What do you think of this neg article on HDTV's?

[AUMMitsu]

I ran across this article, and I found myself agreeing with how getting started into HDTv's is pretty difficult compared to how old TV's were ready to go right out of the box.

http://slate.msn.com//?id=2062270


"Tube Tied
We still want our HDTV.
By Fred Kaplan
Updated Wednesday, February 20, 2002, at 11:08 AM PT


Last summer, the WB affiliate in New York City broadcast every Mets game played at home in high-definition. Watching those games was amazing. The clarity, the detail, the widescreen panoramic breadth, the lifelike texture and color and light—it felt closer to being there than I'd imagined possible. Yet when I asked several Mets fans if they knew about these broadcasts, not a single one did.


High-definition television, the long-awaited revolution that promised to dazzle our senses and transform the TV medium, is finally here. The fight over a uniform standard, which kept the technology on hold for a decade, is settled. Prices of high-def TV sets are plunging. All the commercial networks, plus HBO, Showtime, and PBS, now broadcast at least some of their programs in high-definition. You can even watch the Winter Olympics in HD.

So, why does everyone seem to be keeping its arrival such a secret? Well, suppose this article inspires you to run out and buy a high-definition TV set. Let us count the obstacles that await you before you can use it.


The Absurd Controversy Over Mammograms

How To Cramp a Dictator's Style

The Myth of the Vermont Superpredator


First, an HDTV is expensive: $1,500 minimum—a steep decline from the $4,000 that the cheapest set cost a couple of years ago, but still. You bring the set home, only to read the fine print and realize that it is merely "High-Definition Ready." This means it can display HD signals—images that consist of 1,080 horizontal lines of data, more than twice the resolution of standard television's 480 lines—but you need to buy, and learn how to hook up, a separate decoder to receive the signals. To make matters more confusing, the HD companies don't call it a "decoder"; they call it a "set-top box."

Alternatively, the major satellite-broadcast services, DirecTV and DISH Network, sell special HD receivers (so you don't need a separate set-top box) for about $600. But then you'll need two dishes for the roof—one to pick up signals from the normal satellite, and one for the HD satellite, which is swirling in a different orbit. Next you find out that, while a few HD broadcasts are beamed from outer space (one channel each of HBO, Showtime, a Pay-Per-View, a couple of others), most of them waft through the air from your local TV stations' antenna towers. So you have to go buy a UHF antenna and a separate decoder for its signals, to the tune of another couple of hundred dollars.

If, like most people, you have cable instead of satellite, you're probably out of luck. Very few cable companies, even those with digital cable, offer any HD channels. Those few that do—Cablevision in New York, Action Sport in Oregon, Comcast in Philadelphia, and a handful of Time Warner affiliates—don't seem to tell their sales staff about it.

Even if you do manage to jump through these hoops, you'll have a hard time finding out which channels broadcast in HD. Don't ask the dealer who sold you the set; he almost certainly doesn't know. Good luck at finding anyone at your local station or cable service who can help. No newspaper or magazine publishes a high-def program schedule.

No wonder a friend who recently subscribed to digital cable and bought an HD-ready digital TV set mistakenly thought that he was watching high-definition television. It certainly looked better than the standard cable he'd been watching on his old analog TV, but it wasn't high-definition—it wasn't 1,080 lines (or, another form of HD, 720 lines scanned twice as fast). Digital TV simply means a set that can receive and make sense of the 0's and 1's that comprise a digital signal. It has a sharper image and more accurate colors, but without the HD decoder, you're still dealing with those tired old 480 lines.

The retailer hosed my friend by not telling him what he needed to get HD signals, thus making it easier to sell the TV set. The manufacturer hosed him by not making clear what this fine-print "separate set-top box required" was all about. (Sony and RCA make a few sets with built-in decoders, but they haven't made a selling point of the feature.) The cable carrier hosed him by not explaining the difference between digital and HD. The local TV stations hosed him by failing to trumpet their own HD transmissions. (In New York City, this issue is temporarily moot; most of the local stations' digital towers, which carry HD signals, were on top of the World Trade Center.)

Finally, the feds let my friend down by not demanding clarity on the part of all the other players. Then again, they're guilty of their own evasions. The FCC is requiring all local stations to convert to digital by 2003. But there are two massive loopholes. First, as my friend found out, HDTV is digital, but digital TV is not necessarily HD. So, many stations, rather than devoting a wide chunk of bandwidth to one HD channel, will break it up into several non-HD channels. Second, the FCC regulation puts off the deadline if fewer than 80 percent of households own digital TVs. This is an impossible target. After all, only 70 percent of homes currently have cable, despite all of its unique and far better-publicized programs.

According to the Consumer Electronics Associaton, 2.5 million Americans own digital televisions. But most of them were bought for watching DVDs, which look much better on digital sets. Only 362,000 of these people also bought the set-top boxes, or sets with the internal decoders, that receive HD signals. This is a pathetically puny number, but it also explains the slow progress on the road to HD. The networks wonder why they should spend a lot of money for HD cameras and transmitters when so few people can appreciate it. The customers wonder why they should spend a lot of money for HD-decoders when there's so little HD programming to watch.

Still, the numbers are growing. A year ago, only 30,000 decoders had been sold, and there weren't many HD broadcasts beyond the continuous loops of fireworks and nature footage on the HDTV promo channel. As the numbers grow, economies of scale set in, prices drop, the numbers grow higher, and on it goes. But this cycle will have to repeat itself many, many times before a mass market takes hold.

Last month, Fox's digital channel carried the Super Bowl in widescreen format—but only in standard TV's 480 lines, not in true high-definition. This steamed a lot of the 362,000 people who own the special decoder and who had invited friends over to watch their jaws drop. The previous year, CBS aired the Super Bowl in true high-def, but, again, 99.9 percent of viewers didn't know the difference. Fox probably thought, "Since widescreen at 480 is good enough for the millions who watch DVDs, why spend a lot more to please the few purists?" If the other networks start thinking along the same lines, the revolution will be over just as it's getting underway."

[Dan]

A lot of what the article says is true - but so what. This is true with any new technology. The point is that HDTV is starting to grow faster and it will accelerate more in the future. No new technology takes off quickly. In fact if you compare HDTV to color television, VCRs, and computers it is possible it will be adopted faster then them. According to the article we went from 30,000 HDTV decoders to 300,000 in one year. A ten fold increase in one year is excellent. I am not worrying about the future of HDTV. It is going to kick butt and anyone who doesn't see that just is out to lunch.

Dan

[kujayhawk20659]

I agree with Dan. But we as a family of sorts have to educate whoever will listen. I walked out of radio shack yesterday with another gentleman who was looking for a similar item as me. So we started talking, I found out he had just bought a high def ready set. He had no clue what that ment!! He thought a progressive scan dvd was high def. .
As I went on to explain he needed a set top box to decode signals he seemed dumbfounded, not even knowing he could recieve digital feeds from our local channels (DC). These channels have been in use since '99'. On the plus side he did shell out the money without the seller explaining anything or him noing anything, so it shows that the idea of hdtv sells itself!

[ZeroDegreeK]

It is hard, and expensive, to get HD to your house. But it was harder and more expensive a year ago. As more people learn about and experience HDTV, more people want it. Three of my friends went out and bought HDTVs because they saw mine.

It sometimes seems like educating people and getting the word out about HD is a full time job, something we should get paid for. You can forget about giving me money, pay me in more HD programming.

[sieve11]

As I've only had an HD set since last December, I count myself as a newbie. However, I work at a facility that has been producing HD material for 3 years, so I didn't go in blindly. Good thing because if I had to depend on the information available at retailers, I'd have never gotten involved.
IMO, if the manufacturers REALLYwanted to promote HD viewing, they would quit selling HD "Ready" televisions. I firmly believe that if RCA can sell the 38310 for under $2200 with all receivers built in, then all manufacturers should be able to package their HD ready sets with a DTC-100 too!
Don't give me the crap about adding $500 to the price of a TV just to watch DVDs. It doesn't hold water. If 3 million more HD receivers were packaged with the monitors, the price would drop significantly. If people are willing to spend $1500-$$8000 for a monitor, do you think it would stop them if the price was $1700-$8200? Of course not!
Then if the retailers packaged those true HD sets with a $50 powered antenna, people would get to see HD off the air and make their own decision about whether they wanted to keep watching a superior signal or continue to watch local channels off of a cable feed. It could be that simple.
If the package pricing and rebate programs that are available for satellite TV reception were applied to HD viewing, we'd all be watching High Definition television already.

[zarlor]

Personally I don't think the argument that needing some kind of set-top box to recieve DTV signals suddenly makes HDTV too complex holds much water. Consider that we don't think cable TV or Satellite TV is too complex, necessarily, yet we have no problem with needing a STB to recieve those. We don't have a problem with OTA antennas, be they outdoor or simply "rabbit ears", if we want to get our locals through some means other than cable. Yet somehow DTV has made this "difficult"? Maybe I'm too mcuh fo a techno-geek, but it all seems like the same "difficulty" to me. Maybe we just need to find a way to make a business of HDTV installations, like the cable and satellite companies do for their normal service.

[ZeroDegreeK]

I think what is stopping integrated receivers is the whole firewire/copyprotecton debate. I think as soon as they decide on one standard HDTV will take off.

And what about that set with a DTC-100 built in? What happens to it when Dish and DTV merge? Or when a much better receiver comes out, like one with a PVR built in.

[kevinw]

What stopped integration is the price..More people could afford the TV then add the STB when more programming became available. 2 years ago a 56 inch Toshiba HD ready was 3700, the following year dropped to 2700. A first Gen, STB like a Sharp/Pioneer were 2700 dollars. Now a second gen is 500-600 dollars and include DirectTV service.
Once the Chips become cheaper and the manufacturers will no longer rely on Satelite providers for cash, then integration of HD tuners and the TVs will be cost productive.

[sieve11]

You guys make some interesting points. However, if the place I worked at kept waiting for "the next best thing" in editing equipment, there wouldn't be any shows on the air.

Of course, there will be changes and improvements. But, to the guy who doesn't count this as a hobby, it CAN be very confusing. If you don't believe that it can be complicated, ask any of those trained retail professionals who are out there trying to sell HD. All I'm saying is, make it simple and get more people involved.

If there were 10 million HD users out there, I think there would be benefits to us 400,000 early adopters. So, don't make it brain surgery. Buy a set; stick a rabbit ear antenna on it enjoy HD.

Will the DTC-100 in my RCA 38310 be obsolete some day? Sure. But, in the meantime, I'm watching the Olympics in HD! There's a component input on the back, so when I feel the need for a new receiver, I'll plug one in.

I don't mean to go off on a rant here, but I'm just frustrated that the HD movement isn't going faster. This stuff is great, so let's find out how to eliminate the roadblocks for the casual fan. This HD deal should be in every house in America. Of course, that's just my opinion, I could be wrong.

[kevinw]

Close, but take this into consideration. 60 percent if not more receive tv through cable. You do not need an internal tuner to get HD if you use a cable box/Tuner. If people had not bought HD"ready" televisions ,because of the price, we would not be where were at today.. Only users with in 60 to 70 miles of major markets can get OTA. So a lot of people may be buying Hd ready equipment and waiting for 2 nd or 3rd gen STB/or for Hd from a cable provider. At least they can use them for better DVD watching...

[ZeroDegreeK]

It is not a really good analogy, but I saw it this way. I have had the same computer monitor for years (21" ViewSonic, state of the art at that time, and still better than most today) Since I bought that monitor, I have been through 5 computers.

Make the HD decoders/receivers cheap, and people will buy them with the TVs. Keep them cheap, and you can upgrade when the newer technologies come out. The reason people are so reluctant to switch to HDTV is the price of upgraging their current tv. (you MUST buy a new one to watch HDTV). People don't want this to happen again with their new HDTV.

[sieve11]

Z, I really like reading your viewpoints, but I don't agree that it's the price of HDTVs that is keeping people away. It's the lack of knowledge and the confusion.

People walk into XYZ Warehouse City every day with money and questions. Their money is spent and they still go home without any questions answered intelligently or any chance of seeing HD.

Heck, as often as not, they're going home with a Standard Def big screen RP set that will NEVER get HD. And, they've spent enough money on it to have gotten an HD set instead.

If I read your analogy about the computer monitor correctly, it's the STBs that will be replaced. Fine. That's exactly my point. Get a set now, enjoy HD now, and replace your STB when something better comes along.

I intend to have my set for 10 years. Will I change my overall set up? Sure. Will I still be able to use the set I have now? Sure! We will be on the verge of the next "best thing" from now on.

So, we either enjoy what's available now and adapt as we go along, or we just sit tight waiting. And keep watching that 25" B&W set with the built in HiFi that we got from Mom & Dad when they bought their new plasma widescreen tv.

[kevinw]

People aren't staying away from HD ready tvs. Try buying one always back ordered and have to wait weeks for delivery.
Because the STB can be added later, the price of a HD is less than a comparable Analog of 2 years ago. What is keeping people from VIEWING hd,not buying a tv, is confusion on how to get it.

I need an antenna!!!, My cable compnay doesn't do HD, isn't it digital? I need a STB..suprise!! suprise !!

Blame it on misinformed consumers who beleive the Worst Buy guy who does not work on commision and does not care what you buy, except for that service contract.

[ZeroDegreeK]

I think I may have been misunderstood. (It happens a lot because I don't understand what I am trying to say half the time).

I can see where an integrated receiver, antenna, with HDTV (plug and play HDTV) would increase sales. They do need to make HD easier.

We are at a turning point in the industry. Remember the old sets where you had to rig up tin foil and change the channel with a pair of pliers. Then came cable, then satellite (whichever order they came in). So the broadcasting got better. The one thing that stayed the same is the TV. You can still get satellite on that 25"B&W collecting dust in the attic. I think this is what people remember. New technology or better broadcasting that can be plugged into the old set with little or no effort.

Now comes HDTV. You can't do that anymore. To get HDTV you must replace all the TV sets in your house. The old ones are now obsolete. (I have 5 TVs in my house, only 2 are HDTVs, and I think I am one of the few who have multiple sets). Could you imagine the outrage if broadcasters all of a sudden flipped a switch and said "Everything is now in HD, go out and get a new set".

To make matters worse, some have the "if it ain't broke, don't fix it attitude" and are perfectly happy with their sets.

I have no idea where I am going with all this. But I feel it is more than a lack of knowledge that is hindering HDTV, it plays a huge role, but there is more. There is also the mindset that things purchased now might become obsolete in a short period of time, and we wasted our money. With HDTV this is now apparent with an appliance in our house that never had been thought of like that previously. It is just future shock.

Sieve11, you said you intend to have your set for 10 years and will still be using it then. What if you weren't so sure it would last 10 years?

[RickNeff]

I have to agree that the main reason HDTV isn't popular is due to the utter lack of knowledge by those the consumer expects to have -- The salespeople, broadcasters, and truthfully, the manufacturers themselves.

I think we all can relate stories of clueless salespeople who didn't know what we were talking about after we did all the research we did before buying our sets or misinformation that was quoted trying to learn what we did. You'd think that anyone willing to spend over $1000 or more for an item would make sure they had done their research, but the reality to many is that they believe talking to salespeople IS research!

Broadcasters and cable companies obviously share in the blame since they don't want to spend the money on quality when quantity is their focus. Why cater to a great picture when you can cram yet another channel in? They certainly don't want an informed consumer to a contrary opinion. If it weren't for the FCC deadline, how many stations do you seriously think would even bother with digital broadcasts, much less HDTV?

And I think some of the blame goes on the manufacturers themselves who only halfway promote HDTV. Sure, they make some great sets, but did you go to their sites as your primary source of information on HDTV or did you go somewhere else? How did you learn to do convergence on your set? How many of them recognize ISF certified technicans to do warranty work on their set?

I think the harsh reality is that HDTV isn't given the sort of business treatment of other technologies. Of course, it does cost a lot of money to get the content infrastructure in place. Businesses obviously have to have a cost justification for such a major expenditure and I have no problem with that. However, that doesn't mean that information shouldn't be more available or accurate by those who are selling the equipment, broadcasting the content, or manufacturing the equipment.

[AUMMitsu]

"Of course, there will be changes and improvements. But, to the guy who doesn't count this as a hobby, it CAN be very confusing. If you don't believe that it can be complicated, ask any of those trained retail professionals who are out there trying to sell HD. All I'm saying is, make it simple and get more people involved"

I agree, for the average user I believe it is way to complicated. I read a lot of stuff about what to do/what not to do regarding HDTV's but i still find myself being lost at times. Many people just dont have the time to learn the details. I think the best way to boost HDTV is to make it easier to use.

[Dan]

Most of this confusion is the fault of the FCC. They are the idiots who let there be 18 different TV Broadcast standards. Back in the early 90's when they had 5 or 6 consorcias competing to come up with the new HDTV technology they were supposed to pick one which would have meant having one standard. Then when they decided they didn't like anyone's versions and forced them into the "Grand Alliance" they still could have forced them into one standard but they didn't - they let them have all these different standards.

The FCC should have just said the new standard is 1080i with 1920 horizontal pixels at 24 frames per second with a 16:9 aspect ratioand 5.1 digital sound - end of discussion. They could have mandated broadcast of that exact standard and then everything would have been easy - every HDTV set would have been basically the same as every other HDTV set in the signal they recieve. We wouldn't have all this 480p, 720p, HDTV at 4:3 aspect ratio, less than 1920 horizontal and all the other BS we have now. All the consumer would have to do is decide what size TV they want, what display type they want (plasma, tube, projection), and what price they were willing to pay - just like they do with analog tv.

So you see, the folks who screwed this up are the same folks who screw up lots of things - the government. Then again, if the FCC hadn't mandated HDTV we would be stuck with the same TV we have now for another 20 or 30 years at least. So I guess we should still be somewhat thankfull.

Dan

[sieve11]

While I agree with you that the FCC "could" have made life easier by dictating an HD standard, I don't completely blame them. They were heavily lobbied by the computer industry for 720p, even while knowing that 1080i was a better format.

So, what happens? The FCC, in an attempt to be impartial, opts to only identify ALL of the possible higher resolution formats available. Hence, the release of Table 3.

Then, they conclude that mandating HDTV might be a little heavy handed, they back off again and only instruct broadcasters to send out DTV signals, not HD signals.

And, as if that weren't bad enough, they also had to weigh the private interests of which HD transmission type was to be used. So, we get the whole 8vsb vs. CODFM debate. At least, there was some finality to that one (though not if you still want to listen to the CODFM camp).

Why did the FCC waffle on such critical issues? Well, they had a lot of pressure from groups who were beating their own drums. Make sure while you're throwing around blame to include Bill Gaetz and the CODFM guys.

And, maybe the FCC didn't want to take the heat for making another bad decision. Remember, this was the group who opted for NTSC over other color formats when better was already available. One of the reasons that there isn't as much activity on the HD front in Europe is because they have PAL and SECAM, both of which kick but on NTSC.

[stovetop]

For starters, I don't think the article was really negative for HDTV, it was just negative towards the stations for not advertising it. I think this is part to the fact that not ALL affiliate stations have turned over to HDTV, and selective HDTV advertising would have to be the responsibility of the Local station itself. The majority of stations that are broadcasting HDTV right now, are ONLY broadcasting stuff they get from their parent company (ABC, NBC, CBS). Local news and such has not. Thus no real need to advertise it for the Local Station.

That's largely opinion though, but that's how I see it..

And ZeroDegreeK:

I'm pretty sure that I read that all stations that will be broadcasting HDTV will also be broadcasting a STV signal so that people can go out and buy a much cheaper receiver to put on their regular TVs. So TV's won't become obsolete. Cable will probably always be cable anyway. Saying that HDTV would be the only source would mostly mean TV Sets under 20" would become obsolete as well since there is really no need to watch HDTV on that small of a set. (Unless you're watching it like a computer moniter).

Just my opinion though. (first post too)

~stovetop

[zarlor]

I have to agree with Stovetop, here. All of the US commercial broadcasters are supposed to be broadcasting both a Digital and their normal analog signal by March 1, 2002. (Public broadcasting stations have the same deadline for March 1, 2003). March 1, 2006 is the cutoff date for the analog signal. Technically it is the 2006 date OR when 85% of the US households have a way to receive the digital signals, whichever is later, but there are some budgetary concerns that the money expected to be gained by the government for auctioning off that analog bandwidth may force the issue towards the 2006 date so the government can get that money when they have it budgeted for.

However, none of that will really affect current TV sets, which is why I think the idea that HDTV is complicated is really just nonsense. It may SEEM complicated to know about all of these different formats and who is or isn't broadcasting a digital signal, but it really isn't at all. For the same reason that older TV sets will not be completely obsolete.

Think about it. How do you get TV right now on your analog set? Either you set up an antenna to get analog signals Over The Air (OTA), you subscribe to cable and plug that cable into a Set-Top cable box (although you could just plug it into a cable ready TV, but you won't get most of the "scrambled" channels if you wanted those), you subscribe to digital cable and definitely need a STB to get your signal or you connect through a sattelite and have a reciever (aka STB) to get your signal.

Enter HDTV... The sets seem more complicated, after all you have analog sets, DTV sets, HD-Ready sets and full HDTVs. But really when it all comes down to it your connections are all the same as above. The only difference is that if you want HD from an antenna and you don't have a full HDTV (with internal tuner), you need a STB to get those signals. Exactly the same methods of connection as for a regular analog TV. (For your old TVs to get HD, BTW, the STB would down-convert the HDTV signal to a regular analog NTSC signal and resolution, so your old set still works just fine with your brand spanking new Set-Top Box for the type of service you are trying to get.)

The biggest difference I can see is that it is a lot like getting satellite in the early days, where you have to buy (instead of rent) your STB (which is somewhat expensive right now, but going down in price) for the particular service you will be using and you might have some installation work to do on your own, instead of having the cable or satellite installation guy doing it for you (although for those two services you can still get that installation service, usually.) So maybe a cottage industry will grow up for doing old fashioned antenna installations.

I think the most confusion comes from some of the things already discussed in this thread, which is not HOW to get HDTV but WHERE to get HDTV. In other words it isn't (or shouldn't be) about how to get the HDTV signal, as illustrated above, but who is broadcasting it and do I have the right STB to get the signal I want from that service provider? That can be a bit confusing, but even that isn't very confusing. It's only as confusing as you make it. I mean even for analog sets there are TONS of different STBs out there (Do I want PVR? Do I want Dolby Digital AC3 sound? And so on). There is actually less choice available (and hence should be less confusion for now) on STBs for HD. The problem comes when people don't realize the need to make sure the STB they use for their particular service provider is an HD capable one.

So, in conclusion to this otherwish boringly lengthy rant of mine ;), I believe that the media and, generally due to a lack of the most minor bit of education, the majority of the consumer electronics sales force lends an air of confusion to an otherwise non-confusing situation.

[Dan]

Zarlor

I don't completely agree with you. I think HDTV is a LOT more comlicated than analog TV. There is only one type of analog signal TV and all analog TVs show it in the same way. There are at least 7 or 8 different HDTV standards - 1080p, 1080i, 720p, 480p - and each of these types can be at either 24 or 30 fps. So when you buy a TV you have to try in figure out which of these standards it is capable of handling. Does it recieve 1080i and down convert to 720p or recieve 720p and upconvert to 1080i - or if you are lucky does it recieve and display (uncoverted) all of these types.

Furthermore, HDTVs should be capable of showing 2 million pixels - 1080 lines of resolution times 1920 horizontal pixels. Just try figuring out how many pixels a given HDTV set handles. The advertisements almost NEVER mention how many they display (in most cases because it is far less than the 2 million it should be).

These are but a couple of the complications that people wanting to purchase HDTVs run into. And even when you want, and try very hard, to be an informed consumer you just can't get accurate and complete information.

None of this will stop the growth of HDTV but it is annoying and makes its adoption probably somewhat slower than it would otherwise be.

Dan

[zarlor]

Originally posted by Dan
Zarlor

I don't completely agree with you. I think HDTV is a LOT more comlicated than analog TV. There is only one type of analog signal TV and all analog TVs show it in the same way. There are at least 7 or 8 different HDTV standards - 1080p, 1080i, 720p, 480p - and each of these types can be at either 24 or 30 fps. So when you buy a TV you have to try in figure out which of these standards it is capable of handling. Does it recieve 1080i and down convert to 720p or recieve 720p and upconvert to 1080i - or if you are lucky does it recieve and display (uncoverted) all of these types.

I don't agree that this is an issue. For most consumers who are not as interested in the specifics of a "good picture" and what goes into it, the 720p -v- 1080i debate should be a mute point. I don't believe for most consumers that it is that great of a difference. And most equipment will handle conversions into either format as needed, either in the STB or the set itself. The biggest confusion I have found there is making sure you have RGBHV or Component Video connections you need depending on the equipment you have. (I forgot about that earlier and I can see where taht does bring some confusion, even among those "In The Know".)

Originally posted by Dan
Furthermore, HDTVs should be capable of showing 2 million pixels - 1080 lines of resolution times 1920 horizontal pixels. Just try figuring out how many pixels a given HDTV set handles. The advertisements almost NEVER mention how many they display (in most cases because it is far less than the 2 million it should be).

This is also something I don't see as being as much of a consideration for Joe Six-Pack, at least not any moreso than it is when considering dot-pitch on a computer monitor or what standard RTPTV sets have SVM or any other number of "image enhancement" capabilities built into them. Any added confusion, to my way of thinking, tends to come from sales folks trying to muddy the waters in order to make a better sale with higher commision. I expect that from a sales force no matter WHAT they are selling, and I think most folks do as well. I think they just have a better chance of shoving the extra stuff down the throats of the consumer with HDTV because it is something a bit different from regular TVs. I'd say that most consumers feel like they can ignore a lot of what a salseman says on a regular TV as just BS about something the consumer already feels like they know. They are probably less comfortable with HDTV tech, and as such can be more easily confused by it.

None of this is to say that there is not confusion out there about HDTV. There obviously is. I just feel that there is more being made of that confusion then there really should be. There is a lot of stuff about HDTVs that the average consumer could, effectively, just ignore in the same way that they just ignore so much about standard television sets today. If find that even when I try to help friends get a TV set they really aren't interested in being informed about all of the nit-picking details about WHY one brand of product is better than another, they just want to be able to be told which is better. (Obviously not a true situation for all consumers, but certainly the situation for the VAST majority of friends and aquaintances of mine, at least.) In that light the basics of hooking up a set and getting HD is really pretty minor stuff that I feel gets made a lot more of than it really needs to be.

[sieve11]

People who consider themselves early adopters or hobbyists will find the answers they need to get themselves an HD signal. They already know it's worth the effort, and most consider it fun and an adventure. I know I did.

But, if we are to have the breadth of programming choice that we all want, we need to have the mainstream viewer involved. That would give us the numbers we need to get the content providers and advertisers to listen.

I agree that the casual observer probably doesn't care to know all the details of how the picture got so good. But, there are plenty of potential HD buyers who are put off by the confusion and end up never buying.

We may downplay the confusion because some of this seems so "obvious" to us. But, when I read some of the questions that are asked, both in this forum, the HDTV News Forum, and at retailers (where my wife says I spend WAY too much time), I shake my head and wonder how will we ever get all these potential owners into the fold.
They are sincere, though lacking knowledge, in their desire to own an HD set. But, when they keep getting such bad information, they get frustrated and walk away. I've been in stores where I KNEW I could sell HD sets to people who really wanted them, but didn't buy (in fact, I have convinced 3 people to buy HD sets while I was in the store getting a cable or a game).

Retailers just don't seem to care! I wish it was as easy as saying that the salespeople suck, but there's also the retailers who won't pay enough to recruit a sales staff that cares about HD. I haven't heard 1 salesperson, including the few good ones, who didn't supply several pieces of misinformation in the course of a sales presentation.

Sometimes I think that we early adopters work harder to sell HD televisions than the manufacturers do!

[ZeroDegreeK]

Originally posted by sieve11
Retailers just don't seem to care! I wish it was as easy as saying that the salespeople suck, but there's also the retailers who won't pay enough to recruit a sales staff that cares about HD. I haven't heard 1 salesperson, including the few good ones, who didn't supply several pieces of misinformation in the course of a sales presentation.

Sometimes I think that we early adopters work harder to sell HD televisions than the manufacturers do!


Why should retailers care? They are just interested in making the sale. If someone comes in to buy a TV, the retailer isn't interested in finding the best set for that person, or educating them on the new technology. Their goal is to sell the set that makes them the most money. They push certain sets or brands by giving salespeople bigger commissions for selling that product.

I used to work in a similar industry. Anyone who has worked in a sales environment can tell you. Salespeople aren't recruited behind their knowledge, they are recruited on their ability to sell anything to anyone.

Imagine trying to make this sale, even if you are very knowledgable about HDTV. "I know this set is much more expensive for a smaller size, but it has the POTENTIAL to show a better picture. But only if the source is 16:9 and in HD, because if you watch a lot of 4:3 material it must distort the image to fit the screen. Oh yea, to get that better picture you must spend even more money to get a decoder, and don't forget to put that antenna up in your attic. Oh your favorite shows are ER and West Wing? No you won't be able to watch those in HD. By the way, this set and the 2,000,000 sold before it don't support DVI, so in a year or so you won't get HDTV anyway. So you should buy this set, DVDs look incredible."

[stovetop]

HDTV isn't that negative though. Just last night I went to bestbuy (where they DON'T get commission, but do get rewarded for selling the extended coverage or whatever) and even though I already had an HDTV, we spent like 20-30 minutes just talking about what is available and the differences between models, dvd players, and STB (mainly the new samsung which they just got in.. .and made me drool.. :p ). We covered sattellites and OTA transmission, and he really did know his stuff. He brought up all the big maganizes that cover them and I actually found out a few things I didn't know.

The whole DVI thing is not going to be as big as a factor as some would think in my opinion. OTA transmission will remain the same, and I don't even see Sattellitte companies going out and replacing all their recievers for this either. If DVI became as widestream as people emphasize it, the industry would lose more money than it would make.

Now this guy was probably one in a million, but hey.. it's a start. ^_^ He liked x-box's though, and wouldn't stop talking about them, which made me kinda angry.. >_< hehe. And the other day I went to Ovations (a Home Theatre store) and almost everyone there knows what there talking about.. so.. it's not all bad..

^_^