Is HDTV too expensive and confusing for the average Joe?

[Ylen13]

Originally posted by: Doggiedog

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: TallBill

my point being, you need to cough up some better proof about hdtv if your trying to prove how great it is.. .other then just watching it. im perfectly fine without hdtv.. but im also fine without cable.. all i do on my tv is watch movies or game.

Try here

Despite the hi-res pictures. It still doesn't do justice to HDTV. You really have to see it live to understand. The pictures are so clear they look three dimensional.

agree u have to see it belive it. First time i saw it ,it was day and night difference between ever digital cable. I am talking about hdtv channels

 

[ultimatebob]

Originally posted by: Angrymarshmello

Originally posted by: Thraxen

Because you couldnt watch it without hdtv.. or cable for that matter.

Your point? Do you play all your games at 640x480? Get my drift?

Sitting 15 feet away from your computer is a huge difference than sitting 2 feet away from your computer screen. We're talking the average joe - the 26 million AOL subscribers, the people who pay Best Buy "techs" to install a USB modem. These people don't give a $hit nor could they tell a difference to justify the cost, therefore making it useless.

Even a moron can see the difference in image quality between conventional TV and HDTV when they go to a Best Buy and see one! There also isn't anything all that "hard" about having HDTV, because most tuners are set to automatically switch over when they receive an HDTV signal.

HDTV IS currently too expensive for the average Joe, however, and it probably won't go mainstream until you can go to Best Buy and buy a 34" HDTV with an integrated tuner for under $1,000.

 

[Thraxen]

agree u have to see it belive it. First time i saw it ,it was day and night difference between ever digital cable. I am talking about hdtv channels

I find sporting event to be especially spectacular. This last Super Bowl HDTV broadcast was outstanding.

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: ultimatebob

Even a moron can see the difference in image quality between conventional TV and HDTV when they go to a Best Buy and see one! There also isn't anything all that "hard" about having HDTV, because most tuners are set to automatically switch over when they receive an HDTV signal.

HDTV IS currently too expensive for the average Joe, however, and it probably won't go mainstream until you can go to Best Buy and buy a 34" HDTV with an integrated tuner for under $1,000.

Not too far away!!

DISH has all new equipment (new SuperDISH dish for picking up 3 satellites) this fall/winter.

For $1500 get the Sat. receiver, HD monitor and SuperDISH dish. And that's retail!

 

[Angrymarshmello]

Originally posted by: ultimatebob

Originally posted by: Angrymarshmello

Originally posted by: Thraxen

Because you couldnt watch it without hdtv.. or cable for that matter.

Your point? Do you play all your games at 640x480? Get my drift?

Sitting 15 feet away from your computer is a huge difference than sitting 2 feet away from your computer screen. We're talking the average joe - the 26 million AOL subscribers, the people who pay Best Buy "techs" to install a USB modem. These people don't give a $hit nor could they tell a difference to justify the cost, therefore making it useless.

Even a moron can see the difference in image quality between conventional TV and HDTV when they go to a Best Buy and see one! There also isn't anything all that "hard" about having HDTV, because most tuners are set to automatically switch over when they receive an HDTV signal.

HDTV IS currently too expensive for the average Joe, however, and it probably won't go mainstream until you can go to Best Buy and buy a 34" HDTV with an integrated tuner for under $1,000.

They can't tell a difference to justify the cost. You can tell the difference between a $1000 surround sound system from the $200 one but people buy the $200 one because they can't justify the cost difference based off the "quality" difference between the two.

 

[BarneyFife]

Originally posted by: Angrymarshmello

Originally posted by: ultimatebob

Originally posted by: Angrymarshmello

Originally posted by: Thraxen

Because you couldnt watch it without hdtv.. or cable for that matter.

Your point? Do you play all your games at 640x480? Get my drift?

Sitting 15 feet away from your computer is a huge difference than sitting 2 feet away from your computer screen. We're talking the average joe - the 26 million AOL subscribers, the people who pay Best Buy "techs" to install a USB modem. These people don't give a $hit nor could they tell a difference to justify the cost, therefore making it useless.

Even a moron can see the difference in image quality between conventional TV and HDTV when they go to a Best Buy and see one! There also isn't anything all that "hard" about having HDTV, because most tuners are set to automatically switch over when they receive an HDTV signal.

HDTV IS currently too expensive for the average Joe, however, and it probably won't go mainstream until you can go to Best Buy and buy a 34" HDTV with an integrated tuner for under $1,000.

They can't tell a difference to justify the cost. You can tell the difference between a $1000 surround sound system from the $200 one but people buy the $200 one because they can't justify the cost difference based off the "quality" difference between the two.

You're exactly correct. Just look at broadband vs dialup. I know many people that can get broadband but tell me they can't justify spending $30 more per month when all they do is check their email and simple browsing.

 

[arod]

Looking at your rigs I assume you custom built.... Let me ask you this, did you just magically know how to build a computer? No you probably came here to do research and figure out what to buy etc, this is the same with hdtv.... If you spend about an hour browsing AVSForum you will understand what you need and why you need it. Yes its too expensive and confusing for the average joe right now but so was DVD when it came out and look how well it is accepted now... It will take a little more time for the promotion and advertisign to catch up.

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: BarneyFife

Originally posted by: Angrymarshmello

Originally posted by: ultimatebob

Originally posted by: Angrymarshmello

Originally posted by: Thraxen

Because you couldnt watch it without hdtv.. or cable for that matter.

Your point? Do you play all your games at 640x480? Get my drift?

Sitting 15 feet away from your computer is a huge difference than sitting 2 feet away from your computer screen. We're talking the average joe - the 26 million AOL subscribers, the people who pay Best Buy "techs" to install a USB modem. These people don't give a $hit nor could they tell a difference to justify the cost, therefore making it useless.

Even a moron can see the difference in image quality between conventional TV and HDTV when they go to a Best Buy and see one! There also isn't anything all that "hard" about having HDTV, because most tuners are set to automatically switch over when they receive an HDTV signal.

HDTV IS currently too expensive for the average Joe, however, and it probably won't go mainstream until you can go to Best Buy and buy a 34" HDTV with an integrated tuner for under $1,000.

They can't tell a difference to justify the cost. You can tell the difference between a $1000 surround sound system from the $200 one but people buy the $200 one because they can't justify the cost difference based off the "quality" difference between the two.

You're exactly correct. Just look at broadband vs dialup. I know many people that can get broadband but tell me they can't justify spending $30 more per month when all they do is check their email and simple browsing.

We could make analogies all night long.

You know, a $10,000 Kia will get me to/from work and take my kids to the mall and have A/C to keep me cool in the summer just the same as a $50,000 Mercedes will.

People pay for perceived benefits (HDTV - higher resolution, crystal-clear picture, better audio (typically); Mercedes - leather, performance, handling, safety, etc.)

If someone doesn't want to pay $20 more per month to not get HDTV, then they don't think HDTV is worth $20 more per month. I was paying $96/mo. for my DISH account when I had it (included Top 150 and all movie channels plus a couple of locals and an extra receiver). To each his own but to say HDTV is out of the reach (financially) of the Average Joe is incorrect. Just a couple of years ago 4:3 Analog projection sets were $2000....now 16:9 HDTV sets are that and less!

Now...if you'll excuse me...Charlize Theron is going to be on The Tonight Show tonight in HD!

 

[arod]

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: BarneyFife

Originally posted by: Angrymarshmello

Originally posted by: ultimatebob

Originally posted by: Angrymarshmello

Originally posted by: Thraxen

Because you couldnt watch it without hdtv.. or cable for that matter.

Your point? Do you play all your games at 640x480? Get my drift?

Sitting 15 feet away from your computer is a huge difference than sitting 2 feet away from your computer screen. We're talking the average joe - the 26 million AOL subscribers, the people who pay Best Buy "techs" to install a USB modem. These people don't give a $hit nor could they tell a difference to justify the cost, therefore making it useless.

Even a moron can see the difference in image quality between conventional TV and HDTV when they go to a Best Buy and see one! There also isn't anything all that "hard" about having HDTV, because most tuners are set to automatically switch over when they receive an HDTV signal.

HDTV IS currently too expensive for the average Joe, however, and it probably won't go mainstream until you can go to Best Buy and buy a 34" HDTV with an integrated tuner for under $1,000.

They can't tell a difference to justify the cost. You can tell the difference between a $1000 surround sound system from the $200 one but people buy the $200 one because they can't justify the cost difference based off the "quality" difference between the two.

You're exactly correct. Just look at broadband vs dialup. I know many people that can get broadband but tell me they can't justify spending $30 more per month when all they do is check their email and simple browsing.

We could make analogies all night long.

You know, a $10,000 Kia will get me to/from work and take my kids to the mall and have A/C to keep me cool in the summer just the same as a $50,000 Mercedes will.

People pay for perceived benefits (HDTV - higher resolution, crystal-clear picture, better audio (typically); Mercedes - leather, performance, handling, safety, etc.)

If someone doesn't want to pay $20 more per month to not get HDTV, then they don't think HDTV is worth $20 more per month. I was paying $96/mo. for my DISH account when I had it (included Top 150 and all movie channels plus a couple of locals and an extra receiver). To each his own but to say HDTV is out of the reach (financially) of the Average Joe is incorrect. Just a couple of years ago 4:3 Analog projection sets were $2000....now 16:9 HDTV sets are that and less!

Now...if you'll excuse me...Charlize Theron is going to be on The Tonight Show tonight in HD!

Turning mine on now...

 

[Lyfer]

No.

 

[LiQiCE]

Want to see what HDTV might look like? ... Got a fast computer and Windows Media Player 9? (You probably need at least a 2Ghz machine or better).

Try Here

There are a couple of different videos in 720p, and one in 1080p (Thats 1080 Progressive Scan, higher resolution than 1080i)!

Check it out and you'll see theres a HUGE quality difference between Standard TV (SDTV or 480i), and HDTV.

Don't forget that you'd be watching the same high quality of the WMP9 videos on a screen much larger than your monitor too.

I own a HDTV and mostly what I use it for is to watch 480p DVDs and play Xbox. And even that imho makes a big enough difference to warranty the cost.

BTW- I saw BestBuy was clearing out the older WEGA HDTVs, 32", and 36" .. I think the price was around $1100 for the 32" and $1500 for the 36" ... I already trashed the BestBuy ad that had it, and the sale may already be over ... But check out your local bestbuy and see.

 

[Angrymarshmello]

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: BarneyFife

Originally posted by: Angrymarshmello

Originally posted by: ultimatebob

Originally posted by: Angrymarshmello

Originally posted by: Thraxen

Because you couldnt watch it without hdtv.. or cable for that matter.

Your point? Do you play all your games at 640x480? Get my drift?

Sitting 15 feet away from your computer is a huge difference than sitting 2 feet away from your computer screen. We're talking the average joe - the 26 million AOL subscribers, the people who pay Best Buy "techs" to install a USB modem. These people don't give a $hit nor could they tell a difference to justify the cost, therefore making it useless.

Even a moron can see the difference in image quality between conventional TV and HDTV when they go to a Best Buy and see one! There also isn't anything all that "hard" about having HDTV, because most tuners are set to automatically switch over when they receive an HDTV signal.

HDTV IS currently too expensive for the average Joe, however, and it probably won't go mainstream until you can go to Best Buy and buy a 34" HDTV with an integrated tuner for under $1,000.

They can't tell a difference to justify the cost. You can tell the difference between a $1000 surround sound system from the $200 one but people buy the $200 one because they can't justify the cost difference based off the "quality" difference between the two.

You're exactly correct. Just look at broadband vs dialup. I know many people that can get broadband but tell me they can't justify spending $30 more per month when all they do is check their email and simple browsing.

We could make analogies all night long.

You know, a $10,000 Kia will get me to/from work and take my kids to the mall and have A/C to keep me cool in the summer just the same as a $50,000 Mercedes will.

People pay for perceived benefits (HDTV - higher resolution, crystal-clear picture, better audio (typically); Mercedes - leather, performance, handling, safety, etc.)

If someone doesn't want to pay $20 more per month to not get HDTV, then they don't think HDTV is worth $20 more per month. I was paying $96/mo. for my DISH account when I had it (included Top 150 and all movie channels plus a couple of locals and an extra receiver). To each his own but to say HDTV is out of the reach (financially) of the Average Joe is incorrect. Just a couple of years ago 4:3 Analog projection sets were $2000....now 16:9 HDTV sets are that and less!

Now...if you'll excuse me...Charlize Theron is going to be on The Tonight Show tonight in HD!

You have a great point but an average joe with a wife and kids (like you) probably doesn't need to spend $2000 on a tv. Market share for TV's 25-35" is MUCH MUCH larger than market share is for that analog projection set. You're right, it's not financially out of reach for the average joe - anyone can afford anything nowadays with credit - it's just the average joe doesn't need a 16:9 HDTV set for $2000 when he can get a 35" tv for $400 and spend the rest on the kids/wife/home improvement.

 

[Muse]

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: BarneyFife My father and I are looking for a new tv to replace the old one that's dying. So we are looking at getting an HDTV and all I see is mass confusion and dollar signs flashing before my eyes. First off the tv's have many different features. Secondly, to actually get an hdtv signal you have to buy a receiver or call your cable\satellite company and get a special receiver. A receiver costs $400 bucks just to get your local channels. I called Comcast tonight and to get hdtv, they want to increase my bill by $20 a month because I don't have digital cable. Instead of paying $38, they want $15 more for digital and $5 for hdtv. The confusion doesn't end there. I notice that a few companies make you pay for each channel. For examply Discoveryhd costs a premium each month. Same with ESPNHD in some markets. They gotta be nuts if they think I'm going to pay $20 a month extra for my local hdtv channels and then think I'm going to pay per hdtv channel. Was HDTV created by satellite and cable companies to exploit more money? I'm a computer geek and I find all this talk about 1080, receivers, special antenna very confusing. I'm beginning to think if people are dumb enough to pay for ESPNHD as a premium channel that the cable companies will start charging us per channel. I can just imagine paying $50 for 12 channels. I think I'm better off buying a non-hdtv and living off of that until I absolutely have to get HDTV.

I fail to see any confusion. You don't want an integrated tuner. And what's wrong w/cable companies charging a bit of a premium? The box you get from them is worth a lot more than a regular cable box so $5 more/month is no biggie. As for Discovery/ESPN charging for their HD channels, well, it's early in their offerings and that will change one day. I'm sure you'll see DISH/DirecTV following cable companies and offering an HD Pak. HDTV sets aren't that expensive for certain models and are comparable in price to many 4:3 analog sets. Build an HTPC (HD tuner cards are now under $200) and receive OTA HD broadcasts w/o cable or satellite. NBC, CBS, ABC, PBS, WB all offer some form of HD programming (CBS is the leader with ABC right behind them). FOX is only 480p on some shows. I don't know where Ferndale, MI is but if it's near Detroit/Chicago, you can definitely get HD OTA. And imagine playing those 480p/720p/1080i XBOX games on your HDTV!

Now, this sounds pretty affordable. No monthly charges whatsoever, not even basic cable. If I was correctly informed my ordinary NTSC TV antenna will pick up HD signals just fine. If I can indeed get a TV card for less than $200 that will feed HD to my monitor, that's a bargain compared to buying a TV/Monitor, possibly a separate HD tuner and pay monthly cable + monthly premiums for channels that have HD programming. We're talking a total outlay of less than $200. I wonder how good it will look on my 22" NEC CRT or the 19 or 20 inch LCD I hope to get soon.

 

[ultimatebob]

Originally posted by: Angrymarshmello

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: BarneyFife

Originally posted by: Angrymarshmello

Originally posted by: ultimatebob

Originally posted by: Angrymarshmello

Originally posted by: Thraxen

Because you couldnt watch it without hdtv.. or cable for that matter.

Your point? Do you play all your games at 640x480? Get my drift?

Sitting 15 feet away from your computer is a huge difference than sitting 2 feet away from your computer screen. We're talking the average joe - the 26 million AOL subscribers, the people who pay Best Buy "techs" to install a USB modem. These people don't give a $hit nor could they tell a difference to justify the cost, therefore making it useless.

Even a moron can see the difference in image quality between conventional TV and HDTV when they go to a Best Buy and see one! There also isn't anything all that "hard" about having HDTV, because most tuners are set to automatically switch over when they receive an HDTV signal.

HDTV IS currently too expensive for the average Joe, however, and it probably won't go mainstream until you can go to Best Buy and buy a 34" HDTV with an integrated tuner for under $1,000.

They can't tell a difference to justify the cost. You can tell the difference between a $1000 surround sound system from the $200 one but people buy the $200 one because they can't justify the cost difference based off the "quality" difference between the two.

You're exactly correct. Just look at broadband vs dialup. I know many people that can get broadband but tell me they can't justify spending $30 more per month when all they do is check their email and simple browsing.

We could make analogies all night long.

You know, a $10,000 Kia will get me to/from work and take my kids to the mall and have A/C to keep me cool in the summer just the same as a $50,000 Mercedes will.

People pay for perceived benefits (HDTV - higher resolution, crystal-clear picture, better audio (typically); Mercedes - leather, performance, handling, safety, etc.)

If someone doesn't want to pay $20 more per month to not get HDTV, then they don't think HDTV is worth $20 more per month. I was paying $96/mo. for my DISH account when I had it (included Top 150 and all movie channels plus a couple of locals and an extra receiver). To each his own but to say HDTV is out of the reach (financially) of the Average Joe is incorrect. Just a couple of years ago 4:3 Analog projection sets were $2000....now 16:9 HDTV sets are that and less!

Now...if you'll excuse me...Charlize Theron is going to be on The Tonight Show tonight in HD!

You have a great point but an average joe with a wife and kids (like you) probably doesn't need to spend $2000 on a tv. Market share for TV's 25-35" is MUCH MUCH larger than market share is for that analog projection set. You're right, it's not financially out of reach for the average joe - anyone can afford anything nowadays with credit - it's just the average joe doesn't need a 16:9 HDTV set for $2000 when he can get a 35" tv for $400 and spend the rest on the kids/wife/home improvement.

Exactly. I COULD afford a $2000 HDTV if I wanted to, but I don't want to spend that much on a TV that will probably cost HALF that three years from now. When HDTV's stop costing over twice as much as a conventional TV, they will sell like hotcakes. Until then, they're a luxury item.

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: ultimatebob

Exactly. I COULD afford a $2000 HDTV if I wanted to, but I don't want to spend that much on a TV that will probably cost HALF that three years from now. When HDTV's stop costing over twice as much as a conventional TV, they will sell like hotcakes. Until then, they're a luxury item.

And then you forego the greater benefit of HDTV for another 3 years.

Same could be said of putting off buying/building a new PC. There will just be more powerful and cheaper ones in 3 years.

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: Muse

Now, this sounds pretty affordable. No monthly charges whatsoever, not even basic cable. If I was correctly informed my ordinary NTSC TV antenna will pick up HD signals just fine. If I can indeed get a TV card for less than $200 that will feed HD to my monitor, that's a bargain compared to buying a TV/Monitor, possibly a separate HD tuner and pay monthly cable + monthly premiums for channels that have HD programming. We're talking a total outlay of less than $200. I wonder how good it will look on my 22" NEC CRT or the 19 or 20 inch LCD I hope to get soon.

Take your pick

 

[conjur]

Charlize and Jay

Charlize Theron

Charlize and Jay 2

 

[arod]

Originally posted by: conjur
Charlize and Jay

Charlize Theron

Whats sad is those pictures look like crap compared to what the broadcast was really like....

 

[BarneyFife]

Originally posted by: Thraxen

To go from $40 a month to $60 is a 50% jump and the only channels I'll get are the free channels such as abc and pbs. I just watch news and sports. Sspn, fox sports, cnn etc.. does its job for me.

If you live in a larger city you might be able to get the major networks OTA (over the air). I live in a city of only about 60K and I can get CBS and ABC OTA for free.... and the local NBC station has just put up their digital tower, but have not yet begun broadcasting.

I did some research and it looks like all my major networks in my area (metro Detroit) broadcast in HDtv. It seems like buying an OTA tuner for $400 is my best bet since I already have a rotating antennna on top of my house. The trend in HDTV is scaring me though when I see ESPN and Discovery being charged as premium channels. I hope it's just a "lets find as many suckers as we can in the beginning ploy". If not, then our tv bills are going to double and triple in about 5 years.

 

[0roo0roo]

Originally posted by: Angrymarshmello
HDTV's are for people with cash to blow. Like people who buy Porsche Cayennes, or something totally useless like that

since when is 1-2k like a porsche cayenne maybe if a cayenne could blow away all competition, 0-60 in 2 seconds or something crazy. haha. a waste of money is spending 1-2k on a bigscreen and surround sound etc for home theater and NOT have hdtv.

the average woman doesn't care unless you show them. the average young man does. probably goes to best buy and drools a little each time he see's hd in action. he's the future. old people..screw em

 

[Sepen]

I just bought a Toshiba 65" along with a Zenith HD receiver, then a nice big ole ugly antenna to put on the roof. Walla, HDTV OTA. Many more shows on regular channels than you will find anytime soon anywhere else.

Originally posted by: BarneyFife
My father and I are looking for a new tv to replace the old one that's dying. So we are looking at getting an HDTV and all I see is mass confusion and dollar signs flashing before my eyes. First off the tv's have many different features. Secondly, to actually get an hdtv signal you have to buy a receiver or call your cable\satellite company and get a special receiver. A receiver costs $400 bucks just to get your local channels. I called Comcast tonight and to get hdtv, they want to increase my bill by $20 a month because I don't have digital cable. Instead of paying $38, they want $15 more for digital and $5 for hdtv. The confusion doesn't end there. I notice that a few companies make you pay for each channel. For examply Discoveryhd costs a premium each month. Same with ESPNHD in some markets.

They gotta be nuts if they think I'm going to pay $20 a month extra for my local hdtv channels and then think I'm going to pay per hdtv channel. Was HDTV
created by satellite and cable companies to exploit more money? I'm a computer geek and I find all this talk about 1080, receivers, special antenna very confusing. I'm beginning to think if people are dumb enough to pay for ESPNHD as a premium channel that the cable companies will start charging us per channel. I can just imagine paying $50 for 12 channels. I think I'm better off buying a non-hdtv and living off of that until I absolutely have to get HDTV.

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: BarneyFife

Originally posted by: Thraxen

To go from $40 a month to $60 is a 50% jump and the only channels I'll get are the free channels such as abc and pbs. I just watch news and sports. Sspn, fox sports, cnn etc.. does its job for me.

If you live in a larger city you might be able to get the major networks OTA (over the air). I live in a city of only about 60K and I can get CBS and ABC OTA for free.... and the local NBC station has just put up their digital tower, but have not yet begun broadcasting.

I did some research and it looks like all my major networks in my area (metro Detroit) broadcast in HDtv. It seems like buying an OTA tuner for $400 is my best bet since I already have a rotating antennna on top of my house. The trend in HDTV is scaring me though when I see ESPN and Discovery being charged as premium channels. I hope it's just a "lets find as many suckers as we can in the beginning ploy". If not, then our tv bills are going to double and triple in about 5 years.

That's just to help them recoup some of their startup costs. Once they land deals with both satellite providers (DirecTV/DISH) and spread across cable carriers throughout the land, that will change. Like I said above, you're more likely going to start seeing an HD Package from the various content providers that will include things like local OTA HD, ESPN, Discovery, HDNet, etc.

 

[Michael]

I have an upgrade appointment scheduled with Comcast to get the HDTV package.

It will be $25 a month extra for the digital cable package plus $5 for the box.

Too much to pay for HDTV?

The box is about $400 to $600 if purchased new. $5 a month is a bargain compared to that.

Fir the $25 package 9$9.99 for 6 months), I get a whole bunch of stations I don't get now plus HBO (including HBO HDTV). There isn't an extra charge for the HDTV stations (local ABC, NBC and PBS, I hope CBS soon as well).

I live very close to a ridgeline and not too far off of one of the lanes that feeds planes into the SF area airports. The ridgeline makes getting OTA stations a little chancey and the planes have the possibility of multipath. A dish or satelite make the most sense.

Right now, I would have to pay for the HDTV converter myself if I got DirecTV or DISH. About $500.

If I decide that HBO isn't worth it, I'll drop the service.

Michael

 

[conjur]

read this, Michael

You may not need to switch to digital cable to get HD.

<shrug>

 

[SyahM]

The technology itself is pretty easy to understand, but it becomes confusing when you look at the price. the $$$$ makes you defensive but trust me, when you see your regular programming in HD, you'll be hooked. Get a good TV that'll last long time since the FCC due date is 2007.