Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: hmaly who wrote (143038)	3/3/2002 11:45:57 AM
From: brian1501	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1575608

My original reply to you got eaten somehow, but I'll try again. However, over 90% of the people now, given the choice prefer to save their money and go with SDTV Huh? Whose figures are these? What money is saved by going with SDTV? Other than a few Samsung models that are 480p native, you'd need one of the sets that could display HD as well. When congress passed the HD law, I doubt if they knew how good SDTV was and how few people would prefer to spend that kind of money. I realize both you and I could afford it, but a lot of people can't, and Fox is just being pragmatic. Congress knew full well what SDTV and HDTV would look like. DVD had been out for awhile, and Japan already had HD. They wanted a next generation TV standard that would be broadcast digitally. Little did they know that some broadcasters would rather broadcast the same old stuff digitally and have some extra channels for free. No bonus for the consumer, but more places for them to put ads. The cost difference between a SDTV and a HDTV would be negligible. HDTVs today are expensive because they are large. Compare the price of a 50" projection set and a 50" HD projection set...there isn't that much of a premium. You can buy a 19" computer monitor today for around 150 bucks. That monitor would do a fine job of displaying HDTV (you just need a decoder that will output RGB). Compare that to a 19" regular set for $170 bucks. Is it really too expensive now? That would have to depend upon what your definition of "order of magnitude" is. From what I see, HD is better, but it isn't as many orders of magnitude better than DSS as DSS is orders of magnitude better than analog. DSS gives you a very good picture, and for price/performance, it is a much better deal than HD. DSS is pure crap compared to a true HD signal. What I pointed out before still stands...if HBOHD is your only example of HD, you haven't seen real HD yet. Watch something on HDnet, PBSHD, or any local channel that is producing native HD. You'll change your tune. Considering that HD content costs the consumer nothing extra, the only parameter to your price/performance measurement is the cost of the display. See my points above...that just doesn't hold water. Brian