TV looks better won't consumers possibly watch MORE?
"Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery?" - Patrick Henry
What contributes to this cost? More expensive cameras? More bandwidth in the braodcast? More disk space in the digital production?
Dominant Meme
The number of people who actually watch tv is falling. Thanks to the internet, we don't need tv, so why would we need HDTV?
Seriously, if you have the money to buy an HDTV then why would broadcast television even be a concern for you? Someone who cares about their viewing experience enough to shell out the cash for a hi def set is going to be buying DVDs, downloading hi def content, playing video game consoles in hi def or subscribing to premium cable/satellite for specialized needs (if they're so into football that are willing to buy a HDTV to see it in hi-def, then they probably already have premium stations like NFL Ticket).
The Canadian Broadcasting Corporation worrying about HD broadcasts is like Sony worrying about how they're going to sell $9.99 walkmans to people who want $500 mp3 players... It's just plain irrelevant.
People will pay a heck of a lot more for HDTV sets. The main benefit of having an HD set is the ability to watch HD programming at full resolution. Therefore, people are willing to pay more to watch HD programming.
A legparnasom tele van angolnaval.
The RealWorld is completely suck in the UK. Crap weather, crap beaches, crap everything. No wonder they want to lose themselves in a little HD world.
Engineering is the art of compromise.
RCA pushed it because they could. that's what RCA did in those days, late 30s and post-war and the early 50s.
HDTV is the same thing. the manufacturers have an interest. it's a paradigm shift for broadcasters, and it will cannabilize their existing businesses, just like TV did, and color TV was just a gawd-awful money eater for stations in the 1960s.
but the FCC wants to sell those juicy frequencies near the cell phone bands, and congress spent the money a thousand times over, so your present TV system (NTSC, PAL, SECAM, doesn't matter) is headed down the dumper for HDTV versions.
that's how the future works. you can go into your back room and play your edison cylinders now... at least, the ones that aren't all fuzzy black mold by now. most folks eventually fall for pretty pictures and better sounds.
if this is supposed to be a new economy, how come they still want my old fashioned money?
So, to pay for HD, Canadian broadcasters want to charge the people who carry their signal. They do realize that the only reason people to advertise on their stations is because they have a large pool of people to whom they can advertise - if they charge companies to carry their signal, some of them will stop carrying it, which lowers the reach of their advertising and thus their ad revenue. In addition, the HD crowd probably has a fair amount of money to spend and would be a desirable target for their advertisers, which might mean they could get more money from advertisers in return for access to an audience with more money.
As a side note, one might also ask what the broadcasters been doing with their money - considering the shift to HDTV has been in the works for years, one might have thought that they could have either saved money to buy the new equipment and/or gotten money from the gov't to buy it. Why aren't they prepared for it now?
In the first decade of the 21st century, pornography will drive the commercial development of the high-definition television. If you doubt what I am saying, then ask yourself what is the #1 video image that you want to see in absolute clarity and in shockingly graphic detail.
The Canadians are prudes and just refuse to say what the facts are.
Yep, fair call, nobody wants to pay more for it, suprise suprise suprise.
Do it the way that everyone else does it when they are financially constrained, buy HD when the life cycles end. So the cameras and other stuff that CBC would normally replace every 2 years (Provided they act like the other TV stations I know), go HD then. The video editing suite, that will eventually need to be upgraded (Usually happens every 4 - 5 years), do it then. Most people that do digital content creation pay for themselves (Make a profit) anyway, so just tell them they need to HD and then go back to playing golf.
Yes, there are financial constraints to going HD, but then there are financial constraints to running a business too. Over the next few years everyone else will be replacing kit, and they will be buying HD which means that sooner or later, everything that CBC gets given for broadcast is going to be HD.
25%, quite possibly now, that's fine, but in the future, everything is going to be HD and CBC aren't going to have an option as few people will be providing SD equipment to purchase. IF it's there, it will cost more money and won't be standard with the rest of the kit.
Really, this is a null and void arguement that they make that everyone else is going through.
Upgrading kit and increasing the quality of the standard broadcast costs a LOT of money, I know this all too well. Considering however that a major overhaul like this hasn't gone through the industry for 30 years in most countries, the amount of expenditure up front to move now is scaring people. It's the same with Vista and Office 2007 and everything else.
Curiosity was framed; ignorance killed the cat. -- Author unknown
"Shit, the more I prattle, the less I like about HD. I'm in as deep as I want for what the market has offered so far, but am not chomping at the byte for any more investment until the industry sorts itself out."
But look at how good WebTV looks.
New cameras, modulators, multiplexers, etc...
To give you an idea, you need 1 ATSC modulator per channel per transmittion tower. Each modulator is in the range of $10000. So we're talking hundreds of millions to convert.
This is simply the broadcast networks way of getting permission to charge the cable companies for their channel. What is a cable company going to do if regulators allow the networks to charge them a fee, not carry them? They have to pay up. I doubt it will fly, but why not test the waters in Canada first....
There may well be no business model at present for HD Broadcasting, since few advertisers would want to pay the premium to advertise their crap.
But, it will not be broadcasters and advertisers that drive demand. The demand will come from consumers who want to watch their favorite TV shows in HD.
Now, it is entirely possible that even this sort of demand still wont quite be enough to justify the current sort of business model. That does not mean some new business model will come about which will allow those who wish to watch HD content to receive it. I could easily imagine an on demand business model for HD content where people pay to subscribe to an entire season and download episodes as they become available. Its not exactly broadcasting, but it may work.
HD is starting to catch on, and given the choice, people would prefer to watch their prefered shows in HD instead of standard-def. But it may still be a while before HD becomes the norm. Unlike DVD's which caught on over night, it is not yet clear what the best way to do HD content is. DVD just replaced VHS. The business model stayed the same, but just became more profitable. But HD content may require the studios to abandon the business model of the 30 second commercial spot.
END COMMUNICATION
Well actually I don't, my dad pays extra for HDTV channels in canada (ontario, cogeco cable), my GF on rogers cable has the option to pay more for HDTV channels, and if I were so inclined I could as well. What's the problem? I pay more to get high def, if the CBC isn't getting a cut of that they should take it up with rogers, aliant, cogeco et al.
Rather obviously HDTV is more expensive, the makeup, cameras etc... cost more, the bandwidth costs more, the addition of a great many new channels costs more, and correspondingly, we have the option of paying more for it (about 7 bucks a month, which is about 15% of a monthly cable bill, to get half a dozen channels of HD of 60 total).
Now, I can believe that this does not help so much with the added costs of producing in HD, but it is a chicken and an egg problem. If everyone has an HD tv, they would, insofar as possible then prefer to watch in HD, so long as the cost is not unreasonable, if enough people are watching HD or regular Def than the competition for that ad space will drive the cost up. Unfortunately, at the moment not enough people have HD TV's, nor are the HD channels accessable or particularly useful (yes, you too can watch the canadian version of CSpan in high def, go you!)
In Europe one of the big sellers of HDTV's was the world cup, and if you weren't airing high def, people would turn in to someone who was. I suspect (though do not know for sure), that HDTV's are still largely relegated to the realm of the tech savy, and hardcore TV fans. Provide programming in HD that no one else is, that appeals to the market of HD owners and it will pay for itself. This isn't hard. In canada, if you're airing high def stanley cup, and no one else is, you'll capture the HD sports market.
Not "bad for broadcasters," just a necessary change. Sure, they could stick with SD equipment for a while, but if they do, other companies will come in and replace them. They may think they can't afford HD, but what they really can't afford is to stay SD. It's no different from the change from B&W to color 50 years ago.
Now it may be true that the advertisers are not willing to pay a premium to air on HD channels or during HD broadcasts, however it is certainly true that they will pay more to reach more eyeballs. As HD becomes more ubiquitous and viewers have the choice between SD and HD programming, they will favor the latter. Some people will say they don't care, as long as the show is good, but it's all relative. Mono recordings worked just fine for a hundred years, but once stereo became readily available, there was no turning back. My HDTV is "only" 720p, and the difference is so remarkable that I'll go out of my way to spend 10+ hours downloading a 10-20G version of something in HD rather than watch it in SD or highly compressed HD. BBC's "Planet Earth," for example, should be the flagship HDTV content displayed on every showroom floor. Even downscaled from 1080 to 720, it's breathtaking, and a DVD looks like garbage after that.
So feel free to try to stick with SD. It may work for a year, or maybe two, but if you want to stay in the business of broadcasting, your content had better be good enough, or niche enough (like the AM audience), to keep its market. That's entirely possible for networks like CBC I suppose, but in the US, the networks just can't afford to lag behind. So quit your whining and move to HD, because other networks will, and they'll take your viewers with them.
https://www.eff.org/https-everywhere
Higher resolution and better frame rates are nice. But it would have been much better to add internet type functionality. Picture HDTV with a Wii type remote and out of band information. If you're watching a sporting event, you can look up stats on the players and teams. If you're watching a movie, you can get IMDB type information. If you might want to buy a product that's on-screen, you point at it. It wouldn't take much extra bandwidth to have bounding boxes embedded on the linked objects in the scene-- it doesn't have to be good enough for an FPS shooter, after all. The purchasing option alone would generate enough revenue that it'd be a no-brainer to subsidize the hardware and networks. You could also easily switch between subtitle languages, closed captioning, etc., and none of these things would have to be embedded in the picture in any particular way. The client decides how to render the information. Kind of like a web browser.
HDTV as it stands is just not a compelling upgrade, and attempts to add this functionality now would be very hackish-- especially given that the companies involved, the television, movie, and media industries, still don't understand the benefits of open standards. I'd say the best bet now is Tivo type devices... but unless they standardize, the features will be too expensive and poorly supported to go far.
What a pantload this guy is. Sales of HDTV's to consumer illustrate quite strongly that they are willing to pay for HD content. People like me who have HDTV's avoid watching SD because of the poor picture quality.
Many cable and stellite companies charge extra for HD channels - and people pay up. So if he wants to charge delivery companies extra for HD programming, well there is your friggen business case, on a silver platter.
DOH.
seriously, the business case for broadcasters is to get HD or die! I'm sitting watching HD Fox right now, and it BLOWS AWAY any satellite I've seen. Even SD digital broadcasts are 200% clearer than analog... better than my standard definition satellite. One of my local stations runs a 24 hour weather channel as their sideband...that will be GREAT when the snowstorms start. Another runs CW as it's sideband... a first without cable. If broadcasters DON'T upgrade their 50 year-old tech then they will be left behind. HDTV puts broadcasters on nearly equal technical footing with Cable... they get channel guides, better tech stations, multiple sidebands for dedicated weather, news, or even cartoons for the kids. The current broadcasters that merely feed the big networks and expect big advertising payoffs business are over...but that was happening WITHOUT HD... I bet I spent nearly 2 years watching 0 network TV shows when The-n, Sci-fi and WB were on a roll. on the other hand, the ones that look for new networks, new content, local talents. etc have all new ways to flourish... Technology doesn't GUARANTEE ANY business profits... but it does give them a chance to find some.
When I was getting HDTV off air, there were a few instances where the program was SD and some of the commercials aired were HD. If those advertisers spent the extra money to make HD commercials, even if they were shown on SD programs, they must be willing to pay at least some premium for HD.
Either that, or there was a big mix-up, and the HD commercials were shown during the SD shows, and the SD commercials were shown during the HD shows.
Having decomissioned my TV a number of years ago in favor of a computer running emule, and now having the free upgrade to BitTorrent that allows me to get my american TV shows add-free 2 weeks ahead of the Australian commercial-infected air-date rather than 1 week ahead.. TV Execs should be asking themselves Is there actually a business case for traditional TV?
:) I recon' I'd even pay to see that...
Now, as for HD-TV...
I just witnessed a 277-run ashes victory against in full SD Digital TV, and the step up from shadowed fuzzy PAL broadcast was unbelievable.
I can't wait to see us beat the Poms in 1080p full color
I wonder how long it'll take the sports ground owners to start sueing broadcasters for loss of revinue because you get a better view of the game at home than you do with 10x binoculars from front-row seats?
Um, don't you think there is an upper bound on the resolution you want on some images? When you start seeing every pimple, hair, and pore, I would think it stops being fantasy-enhancing and starts becoming a clinical rotation in urology or perhaps skin lesions.
I keep hearing pundits say that porn is the driving force behind the adoption of new technology, so where is the HD porn?
If there is one thing that will make technogeeks shell out thousands to upgrade, it's higher quality T&A!
And since pornography isn't doing it, the Government in the United States stepped in and mandated it. Nobody wanted it otherwise.
Thus the original article is correct- there's no business case for it, that's why the FCC mandated it.
SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
Apart from CBC being owned by us the people (and we will foot the ultimate bill so why he is complanining is just a load of bull...)
How about showing two commercial side by side now that it is 1920x1080... heck we could even have 4 commercials going at once.
Thats 4 times the money from commercials.
OR how about this... instead of having commercial spots being 30 seconds make them 23 seconds for the same money.
If there is a will there is always a WAY.
http://example.com/ will auto-link a URL
Important Stuff
* Please try to keep posts on topic.
* Try to reply to other people's comments instead of starting new threads.
* Read other people's messages before posting your own to avoid simply duplicating what has already been said.
* Use a clear subject that describes what your message is about.
* Offtopic, Inflammatory, Inappropriate, Illegal, or Offensive comments might be moderated. (You can read everything, even moderated posts, by adjusting your threshold on the User Preferences Page)
Problems regarding accounts or comment posting should be sent to CowboyNeal.
But then I realized he was arguing for government intervention, or less government intervention, or both. I sort of stopped paying attention at that point. Government regulation has such a warping effect on markets that his statement, which most people here should see as ludicrous in a normal context, actually makes sense.
Also:
Only in Canada would a hockey analogy be helpful in explaining the concept of using the government to go unprofitable back to profitable!
When is our government going to figure out that what is best for big business is not necessarily best for THE PEOPLE OF THEIR COUNTRY!
If safety was left to the "market" cars would not have air-bags, seat-belts, crumple zones, and average fuel economy would be around 9 MPG.
It's time the US government started treating all communications (data, voice, broadcast) like roads. Make them a vital part of our infrastructure and let private companies compete to provide services to the public. (Just like private companies compete to build and maintain the roads).
I'm not usually an Eminent Domain supporter, but I would support taking the physical network monopoly from companies that have abandoned their stewardship of these networks.
Some people might not like the road analogy, but in a world where I have the choice of one broadband provider and one cable company (that raises its rates monthly) I'm not happy. I'm tired of the crappy customer service and price gouging.
I've been a free market guy my whole life, but what we have right now is not a free market.
-ted
That's what I wonder as well. You'd think it should mean 4 years at 25% greater cost while they upgrade the infrastructure. After the upgrades are done, does it take a lot more electricity to run it, or cost that much more for the the extra writeable dvd's for backups?
No, the consumer does not matter!
HD isn't about the consumer. It's about profiteering on the backs of the consumer.
HD represents the interests of the media companies.
HD represents the interests of the electronics companies - albeit to a lesser extent.
But it does not represent the interests of the consumer. It was specifically designed to leave the consumer out in the cold:
With the exception of the resolution, 20 years ago a tv with a vcr was more enjoyable and offered more features than will be present in even the highest end HD systems. And it cost less in terms of real dollars.
No, HD isn't for the consumer; it's for the electronics and movie industries. And it's lack of adoption isn't a technical problem; it's a social problem. People want new features, not restrictions.
The society for a thought-free internet welcomes you.
Never seen a compression artifact have you?
The transmission media has nothing to do with compression artifacts.
Or higher error rates on an ethernet segment?
I've never seen any where the network was set up competently, no. A $5 HDMI cable would have to be really crappy to not have a 0% error rate between two systems that are only a few feet apart.
Am I the only one who would rather have higher quality content than a higher quality picture? Other than sports, I'm really not interested in paying a premium so I can watch the same crap except now I get to see all the facial blemishes of the talent.
You want to know who isn't running Firefox 2.x? They spell it "definately" and "rediculous".
Here in the USA, most (all?) cable providers that provide HD locals provide them in the clear, and any tuner that supports QAM can decode them (many new TVs, probably the TiVo Series 3, some PCI/USB tuners). There's no need for paying for digital cable if you want the locals in high definition and have the proper equipment.
Of course, digital cable will get you more HD channels.
I have noticed an increase in ads in HD in the past month or so. At one point it was common to see a few during an hour of prime time programming; now I see a few every break. I used to be able to know when to hit play on the DVR when the picture filled up the entire screen again. I specifically remember Chase, American Express, and Best Buy commercials in HD.
FOX network promos are usually in HD here, as are the FOX affiliate's newscasts.
Show me a major network that refuses to broadcast in HD and I will show you a network that will be irrelevant in 5 years.
Yes those add to cost, as well as HD qualified production gear. Although apple has come out with some decent HD production gear and a shop can get in buisness for $20k(for the editor) then at least $10k for a decent HD camera. Not that those costs are giant, but depending on where they are in their upgrade cycle it can really hurt the bottom line. In addition to that and what you brought up there is the matter of the additional man hours to make the content look good, as in you can get away with some shots and edits in SD that you just can't in HD. So my point is, depending on the shop 25% more is not that unreasonable.
-----------
spelling and grammar errors are intentional
Those who can, do.
An improved technology isn't going to take off unless the _average_ consumer, buying _average_ equipment, and setting it up without special expertise, gets results that are so dramatic that everyone who sees it says "Wow!"
Color TV was that way, even with all the problems initially. Circa 1960, color TVs were fabulously expensive, persnickety, tricky to set up, had to be set up again if you moved them to a different location within the house, were tricky to tune, tended to shift color from one program to another, etc. But if you had a friend who was rich enough to afford one, you took one look at it and you said "Wow! I wannit I wannit I wannit!" So what if Dinah Shore's face changed from greenish to magentaish as she walked across the stage?
Of course, it didn't really take off until prices came down and they had solid-state circuits that didn't drift and could fudge the colors a bit so that anything close to flesh was displayed as flesh...
Technologies that are only impressive under good conditions usually fail. Right now, that's the state HDTV is in.
"How to Do Nothing," kids activities, back in print!
Dinosaur marketing executives claim there is "no business model" in climbing out of the la brea tar pits.
Right. Let's see how long they survive without HDTV... Advertisers pay per eyeball, not depending on the medium. Getting enough eyeballs is up to the broadcaster. Presumably HDTV helps with that at some point.
Expecting advertisers to *pay extra* for HDTV commercials is a little like expecting customers to pay full price for copies they don't own... Oh wait I guess this'll fly after all. Hello DMCA and further regulation. Goodbye competition.
Why would anyone produce HDTV content if there are no sets?
Why would anyone buy an HDTV if there was no content?
Someone has to get the ball rolling.
And yes, I realize it's not a given that anyone *should* get the ball rolling.
-J
Agreed. when you want to run 20'-100' HDMI cable spend the big bucks on good HDMI cable. Otherwise? Save your money. If you want to spend it, buy a better receiver. Even when it comes to speaker cable, don't waste your money on monster cable. Buy generic OFC in bulk and make your own since you probably can't even measure let alone hear any difference.
The Christian Right is Neither (Christian nor right). See: Matthew 23, Matthew 25, Ezekiel 16:48-50
Of course it's bad for broaddcasters. It's a disruptive technology... their heavy investments in NTSC cameras, editing suites and broadcast equipment is now obsolete, and it will cost a 25% premium over NTSC to upgrade to the new stuff. The competition for ad dollars is fiercer than it has ever been, with literally hundreds of channels... and advertisers are unlikely to shell out a 25% premium to advertise on HDTV broadcasts when they can use that money to buy a couple of slots on Animal Planet at 2:00am.
That said, this is the price to pay to stay in the industry. If you don't shell out the money for HDTV content, no-one is going to watch your content when everything else is in hi-def, which means that you won't make as much on advertising as you do now... so you either take the 25% hit at the leading edge, or you take a 25% (or more) hit later on when your service is devalued because you don't got it, and then you take another 25% hit when you scramble to catch up.
Invest now, or pay in red ink later.
This comes up in IT all the time... new technology is expensive, but you're putting yourself at a competitive disadvantage sticking with the tried and true when the competition is giving customers more service in less time with the expensive new thing. Some new tech is just hype, but when the real deal comes along, you had better be able to identify it and jump onboard... playing catchup is a great way to lose marketshare and piss away your profits upgrading in panic-mode.
Whining at the government is seldom a winning strategy, especially when the momentum is as strong as it is internationally.
~ SoupIsGood Food
SoupIsGood Food
Back in my day, we watched the fuzzy channels; ya know what? We were damned happy with the fuzzy channels!
HD is happening, and the adoption rate both for consumers, content creators, and broadcasters is accelerating. I have seen MUCH acceleration in 2006, and I think 2007 will be the year HD really takes command of the market. Let me put it this way -- perhaps the SUITS at broadcast organizations can't find a case for HD. But I will tell you this -- the engineers, editors, etc. are VERY MUCH ready for HD, and know it is happening, and there's no looking back. This isn't really up for debate, it's the fact of the matter.
What I find a little strange about this guy's comments is that he's basically trying to justify keeping a 50-year-old broadcast standard, well into the 21st century. Let's think about that for a moment -- what would have happened if the computer industry had decided to stay with, say, the standards that were in place for computing in the 1950s, through today. Yeeeaaaah... As bizarre as this scenario sounds, this is the reality that the broadcast market has perpetuated for the last 50 years or so. I would think that consumers would be demanding a much quicker adoption of HD! Oh, so you need to buy a new TeeVee set? Me cry you a river. That's like saying I should be forced to use a building-sized supercomputer that runs on punchcards to handle basic arithmetic problems, just because you don't feel you should need to upgrade your computer. But it's even more ridiculous than that, because we tolerate "needing" to buy a new computer every 5 years or so, but sheesh, needing to upgrade your TV once per fifty years? IT'S A TRAVESTY!
And on another note -- if those idiots can't command higher ad rates for HD advertisements, well, please fire them and hire me to do your HD advertising sales, because your current ad sales team SUCKS and is not worth what you're paying them. I am pretty certain I could do a better job myself. And I'm not just throwing that out there -- again, I make my living largely "selling" video content producers on HD.
Finally, another interesting debate/issue concerns the video/post/broadcast world's move to tapeless workflows, where you are essentially recording video _files_ right onto flash RAM/hard drives/optical discs/SANs/etc. And video tapes go the way of the dodo. This is another HUGE shift in the broadcast market, which is only recently incorporating "IT technologies" into the systems that drive broadcast facilities. A lot of broadcasters are going to go for "two for the price of one" -- let's go tapeless, and let's make sure our upgrades are HD-capable at least.
OK OK, one laaast point -- anyone who doesn't feel HD is a worthwhile upgrade SERIOUSLY needs to get their eyes checked. I recommend doing an A/B comparison between SD and HD, of the same content. HD is only truly profound when you _go back_ to SD, and you ask yourself, how the hell did I deal with this shit for so long? BRING ON MORE HD!!!
unless I already know there's something I want to watch on a SD channel (BSG on Sci-Fi, for example). So, I only really find new shows that are broadcast on the HD channels. Some of these are network, ad supported channels. So, HD is definitely a draw for this consumer...
There exists no way of exchanging information without making judgments. --Bene Gesserit Axiom
HDTV is currently experiencing the same growing pains as color TV. Chiefly price. Unless you have a well secured job and have been socking away money for several rainy days, and have stellar credit, it's unlikely you'll be willing to drop 1/2 to 1 month's wages on a set, even if it's to impress your friends.
It's when you see the most basic HDTV sets (eg; 20" or so, no fancy features short of one HDMI port) going for under $200, that you'll see an explosion of business for broadcasters.
There's precious little incentive to spend an additional $100 for an digital enabled SDTV set either, because there isn't really any point to having it right now. That, however, may be the only way to get the business model underway, since we won't really have any choice by the time the decade's out.
It's a pity they won't allow for further backwards compatability, which will make at least half the TV sets into landfill waste (don't worry, it'll be our kids, or our *insert random word* overlords' problem).
Just because you can mod me down, doesn't mean you're right. Shoes for industry!
depending on where they are in their upgrade cycle
Yeah, 'cause they, like, just dropped this HDTV thing on everybody all of a sudden. Now, if they'd had ten years to plan for it...oh, right.
One reason everyting is more expensive is because nobody had the balls to say "the new standard shall be X". No, inteead we got ATSC, which was a fucked up menagerie of resultions and broadcast styles. Had they simply picked 720p as the single, only standard, we'd have been far better off. What? You say that we would have been behind the times already, with 1080p already available in displays? I call bullshit - despite the royal cluster over the resolutions, they locked us into mpeg2, foregoing any extensibility in the codec. They should have just chosen a single format and made a hard deadline. By eeking it out over the years, the volume of productin (and viewing) equipment was so slow that the engineering never paid off - each year the (low volume of) current round of adopters footed a year-long engineering bill at all the HD equipment makers. It was possibly the worst, most expensive solution.
Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
It's not the HD programs that make the bizcase. What makes the bizcase are ever more giant TVs. Which need HD so they don't look crappy when you sit right in front of them. Which therefore need HD programs. Which advertisers will advertise on, because anyone living by the rule "do whatever your mother warned you never to do" is the ideal target market for any product.
Damn socialist Canadians, with their sanity. Their country needs bigger TVs, just to make it look full and warm it up. Where else are the black squirrels supposed to hide when American tourists and Japanese hunters come looking for them as the ice melts?
--
make install -not war
In Australia, the business case for HDTV was all too clear: The networks and other big businesses wanted to tie up the bandwidth. SDTV would have allowed room for many small 'indie' channels, and, even more damaging, widespread wireless broadband at very low cost. So they argued, and got, HDTV, which no one uses, and we are stuck with the muck that they serve up.
Prediction for end of Universe #42: Fencepost error in Quantum_bogosort.cpp
They don't want to change over their equipment. They haven't eaten the capital costs in transmitters-- where every broadcast station in the US has had to do so. ALL OF THEM HAVE changed over, with a handful of transulator and repeater sites.
EVERYONE in the US has already capitalized the costs of HD cameras, editing equipment, and the rest of the gear that they need.
Not about consumers, eh? Consumers wanted better rasters, and they got them with HD. ATSC tuners can discriminate more than 26 different video levels-- and many can be found for under US$600.
No-- this is about not wanting to do the asset costs. The CBC would LOVE to have a system similar to the UK where there's a tax on every TV, paid periodically, to help them survive and make their expensive productions.
HD has NOTHING to do with advertising-- that's a crappy sales force with a competitively weak product talking. PBS did it, and the CBC can, too.
---- Teach Peace. It's Cheaper Than War.
You want an impetus for HDTV? OK. Cable, satellite, and other vendors are now making money off HDTV channels and HDTV content delivered over the internet or on discs, and their customer bases can only grow.
If OTA broadcasters want to stop losing eyeballs, they'd better follow at some point. Now would be a good time.
It never took off. The Australian Government (and I use the term loosely) expects Australians to rush out and spend $$$ buying settop boxes all so they can see the same thing. Yes, there are extra digital channels, but they ALL SHOW THE SAME THING. LITERALLY! The government didn't want to upset Rupert Murdoch (FOXNews) who owns the cable network, so they woudln't let TV stations multitask. Add that to the hassle of video records not working, TV reconfiguration nightmares (I have to turn on the set top box, the VCR *and* the TV) to watch anything. People have stayed away in droves.
t o-embrace-digital-tv/2005/09/02/1125302722377.html
5 42.htm
And all for what? So, if you have a HDTV, you can watch HDTV movies full off adds, covered by a watermark and with banner commercials racing across.
Internet TV would have been a far better deal, but the Australian Government didn't want to upset Rupert on that either.
Australia is a total f##king joke. We lost it. Pathetic Nation. Yes, I am an Aussie.
http://www.theage.com.au/news/breaking/aust-slow-
Funny how the government broadcaster completely respins this story:
http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200611/s1795
(BTW the percentage is more like 23%)
I buy only the very best MONSTER Cat5 cable. Otherwise, my tubes go slow. =(
I bought one because I like the improved picture quality.
You forgot the longer render times.
If you don't know what AltaVista is (was), get off my lawn.
The problem is its "HD".... I am NOT GOING TO BUY a damn thing until its NO LONGER HD, but is the new standard-definition.
As long as they can keep using the two magic letters "HD", they will keep charging stupid idiots more just for those 2 letters.
When the ONLY TV's available are all HD, then I will replace my old 27"incher.
-- Given enough time and money, Microsoft will eventualy invent UNIX.
No, sir, the trouble isn't a "business case", the problem is the same as it was for 4mm audio tape. Digital restrictions, lack of desired content, inabillity to record in HD, and a high barrier of entry to make content others want to see for HD.
If you keep locking up HD, you'll continue to see a lack of adoption. It really is that simple.
Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves.
Another thing that I think that the TV industry is ignoring are the rapidly growing number of -zero- TV households. I didn't know anybody without a TV 10 years ago. Now, I don't know anybody who watches TV (broadcast, cable, or otherwise) except my parents. I know that that may be pretty unusual right now, but it was completely unheard of not too long ago. The slow uptake of HDTV in the US may have something to do with a silent but growing number of people who simply won't buy another TV again... ever.
HDTV is a classic case of chicken and egg. Without an installed base, the industry has no incentive to produce and broadcast HD content. Without content, on the other hand, there will be no installed base. You can't blame the broadcasters for following their financial incentives, any more than you can blame consumers for rejecting high priced HDTV hardware on which they had nothing to watch.
Fortunately, broadcasters, unlike consumers, are beholden to federal regulators and can be coerced. The FCC saw this chicken-and-egg problem coming and mandated terrestrial broadcast of HD content in the US. The Canadians should do the same. If you broadcast SD, you have to broadcast HD as well.
Anyway, none of this matters anymore. HDTV is finally a done deal. Between the US tuner mandate, HD capable enabled game consoles, and the price trajectory of LCD flat panels, consumer adoption of HDTV is unstoppable. Advertisers and broadcasters will be dragged along soon enough.
And how much did they spend to re-release star-wars in better (picture) quality? If content providers can re-new the same intrest in their existing content without having to re-spend for the producers, actors, or writers. Just cameras, and CGI time then their is a business case.
Also when I want to watch sports, and none of the channels are playing my favorite teams, I select the better HD content. So the channels/networks that don't catch up lose out.
Add in that most content was filmed in much better quality than broadcast TV (270 × 480) so simply allowing the content to make it to the consumer without significan't further loss is nice, even if it isn't true HD 1080p or even 720p, if it comes across that pipe, then its original content isn't as faded.
...they can make the fine print that much smaller!
One of these days, I'm going to cut you into little pieces.
A few stations and big networks tried that with Comcast. They instantly dropped the channels COUNTRY WIDE with a channel in place with text that said "**CHANNELNAME** is trying to charge you to watch their content and their commercials. call X-XXX-XXX-XXXX and let them know how you feel.
it lasted one day. Several local channels tried it 5 years ago and bent over instantly when they had their plug pulled with a warning message on the channel. Discovery tried it to comcast 3 years ago as well and gave up 2 days later.
CBC has no chance, if they start charging, they get dropped and then they wither away. Boo hoo that the studios have to upgrade their technology from 20 year old hardware and that the customers think they shouldn't pay more for it.
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
How about "remaining competitive" for a business case?
Nothing screams, "We're a monopoly" like pleas of "we can't give the customer what he wants!"
-Peter
Take the source into consideration: CBC is the publically-funded national broadcast network of Canada, and its ratings are the pits across the board. Its one cash cow (and only real HDTV-showoff program), Hockey Night in Canada, is rumoured to be headed to private networks CTV and TSN next season. Conservatives are in power federally, and consider the CBC an adversary. Add it all up, and the CBC is staring at a cash crunch in the near future. They won't have the money to upgrade much of their programming to HDTV, so they blow smoke to the regulator that there's no business case for it.
Well in the US we wouldn't have this happen thanks to the FCC who would label such things "obscene". In fact, they'd probably mandate a return to black and white color in order to fuzzy the details and relevant body organs/openings ;).
"The boy is dangerous, they all sense it, why can't you?"
Mr. Rabinovitch (no relation to me — Rabinovitch is the judeo-slavic equivalent of "Smith") is completely right. Problem is, it's much too late to be having this conversation. Right now we're halfway through the conversion from analog to digital TV. Backing out of this conversion is a non-starter: too many people have already spent too much money. And I'm not just talking about the hardware makers that are driving the process. I'm talking about all those broadcasters forced to spend money on digital transmitters. Imagine the political fallout if they're told "Hey, remember those expensive transmitters who said you have to buy? Never mind!"
Nor can we maintain the status quo. As long as broadcast TV is occupying both the analog and the digital frequencies, emergency responders are stuck with their current hodge-podge of comm frequencies. That's costing lives.
So even though it was a bad idea, digital TV is what we're stuck with. The good news for most of us is that most digital TV is and will probably continue to be Standard Definition. That allows broadcasters to carry four channels in the bandwidth allocated for one High Definition channel. So those of us who refuse to pay for cable will have more choices. Those of you who spent $5K for fancy boxes will have to settle for the odd football game.
From what I've heard from my family at least, there was a somewhat similar argument over color broadcasts when they first started appearing. Now, I realize that in such a situation, things were a much less severe change, but even so, try to look at it from this point of view: The better the image on the screen looks, the more likely it is to hold someone's attention. If that weren't the case, nobody would pay to clear up those 'fuzzy channels' at the end of the dial.
The metaphorical dial, of course. If your TV has a dial, you need to kill yourself. Preferably through starvation, from the debt of buying an HDTV.
"I wonder how long it'll take the sports ground owners to start sueing broadcasters for loss of revinue because you get a better view of the game at home than you do with 10x binoculars from front-row seats?"
The only people wondering that are the pasty guys glued to their TVs. Everyone else knows the difference between live and Memorex.
For most programming the director or whatever can presumably frame the shot so I can see what I need to see so apart from a bit of a wow factor increased resolution doesn't really bring much.
I think there is more value in sport though there is a lot more going on. I simultaneously want to be able to see a wide view of the pitch to follow play but also want to be able to make out who the players are and what they are doing. With SD you are generally too zoomed in to see much of the context or zoomed out till the players are largely indistinguishable from each other.
Boffoonery - downloadable Comedy Benefit for Bletchley Park
Actually there is a business case for it.
Only it has nothing to do with television, and everything to do with the FCC being able to auction off all the old television bandwidth to wireless carriers.
And yes, I do have that in writing.
"Learning is not compulsory... neither is survival."
--Dr.W.Edwards Deming
check this place out:
http://store.pchcables.com/hdmicables.html
10.85 for a 3 footer
and all the way up to 66 for a 50 footer
I can't believe that Canadians DON'T want the Stanley Cup or the Grey cup in HD. Then again, most of the NHL teams ae in the USA, so maybe they don't care.
The FCC didn't mandate HDTV. They mandated digital broadcasts. Digital does not imply HD.
The reason? Analog broadcast TV takes up a huge chunk of very desirable radio spectrum space. Digital broadcasts can transmit more data in a smaller frequency range.
No, and I'm glad you put it in those terms. For most stuff, there really is no requirement for higher quality picture quality. Hell, most people who download stuff from P2P are satisfied with crap quality: its what's *in* the video file that matters. I know that TV is not important enough for me to invest in better quality. If mine were to die tonight, I'd go out and buy the cheapest 27-30" CRT I could find. Nothing I watch (even stuff I enjoy immensely) is worth more than that to me. I'll bet that the vast majority of people feel the same way.
Just because sales of HD-ready televisions are "booming", doesn't mean that there is a particularly high percentage of penetration of the sets in North American households. Anyone got any stats?
Look at the tomato! Isn't it sad? He can't dance! Poor tomato!
"I make my living selling editing and post workstations (and associated systems, such as SANs). Many/most of the systems I sell are capable of handling HD content (mostly Apple Final Cut-based solutions), and many of my sales are into the broadcast space. So, I think I have a good sense of this stuff."
So were are the HD security cameras? I want to see the pores on that bank robber.
--
"Slashdot requires you to wait "23 minutes" between each successful posting of a comment to allow everyone a fair chance at posting a comment."
Yeah because we all know some paying customer is being denied the right to say the same thing I am.
Advertisers can already zero in to a specific audience regionally, but wouldn't the adoption of HDTV allow them to further segregate their audiences based on wealth? (Very poor won't be able to afford HDTV in early years)
so his argument is that it's not their job as a broadcaster to give the public what they want? that advanced technology is bad because it's cost right now is more? i can assure you that if one broadcaster has better signal/image quality then another, i'll be watching the high quality one. that's what drives his advertising dollars.
If you mod me down, I will become more powerful than you can imagine....
Unlike the FCC which mandated digital tuners and HD-capable sets (even if they downscale to SD resolutions), Industry Canada/CRTC has NOT mandated any such change. Their attitude is "let the market decide" which is going to leave Canada behind in terms of technology advancement for televisions. The CBC itself is a government-run organization without a clear mandate for the future. Sure, production costs are more costly for HD programming, but welcome to 2006. Every asshole with a DV camcorder won't be giving you all your programming any more, and they're moving on to HDV, HDCAM and the like. To top that off, you won't be able to buy a standard definition analog-only TV in the stores in just a few short years, but who cares when your fearless leaders don't push for technology advancement? It's another case of the fish rotting from the head down.
Wasn't London like season 4 or 5? They're making Season 12 of the Real World. Good lord, where will it be next? Helena MT?
I recently bought a projector that took HDMI, that is when I startedlooking for HDMI cables. Turns out the cheapest HDMI cable 3ft is for 30$-40$. if u want anything longer, your are looking at 100$ plus.
Researching more I discovered that reason for this is the specs, strangly yes, the specs. An article I read says the HDMI spec (an off shoot of DVI) was designed by computer engnineers and not video engineers. HDMI uses 4 twisted pair with no error correction (unlike TCP/IP) to send real time data and has a huge bandwidth requirements (HDTV). if they were video engineers they would have choosen coaxial. Anyhow, due to this, there are complications in the manufacturing of HDMI cables and achieving 100 ohm impedence is a big issue on these twisted pair cables. In fact for this reason true HDMI cables of any length more than 30ft are unheard of. anything larger and you have to get HDMI to optical converter on both src/dest. A costly affair.
I don't ever watch television but was at a friend's house to check out his new TV and he was showing me a show on an HD channel. What struck me was that when an ad came on, it was stunningly more vibrant and sharp than the "HD" program that we had just been viewing. With how lazy channels seem to be about the quality of their HD programming, it seems like a golden time for advertisers to make their products stand out even with the mute button on.
Idiots. The change to HDTV has nothing to do with being able to charge more for ads. The reason the industry is (already) changing to HDTV is because the analog TV broadcaast system will be turned off in a few years (at least in the US and Europe) because there are better uses for all that bandwidth. HDTV/EDTV/SDTV doesn't matter, as long as it's digital. Once you have digital TV, you have HDTV capability, so you might as well use it...
Socialist propaganda costs 25% more to produce in high definition. Seriously I used to love the CBC but a decade ago they turned to crap.
If you live in the Boston area I strongly recommend this store: You-Do-It, Needham MA
It is by the juice of the coffee bean that thoughts acquire speed, the teeth acquire stains. The stains become a warning
I bet the same argument was made back when color TV was the new thing. Since the station can't demand any more for this service, and it just becomes the new standard, they'll need to be dragged kicking and screaming.
In the U.S. a common side effect of this issue is the proliferation of sub-channels. The TV stations add an SD channel (weather channel, music channel, or general programming) alongside the main HD channel. This way, they can milk more advertising money. This subchannel takes away from the available bandwidth, effecting the video quality of the HD program (especially for sports programs).
Our plain old (Australian) free-to-air TV blew up a few weeks back, and the cost of repair (with 3 month warranty) was close to the cost of new identical TV (with 2 year warranty). We toyed with the idea of a HDTV, but the repair guy advised us to wait a few years because they still haven't worked out the Australian standard, and we'd risk buying an expensive boat-anchor.
After a year of OTA HDTV (free after buying the stuff), I have a real problem. Most SD TV sucks (technical quality). The lack of quality is from end to end. Cable company with 20 year old line amps ? Set with poor convergence ? Questionable color palette ? (NTSC =never the same color twice). How about dot crawl...at any part of the system, will infest all parts of the system. I've three sets...one HDTV, one "best of the last" SD set, and one crappy 20 inch cheapo set. Each is fed by a digital box. Even downconverted to 480i and fed by component in the case of the good SD set, or fed to an RF modulator and sent by channel 3 into the junk set, there is a drastic difference using the digital signal-it gives you a DVD quality picture on the SD set-way better than even a strong analog signal. Studios and actors are used to using the blur of SD to cover faults. HDTV allows less fudging. After seeing it all digital, you see when the station is using crappy source. Good SD is very good-some of my local news stations have a clean SD feed. Most SD is not. SD lasted a long time. HDTV won't be as complex as some here wish, but it's TV, not a computer. While the various **AA asswipes are trying to lock it down, they will eventually lose- When I visit my inlaws, who have two quality SD sets fed by a state of the 70's art analog cable system, I can't watch TV. While there are teething pains now, HDTV is coming down in price. Now, about the fact that half of the HD sets don't have an HD signal, where is the "raise an antenna" PSA's ? You don't need to give the cable/sat company $90 per month for this.
I try to watch live HD broadcasts of sporting events. Football being the primary. I try and give up with the hideous quality. I'd rather watch a regular broadcast. The image artifacts remaining post co-dec are just awful. Stills are great, but moving grass is just ugly. Watching the little green squares move across the screen is just too distracting.
Maybe, when this is finally fixed, I might want HD. But until then, regular broadcasts are still better.
I'd think there are less DVRs (and more pricey) that can handle HD recording so there are correspondingly less 'fast-forwards' through commercials... how's that for advertising?
This is a sig. It is like every other sig in the world, except that it is mine, and it is different.
"Wait for it to power on?? Why would you turn it off? I don't turn off any of my computers around the house....."
Apparently you don't have power failures, nor a resume at point left off.
Once upon a time, TV was in black and white. Color TV's were a rareity. We had a 12" B/W set, and only got a 15" color set (with manual dials to tune the VHF and UHF) sometime about 1969...
... but what do I know about Canada... or business in general... it's not like I have an MBA or something... oh wait...
Back then, advertisers weren't willing to pay a premium for advertising on color shows. Filming in color required new cameras, and eventually a new tape deck (although lots of stuff was still live even then).
The move to stereo programming also required higher costs, but was likewise not something advertisers would pay extra for.
Now here we are at the dawn of a new century and those pesky advertisers won't finance the upgrade to HD with all the attendant upgrades of resolution, cameras, recorders, and transmitters...
Tough shit I say. The whole world is moving toward HD whether we want to or not - governments are forcing it upon us. So eventually *everyone* will have a TV or flat panel, or tuner capable of HD. The old analog bandwidth will be reused for something (probably wideband wireless), and they're going to have to buy the new stuff anyway.
This hasn't been an overnight change in *ANY* country. Every broadcaster in every country involved in the transition to one of the HD formats KNEW it was coming. They all had input into when the transition would take place, what they had to support, etc... So this whiney crying bullshit about the cost is just a way for them to try and get some support out of some government at OUR expense.
And I call exactly that - BULLSHIT. The broadcasters get to use the airwaves in exchange for providing programming to the public free of charge (well, except maybe the UK where they charge for a license... but I don't think they have advertisers). If that means that you're making less money for a while, then hey - that's what's gonna happen. TV isn't a finite resource, so it's not like you're going to run out.
What they ought to do is to entice the advertisers into paying extra through some means if they really do need the money... Shame always works well. Simply put out the HD programming which looks KICK ASS, and then surround it with regular non-HD advertisements (and tag them as such in the corner so that the viewer knows why the picture went to shit).... After a few emails and calls from users saying "Hey Mr. Advertiser, your picture looks like crap... and you want me to buy your car?! HA!" - they'll move with the program...
I for one can't wait to have my TV filled up with HD MPEG2 artifacts instead of this clean SD crap!
1. Zoom out ;D
2. Plugins->Filter->Soften
"All you have to do is be fragile and grateful. So stay the underdog." Chuck Palahniuk, Choke
Why do you you think they keep trying to extend the duration and breadth of copyright? They steal our culture and sell it back to us, one sound bite at a time.
I've never seen any where the network was set up competently, no.
How do you know the HDMI cable was made with any competence? For 5 bucks, I wouldn't expect that the manufacturer is spending a lot of time on quality controls.
Then if the cable doesn't work you'll only be out $5. But mostly likely it does work. Heck, if it only lasts you a year it would take 10 years or more to get to the price of more expensive cables.
I'm surprised this isn't discussed more on slashdot. As you know, one of the big beefs the MPAA & friends have with "those consumer assholes" is that we still have analog means to receive signals, copy them or otherwise use them as we wish. Digital TV - encoded broadcast signals - are really what the media companies are itching to see, because of the obvious protective measures and lockdown that the DMCA will provide.
... (drumroll) analog TV is good enough.
There is no real interest in furthering technology here. The marketing hype for HDTV is to try and reduce the hurdle to finally eliminating analog TV. They want a critical mass of people to go digital, so it finally * would * be feasible to eliminate analog TV and only send TV in digital, encoded, DMCA and broadcast flag-protected format.
Face it, the average person doesn't notice the higher res of HDTV. Evidence? Many people buy HDTVs without the HDTV signal needed for higher res. They just don't notice what's missing, because
And this article indicates HDTV isn't that meaningful from a business perspective either. The real push behind this is the media industry
I think you were looking in the wrong places: http://www.monoprice.com/products/subdepartment.a
Only if you shop at best buy where even a mini audio to stereo RCA costs $25-$30. Froogle, ebay etc you can get 6ft for $20 and that is without even putting in a minimal effort.
Trivial items placed on a shelf may seem, well... trivial. But, it works on the same principles as traditional advertising - commercials, magazine ads, etc.
The point is never to rationally convince you that product X is better than Y and will save you money. It's to try to associate product X with a "good" feeling, in hopes that your brain will recall that feeling when seeing the product on a store shelf. They're training your brain. Stimulus, response, stimulus, response...
So, if you see a product on a shelf in a movie your mind may (or may not) associate that product with the movie. See it again at a store, recall what an incredibly awesome movie it was (you wouldn't spend $8.75 for gummy popcorn if it wasn't, right?) and fall prey to the impulse subliminally burned into your synapses.
DATABASE WOW WOW
I really prefer SDTV, the colors have that "warm" feel to them that you just don't get with HDTV. Hell I haven't even upgraded to s-video, strictly good-ole RCA connections for me. I'll die before I let our HDCP-enabled overlords upgrade my TV!
Honestly, for every one of folks like you worrying about the price of HDMI cables, there's a thousand other folks like me who just want to see tonight's episode of Jeopardy, preferably in color.
http://twitter.com/OLDTELEGRAM
Here's your business case: ADAPT OR DIE, BITCHES!!
The fact is people are buying HDTVs in huge numbers and increasingly are demanding HD content.
After getting a 50" LCD RP HDTV 2 years ago, I find that about 40-50% of the content I watch now is HD, while less than 5% of the channels I get are HD. So if you want to either sell TV service or advertise products to people like me, you'd better get used to dealing with HDTV, producing HD content, selling advertising on HD channels and so on.
I don't necessarily mind that telcom and cable providers recuperate costs on equipment purchases. The way I see it though, there are every couple of months or years, price increases on major telco/cable/satellite provider's bills. In Canada these are regulated by the CRTC. I'm sure US customers have similar problems with bill prices going up anyways. The point is that when there is a cost increase they keep the prices at the same levels for some period of time. We don't usually get a downwards price adjustment as their cost decreases or once the investment is paid off. Yes, these are for-profit companies.
At some point, its not going to cost them anything more to provide HDTV service. Equipment will need replacing and you might only be able to buy HDTV broadcast equipment at some point anyways.
Offtopic:
All things being equal though, I am getting rid of cable. I only watch about 2 or 3 shows - max per week. Nothing else compels me and I don't have the time. I wait for the DVD box set and then rent, buy or borrow it. Ends up costing less than cable anyhow. I know too that if this keeps up with more people, we might see less shows.
If I say whinge, kit, and aboot all in one sentence, will I sound like I am from Canadia too, eh?
Having worked at one of their call centers I had a hard time (ethically) trying to sell this package. DirecTV is well behind the HD revolution and yet charges an assload for their meager offerings.
"Some fight for law. Some fight for justice. What will you fight for? One day, you will see."
555s are cheap as chips, though
--- Do you believe in the day?
the happy fun bits...
I just can't see why I would want to view bad TV in higher definition. It makes sense to have more pixels to cover a bigger screen, but I don't really want a bigger screen either, unless my eyesight would deteriorate.
Excuse me, but please get off my Pennisetum Clandestinum, eh!
I thought that advertisers paid money based on the audience watching the program. If HDTV's cost way more money than traditional televisions, wouldn't it probably also be the case that the people viewing programs on HDTV's have more money, or are at least are more willing to part with their money? I think with a little market research these idiot executives could make the case for higher priced advertising on HD. Then there is the console war. Now if I was trying to sell a $600 console with 1080P functionality in a competitive market, I would love to pay a little extra money to know that every single person who is viewing my commercial has an HDTV. In the biz, they call that an "advantage" and believe it or not, it is worth something. Another reason they would probably prefer HD commercials is that showing HD game trailers on a standard TV is going to look positively last generation. The moral of the story is that business models are built, they don't just appear out of nowhere. You can't just demand more money, and then complain that you have no business model when people don't pay you. They have a captive audience full of people who like to spend money on new products and they can't get any more money out of these companies? Give me a break.
Any fragment of imaginary and/or entertainement work, political, and religion in any form and media : book, music, tv show, film, games (p&p, board, computer & console) is a fragment of our culture and of the Zeit-Geist, whether of good or bad quality by your own personal feeling. This is roughly the only way you live your culture, or at least what is left of it for the next generation. How else do youn want to live it in ? Talk with friends ? That aren't culture per see. Go out of visit the world ? Ain't it either.
And like the gp said, this is where the steal of our culture kick in : all those piece of CULTURE, were supposed to come back to us the PUBLIC after we the public granted them a TEMPORARY monopoly on selling their stuff. Alas for anything done during your lifetime now, it will never come back during your life time as public domain, and maybe not even to your children, to your grand children. Thus a stealing organized by lobyying. The fact that it was m,ade into a law doesn't change the fact that only 1 stackholder was involved and the other stackholder (the public) was taken its goody gainst its will. In my culture we call that stealing.
C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
visit randi.org
*I* as a consummer have difficulty to see a real improvement on SD when seen side by side in REAL condition. By that I mean in a room with an average lightning from a viewing distance superior to 6 feet, with the identical program filmed in HD, left side HDTV right side SD. FACT IS, in real condition with a moving image you do not see squat if you look at the whole image and not at the detail. Sure if you look at stills you will see differences. If you look near, you will see differences. But in normal viewing distance with attention at the ACTION on what happens to whatever show you look at : the detail will be not taken in by your brain. So I certainly will not be buying something for a few k$ jsut to have a slight difference in resolution, that I will not even pay attention to anyway.
Quote"anyone who doesn't feel HD is a worthwhile upgrade SERIOUSLY needs to get their eyes checked". No. You have it backwaqrd. Anybody paying attention to the definition instead of the action of the show, is probably a salesman or a first-accepter of technology.
C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
visit randi.org
its also about multiplexing DIGITAL signals, you can send multiple regular def channnles in the regular bandwidth of 1 HighDef...
3 extra channles in one station = 3 times as much comercials, which means a 300% gain in income over a 25% increase in price.
This was the orignal reason why they were pushing digital as standard here in us, not for high def channles, but for mroe efficent use of bandwidth.
"Infecting minds with my own memetic virus, one post at a time." Ultimape
He had to provide gap-free radio coverage on a factory floor full of large metal objects that cast RF shadows. The usual answer is the RF equivalent of indirect lighting. Instead of single antennas or groups of antennas, you use Radiax, coax with expensively engineered precision leakage from the shielding. You loop that around the ceiling, and then the whole factory floor is bathed in RF.
Radiax was a bit spendy for the project so he went to Radio Shack and got a spool of their regular coax. It did the job fine.
You mean this $7.69 HDMI cable cannot exist? And that this 16 foot HDMI cable for $29.99 is a figment of my imagination??? Eghads! How in the world was I ever able to get a usable signal from my home theater?
Perhaps that's because you should have spent more time researching, or at least talking to a real expert, and not the pimply-faced sales droid at your local electronics store who will spin more lies in pursuit of that 75% premium cable profit margin than a politician chasing re-election.
And, by the way, comparing HDMI to TCP/IP is like comparing Apples to Stainless Steel Cookware. And TCP/IP does not demand error correction (UDP is best effort). But TCP/IP does run over Ethernet or Token-Ring, either of which can run over 100-Ohm UTP. In fact, TCP/IP over GB-Ethernet on 4-pair 100-Ohm UTP has sufficient bandwidth to carry multiple real-time HDTV feeds up to 100 meters.
Finally, there is nothing magical about making 100 Ohm UTP cable. It's been around for dozens of years and is the most common specification. It is certainly MUCH SUPERIOR FOR CARRYING DIGITAL SIGNALS compared to coaxial cable, which attenuates and degrades the digital waveforms over distance due to its inherent capacitance characteristics.
I will concur that HDMI cables longer than 30 feet are unheard of, and that this is because of the specification. Every network standard has distance limitations. It's a trade-off between performance, convenience and cost. In defense of the standards team I can only say that most people tend to put their TV and tuner/dvd/etc on the same side of their house. Sort of like putting the oven in the kitchen with the fridge. But I'm kind of conservative that way.
--- A man with a briefcase can steal more money, than any man with a gun. [Don Henley]
>It's not an early adopter device any more, but it hasn't even come close to reaching critical mass in the general populace yet.
There's a marketing book that's worth reading, and it's about this exact situation. Products do not move smoothly from early adopters to early majority. There's a pit in between the two that many products fall into.
The book, "Crossing the Chasm", explains that you have to make the transition to your new product as smooth and slick as teflon on teflon, or normal people will never generate good word of mouth. An example of a brilliant success at this is the Toyota Prius, which spends a significant amount of software simulating the artifacts of a 20th-century car, just to allow buyers to slide right into it without an adjustment.
If the HD industry were poised for success you'd see plug-and-play installations that didn't require setup by a consultant, no obstructive DRM, and standardized cabling.
Heres the problem with HDTV : I've got to buy £500+ set to show something with 1080 lines ? Why can I just buy a SkyHD box and plug it into that monitor here that does 1080 lines and costs much less ? I KNOW it costs less than £500 for a HD screen because I've been using them for over 10 years. I'd bet a £500 set is £200 set with a £300 profit.
Television isn't what's driving HDTV adoption. Not mainstream TV, anyway. The two things that are really pushing its growth in the market are sports and gaming. Sports, I don't quite get (hey, I read Slashdot), but I don't know anyone who'd have considered getting one before they got a next-gen console. Now I've got friends drooling over the fact that their shiny 360 games don't look look like blurry pieces of crap. Some haven't bothered hooking it up to a TV tuner yet.
"Knowledge is power. Power corrupts. Study hard. Take over the world."
"Rabinovitch proposes that the CBC start charging cable and satellite companies to carry their signal, and to limit over-the-air transmission".
My advice: Jews, if you wish so many people stop hating you, please stop being so hell-bent on money first.
With the purchase of a DSL subscription, I stopped watching TV already, except for the sport shows. DSL affords me to watch the shows I want when I want it, in the format of my preference. Too bad companies do not see the business case here. I would definitely pay a subscription that allowed me to download my favorite shows on the PC, in top quality format.
On the other hand, I watch sports events on television, live, as there is no point in watching important football and basketball games when you know the result. And HDTV is important in this case: you can watch action in a much clearer way, getting to see the important details which are lost in the traditional lowres TV signal...
Video engineers vs Networking
Erm its a digital signal so going to Network enginners is a good idea the latests draft standard is 10g with a 100M range on twisted pair
Not sure your anlogy with TCP/IP makes sense TCP/IP is layer 3 Ethernet is layer two and only has error detection.
Also HDTV broadcasts are more like UDP
You will never get to heaven with an Ak 47... But A Zu 30 is good for Low Flying Cherubim
...and that's the way the cookie crumbles.
Consumers pay extra for it, and stop watching as much SD content, so stop watching the ads being shown on those broadcasts...
Pretty simple business model if you ask me. Similar to DVD and VHS. VHS works... why change? Because it's older messier technology that consumers don't want anymore.
That's odd, because just yesterday my local HARDWARE store had a bubble wrapped HDMI cable for about $10 right next to the 14ft network cables. Same aisle as the mousetraps -- other end.
***I discovered that reason for this is the specs, strangly yes, the specs. An article I read says the HDMI spec (an off shoot of DVI) was designed by computer engnineers and not video engineers. HDMI uses 4 twisted pair with no error correction (unlike TCP/IP) to send real time data and has a huge bandwidth requirements (HDTV). if they were video engineers they would have choosen coaxial.***
If coax were as good at carrying digital signals as UTP, your house and workplace would probably be wired with some sort of super thin-net (RG58) coax, not CAT-5E UTP. I doubt anyone who has worked with both prefers pulling UTP and crimping #$%&!% RJ-45 connectors to pulling coax and crimping BNCs.
You can't see ANYTHING from a car, You've got to get out of the goddamned contraption and walk...Edward Abbey
They have great quality cables for unbelievable prices. By quality I mean one of my friends got a cable that was shielded against pinching and crushing with a mesh-like covering. I have had only good experiences with them and so have two of my friends that I recommended them to. If you order what is in stock, delivery is fast too. Plus they have one of only a handful of hdmi switches that works correctly and the price on it is better than most.
Hockey Puck
As a kid, I had a Radio Shack Battery Club card that entitled me to one free battery a month. Of course, it was a useless carbon battery, but it kept my flashlight going.
Support Right To Repair Legislation.
I'm one of those poor bastards whose livelihood depends on traditional television. There is, now, more than ever an overlap between Network Engineering and Broadcast Engineering, but they are still not identical, and the increase of overlap will never be complete. It just so happens that by training, I'm both kinds of engineer - a happy accident rather than foresight on my part. The broadcast world is seeing this increasing gap: Broadcast engineers who can't/won't/don't want to be network engineers and just don't get 'data'. For the most part, these Broadcasters know what they don't know. On the other side you have network engineers who just don't get the peculiarities of broadcasting. Many of these network engineers have no clue about what they don't know and will argue with you at length about 'the way it's supposed to work'. It's not a matter of incompetence so much as conflicting and disparate disciplines. What works in IT doesn't necessarily work in Broadcasting and vice versa. Boot times are a good example. A server that will boot in 60 seconds is pretty phenomenal. In broadcasting, 60 seconds of black or bars is an eternity and can cost several thousands of dollars in revenue. When that server that takes 60 seconds to boot is responsible for spot playout you've got a potential issue. (I only wish I had a play out server that would boot in 60 seconds - for me, it's more like 5 to 10 minutes) Earlier this year, my station added a second, digital only, automation only channel. The entire play out server with storage took up only 4 RU - prett impressive really. During installation, I asked the manufacturer's rep where the monitor output was. He assumed I meant the VGA monitor. I explained to him that I was well aware of what a VGA output was and what I really meant - a parallel of the program output. It turned out there wasn't one. His advice was that I just loop the program output through a monitor, and I could never get him to understand why that was a really bad idea. He even argued with me that such things didn't exist, at least until I showed him the back plane of every other piece of broadcast gear in the plant.
Since I am no video expert and no I don't talk to sales people at bestbuy, here is the article I was talking about.
e r-with-hdmi.htm
:)
http://bluejeanscable.com/articles/whats-the-matt
Educate
this is the point at which both scales read the same value for the same real temperature
Rather than increase fees for HD content, why not just change the revenue model. Given that many are no longer watching commercials due to the infamous TiVO and other PVR-like boxes, put the product into the shows. Let House have a can of Coke every so often, drive some Starbucks into Grey's Anatomy. I'm already seeing Nikon cameras on CSI. There are lots of opportunities for major sponsorships, and the audience is indeed captive while the show is on.
The very reason why cable television exists is because broadcasters found no business case for improving broadcast quality in rural areas. Hence, companies formed CATV - Community Antenna Television to improve picture quality in rural/mountainous areas (thank you Pennsylvania). Now, their lack of a business case gives us much greater variety and better programming that what broadcast offers.
Hopefully US broadcasters aren't stupid enough to cry foul or try to milk cable for more money. After all, they did receive free spectrum from the FCC, unlike the cell phone companies who had to pay big dollars to buy their piece of the sky at auction prices in order to provide us with phone service.
Perhaps that's because you should have spent more time researching
But isn't that part of the problem? That people need to do actual honest-to-God research just to buy a freaking cable, at least without getting completely ripped off? The only research I had to do to get a good deal the last time I bought a DVD player was about 90 seconds of browsing the options in the store.
Most people do not understand digital transmission, and will not know who to believe about this. Most people are not willing to do research on something this small. HDTV is Not There Yet for most consumers.
I am the man with no sig!
WiFi is EM waves, which don't require air to propagate. You need Monster(TM) Ether.
Look, a lot of people have an HDTV (except for myself, I do not own a TV, haven't for years). If the broadcasters don't pony up the dough to switch out their gear for a good signal, people will simply stop watching their crappy broadcast. Period. Those smaller productions who complain that they can't afford it will have a much harder time paying the bills because they have to compete with ABC/NBC/HBO/ESPN in HD.
dvd has other distinct advantages, the "not having to rewind" feature is one of the largest. Another would be the "i'm small and you can stack me easily." Another would be, "you can edit your own home movies on a computer and burn multiple copies of your kids onto a dvd."
The quality change is important in the dvd/vhs argument, but it's not the only improvement.
HDTV will become important when the average person cares. Right now it's only seen as a selling tool for the electronics sales person. Sure you can get HD content, but in most cases people watch SD.
Why read the article when I can just make up a snap judgement?
The problem is your dealing with sales guys. The margin on high-end systems is much better so they try and sell you that.
If you want really high uptime go with several cheep redundant systems. At less than 3k a pop you could have a low end server with ~2TB of disk space (5 x 500 GB disks in a raid 5) and reasonable levels of processing power and ram. A single system with off the shelf components you should be able to operate at ~99% uptime. But by getting 3 independent systems you should be at ~99.9999% uptime at the cost of ~9k + software.
Note: To really get those levels of uptime you need to use independent software systems and independent locations but you get the idea.
The problem is, had they been forced to pick a single standard, it almost certainly wouldn't have been 720p. It would have been 1080i. At least by making 720p and 1080i legally co-legitimate, the door is open for networks that initially went with 1080i to someday join the civilized video universe and switch to 720p.
I firmly believe 1080i's days are numbered. 1080i is a pain to display on anything besides CRTs. As natively-720p TVs become the norm, 720p content will have a competitive advantage because it'll look better on those TVs. 720p will look better than 1080i, even on higher-end TVs that are inherently 1080p (for the moment, we'll ignore the two dozen or so wealthy individuals who can afford to spend $20k on a Faroudja 1080i->1080p deinterlacer).
For all intents and purposes, TVs internally convert 1080i to 720p by treating it like 1920 x 540 progressive and resampling it to 1280x720. As a result, 1080i viewed on a natively-720p TV has the worst of both worlds... ~50% less vertical resolution (1080i's "real" vertical resolution on NATIVELY 1080i displays is about 70% its nominal resolution due to Kell-filtering of adjacent scanlines to prevent thin horizontal high-contrast lines from flickering like a 1980s radar weather map), and reduced horizontal resolution (though it's largely an academic point, since compression reduces the "real" horizontal resolution to 1440 or fewer pixels of hard detail anyway).
Plus, progressive-scan video has a huge advantage for cable channels and smaller content producers: you can meaningfully edit progressive video on laptops and normal computers. The same can't necessarily be said for interlaced video (interlaced video that looks GOOD on a laptop will almost certainly look AWFUL on a natively-1080i display, and vice-versa). For news channels in particular, this is a very, VERY big deal. A vacationing CNN reporter with little more than a 480p camcorder, laptop, and EV-DO wireless data card can capture, edit, and upload reports with minimal ceremony and delay, while the local 1080i affiliate is still setting up the microwave link back to the station so the crew there can edit their video.
Seriously, I heard this exact same argument when I was working on my first HD commercial circa 2000. One of the post guys claimed that just having digital SD would be good enough. Well, fast forward to 2006. The equipment has all been purchased by broadcasters and post houses. Today transferring film in HD costs the same as it does to transfer SD. Consumers love HD broadcasting.
The reason HD is a good deal has nothing to do with asking advertisers to spend more on HD programming -- it's because viewers will watch your shows when they're in high-def. Do you think people go out to buy $2000 TVs and not watch them? Note that very few prime time shows are broadcast in SD anymore. Why? People will just turn it off if it's in SD. For once, the consumer holds the power. We are buying HDTVs and telling the broadcasters to provide us with HD content or else. Yay for the consumer, bad for Canadian broadcasters that don't get this concept.
Don't forget in addition to all the end-device equipment (cameras, record/playout devices, editing seats, production switchers), and the transmission gear, there's a lot of infrastructure costs.
Distribution Amplifiers (to 'split' a signal) must be upgraded. Cable often needs to be upgraded. Even the jackfields (patch bays) may need upgrading. You're talking about moving from a 270Mb/s signal (SD-SDI) to HD-SDI which is 1.485 or so Gb/s. This requires better cable, and often shorter runs.
The 25% number sounds accurate to me, when dealing with cost of HD over SD for new equipment (in my opinion, it makes little sense to buy SD now, when it is a relatively small incremental cost to go HD - even if you're only doing SD for now). But if you have fully functioning SD equipment, you need to buy all new HD gear, which could up the cost of equipment from practically ni to rather high levels.
I purchased an HDTV about 6 months ago, and have not subscribed to receive any HD broadcasting, or purchased an HD PVR or receiver.
The *instant* Apple begins selling pay-per-season subscriptions to HD quality programming, I'll be purchasing whatever equipment from Apple required to play the shows I want to watch (Battlestar Galactica, The Unit, House, and a few others). I think that Steve Jobs is the only person in the industry who seems to have a clue, and is trying hard to deliver what people want -- and I intend to reward him for that.
If broadcasters haven't figured out that there is a market of people that are willing to pay them -- directly -- whatever amount that the advertisers are currently paying them to deliver my personal household's advertising impressions (a few $ per season per program, I would guess), then they are not paying attention to their marketplace, and deserve to get blind-sided by Steve Jobs, Disney, or whoever else gets a clue first.
-- -pjk Perry Kundert perry@kundert.ca http://kundert.2y.net
Okay, seriously folks... first of all, the main reason to do it is to maintain viewers. As HDTV sales continue to rise and other broadcasters are offering HD content, another providers LACK of HD content can easily be their demise. Secondly, the cost can't be that horrific... PBS broadcasts in HD. They don't exactly have the same resources as ABC, CBS, NBC or CBC.
Try someplace like monoprice.com. 6ft. HDMI is $6.37, 15ft. HDMI is all of $8.07. Yes, you have to wait a couple of days for them to ship, so it's no good for last-second replacements. But for the price, you might as well just buy two of everything and store the spares.
Extremely high quality, very low prices. Their component video cables are so huge and heavily shielded it's ridiculous. I think they're actually made from RG-6.
Anybody paying $30 for six feet of fiber optics or $50 for USB's ugly cousin HDMI is just tossing money away.
Finally, there is nothing magical about making 100 Ohm UTP cable. It's been around for dozens of years and is the most common specification. It is certainly MUCH SUPERIOR FOR CARRYING DIGITAL SIGNALS compared to coaxial cable, which attenuates and degrades the digital waveforms over distance due to its inherent capacitance characteristics.
This is just bullshit. There is NO relation between the cable impedance and the attenuation (*). The attenuation will be determined by the conductivity of the wires and the dielectric in between. Coax cable with air dielectric will likely outperform twisted pair, though I am too lazy to look up the figures. This "capatitance characteristics" is also BS. Coax can easily be made to work upto tens of GHz. What's the cutoff of utp Cat7? 600MHz? Besides, coax will theoretically not radiate any signal while twisted pair will, although this is limited due to the twisting. Coax is therefor WAY superior.
(*) I know losses will lead to a small reactive component but this is not really important here.
TCP/IP does not demand error correction (UDP is best effort).
TCP requires error correction. UDP does not. However, UDP is not built on top of TCP; rather, both TCP and UDP are built on top of IP, which does not require error correction.
Thus, TCP/IP is the TCP protocol on top of IP, and includes error correction. But commonly, TCP/IP and UDP/IP are both referred to as TCP/IP, and that's probably where you were going with that statement.
What goes in Canadia and Europe isn't the same everywhere else. It's well known that Canadians and Europeans prefer a high number of low definition channels to a small number of high definition channels and once again they're expecting the entire world to agree with them. The economic viability of HDTV depends on the culture. If foreign customers prefer HD and you only make small, blurry movies, you're not going to sell to foreign customers, no matter how many studies in your own country find a preference to SD. As much as Canadia & Europe hate it, some countries are going to prefer HD.
As an editor, I work with SD/HD material all day, and I still don't own an HD set. I think my stupid logic might help explain why so many people are avoiding HD at the moment:
As luck would have it, our old 27" SD tube died last week and I really wrestled with the decision before opting to buy a cheap replacement rather than opting for HD. An entry level HD set was only twice as expensive, so hardware cost is becoming less and less of an issue. The biggest hurdle, the deal killer, was content. I don't want to double my already ridiculously high cable bill (basic+ at $60 per month) for TV I don't have time to watch. My kids watch a moderate amount, and it's all SD. I don't want to have to buy a BluRay unit in its first year and all the expensive headaches that come along with it. I cannot believe how bad SD looks on most HD sets. From what I've seen tubes do a much better job in scaling up SD to HD, but you see less and less of that these days since TFT and LCD big screens are a better deal for manufacturers. On the plasmas and LCDs I've seen running SD content (still a major part of what you're going to watch) it looks like a very large plate of crap.
So, I'm being asked to pay three times as much for a set and double my monthly costs to support it (and it may not even be compatible!) and people are surprised that I would opt for plain old 720x486? Hardly. I could buy an HD set now and opt for HD content down the road- but why? If pricing trends are any indication, I could buy a set in three years and pay half of what I would now- and without having to suffer through pricey-and-crappy standard def viewing for the interim.
The in-store demos are more compelling than they used to be, but essentially the HD industry is in the same spot it has been for the past five years, "on the cusp." The fault for that lies solely at the feet of manufacturers and broadcasters. Consumers have indicated that they're willing to buy into HD, but only when it makes sense for them. No amount of highly-compressed HD Sopranos episodes will change that.
None of what you say is relevant to the actual discussion. It's all about YOU and what YOU do and prefer. If you prefer HD content to SD (and for sports I can indeed understand the attraction - it's like being there at the game) then...well...great. But that doesn't make HD any easier to understand. 720i? 1080p? What the hell does that all mean? Sure, I know and you know, but what does it MEAN to the consumer? Most people aren't going to buy a $5,000 (or even $1,000) television they need a technician to set up and calibrate just because the image quality is better.
What's needed for the mainstream to accept HD is simplicity. You just plug everything in and it WORKS. So why not just simplify HD? Just go with 1080p and be done with it. Settle on the HDMI connector, and start shipping DVD players and VCRs (do they even make those anymore?) with them and upconverters. And please, let's have a suite of HDMI connectors, not just one or two, and an easy way to select between them. Make it as easy to understand as analogue SD TV and the mainstream will bite. Oh, and some decent content wouldn't hurt, either.
Even my grandmother can tell the difference between HD and SD content, and the plug is perhaps the only part of the TV she understands.
Use a piece of duct tape over the LEDs on the equipment.
Of course its part of the problem. And this problem has a name: Learning Curve. Don't compare to the last DVD player you bought, with a retail price under $100; compare to the first one, back in 1998, when they ran $600. I bet you wouldn't make a 90-second second back then. But even today, if you cared enough, comparing the technical and performance specifications of different DVD players in order to get the best quality and value would take an expert more than 90 seconds.
When faced with unfamiliar technology you always have three choices:For me, any choice other than #3 is acceptable.
--- A man with a briefcase can steal more money, than any man with a gun. [Don Henley]
HDTV is a solution in search of a problem.
Consumers weren't asking for higher resolution.
Companies were looking for a way to sell new TV's.
And they did it badly.
Why on Earth keep interlaced modes? And then almost completely standardize on 1080i.
The "pristine" digital signal is a myth. The signal is so overly compressed that it causes noticeable artifacting. Because of so many formats and actual display resolutions, you will be lucky if your TV and signal are even close in resolution.
Have you seen a 1024x768 LCD computer screen display the BIOS in 640x480?
It looks like crap. That's what your LCD TV is probably doing to the signal, but hardly anybody seems to care.
HDTV's aren't TV's at all. They are monitors. Why don't they include an HD tuner?
There is little content that isn't just upsampled SD. If you aren't a sports fanatic or a bird watcher, God help you. Like SciFi? You are SOL.
In two cities that I've lived in, HD cable doesn't even have proper lip sync. Not just a frame or two off, it's bad enough that my children notice.
HD will only overtake SD because older sets are no longer available, not because of overwhelming consumer demand.
If tyranny and oppression come to this land, it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy. - James Madison
if he had, RCA would not have been able to maintain the pleasant but wrong story that their man vladimir zwyorkin invented scanning TV whole.
philo farnsworth did, 15 years before vlad had his iconoscope.
but philo didn't have a potfull of cash to push his invention and an existing base of customers -- radio stations and owners -- to push it to. RCA did. so RCA got all the glory.
a business case, again, is just logic. an evangelist with money and an agenda is truly business in operation.
if this is supposed to be a new economy, how come they still want my old fashioned money?