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.

Technology Stocks : C-Cube -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Stoctrash who wrote (25372)	11/17/1997 2:56:00 PM
From: DiViT	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 50808

DVD Makers: Size Is Important widebandmag.com Is smaller better? Sharp, Samsung and Toshiba are readying compact or portable DVD players for the U.S. and Japanese markets next year. Company execs say consumers want smaller, less obtrusive home theater components. "We had lengthy discussions about DVD," says Bob Scaglione, director of product planning for audio and video at Sharp. Recently returned from Japan, Scaglione says his company understands that a component's size and appearance, not just performance, is important to consumers. "A lot of people just don't have much space in their home-entertainment systems," he notes. "This new DVD player-a 270 mm machine-works with our mini-systems. It matches nicely with our televisions as well." Is the timing right for compact DVD players? Warner Home Video president Warren Lieberfarb thinks so. "Inevitably, the notebook version of these machines will be coming to America," he says. So why did Sharp wait? Scaglione explains that his company held off on this type of machine, which it will debut at CES and distribute to retailers in late spring, because it wanted to be sure the product was right for consumers. "We aim to give retailers a good reason to put the product on their shelves." Steve Nickerson, marketing vice president for Toshiba, agrees that consumers may find smaller players appealing. He also says Toshiba will wait before introducing Americans to these machines. "Our player is designed for the Japanese," he explains. "There are differences in the markets. For example, we don't have the same interest in karaoke as they do. This new compact player fits well with that need." The player-smaller than a notebook computer-is available in Japan Nov. 16. However, Nickerson expects to see smaller players in the U.S. market soon. "Americans are now interested in home theatre. The market will grow beyond that. When it does, smaller size is a benefit that can be exploited." Samsung's compact player is small, of course. It's also portable. The dimensions are 7.9 by 6.3 by 2.2 inches-about the size of a hardcover book. The player is in the prototype stage but, Samsung says, a commercial model will be available in the second half of next year. Unlike other DVD players made for home theater systems, this one also connects to a computer as an external DVD-ROM drive. Toshiba's Nickerson says this kind of versatility is one of the best aspects of DVD. "That's really the excitement of the category," he says. "It has the potential to change a lot of products that we thought were pretty advanced up to this point." What are Toshiba's plans? "When we think it's viable, we'll build the product to fit."

To: Stoctrash who wrote (25372)	11/17/1997 4:36:00 PM
From: John Rieman	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 50808

HDTV is nice, but how do you make money on it??????????????? usatoday.com 11/17/97- Updated 11:07 AM ET HDTV hits broadcasters in the wallet NEW YORK - Don't feel bad if you don't know what the major television networks and stations will broadcast next year when they introduce digital TV. They don't know either. And that soon could become a big problem. Broadcasters are already spending millions for DTV equipment. Yet, as Meredith CEO William Kerr put it, "we haven't figured out a way to make any money" from the DTV investments. As a result, executives are struggling with fundamental questions - including the extent to which they should use digital broadcasting to offer high-definition TV (HDTV). "We're still formulating our plans and talking to our affiliates," Westinghouse CEO Michael Jordan says. Executives are moving slowly because "these decisions will live with you for the next 50 years," NBC Television Stations President Scott Sassa says. What's more, "the complexity of all the different parts is like three-dimensional chess." To lessen their risks, broadcasters are considering alliances with other companies that have a stake in DTV. The major networks are talking to TV set manufacturers, satellite companies and cable operators. But there's no sign that anyone is close to striking a deal. Time is critical Broadcasters can't dally too long. About 26 stations are committed to launch the DTV era next October. By the end of 1999, stations reaching more than half of all viewers must offer some DTV programming. Today's analog broadcasting is supposed to sign off by the end of 2006. Networks and their affiliates in big cities will be first up with DTV and are making key investments. ABC, for example, has spent more than $55 million upgrading the No. 3 network's equipment to offer DTV. CBS plans to spend $100 million at its 14 stations so they can go digital. Most local stations expect to shell out from $2 million to $14 million for the transition. Those are daunting sums, even though the networks have vowed to help pay for some equipment. Several stations will have to spend more than they are worth to make the transition to DTV. "A lot of smaller owners wonder whether it makes sense to stay in the business," says Royce Yudkoff, managing partner with TV station operator and financier ABRY Partners. Virtually everyone is concerned with the cash they stand to lose from DTV. Even National Association of Broadcasters (NAB) President Eddie Fritts, a DTV supporter, likens it to "a loss leader in a retail store." Fears about HDTV The biggest deficits could come from the best known DTV application - HDTV. Advertisers, who supply nearly all of a station's revenue, probably won't pay significantly higher prices for spots to run in HDTV. It will take years for the new movie-screen shaped sets to infiltrate most living rooms. Receivers are expected to cost thousands of dollars when they hit stores next year. Even when the sets become less expensive and more popular, the super-sharp programs won't necessarily attract more viewers. As a result, broadcasters may transmit little HDTV programming. USA Networks CEO Barry Diller says he does not believe HDTV "will ever be the mainstay of our broadcast signal." But networks and stations probably can't afford to abandon HDTV completely. That became clear in September. Some members of Congress became livid when ABC Television Network President Preston Padden and station owner Sinclair Broadcasting publicly discussed a bold alternative strategy. They wanted to use DTV to compete with cable and satellite broadcasters. Here's how it would work: Instead of devoting nearly all of the digital spectrum to an HDTV transmission, a station could split its signal into about five standard quality channels. If several local stations did the same thing, they could collectively offer consumers a package of services, possibly including such cable favorites as CNN, MTV and ESPN. Those channels would be available to subscribers with set-top decoders who pay a monthly fee to the broadcast group. Advocates say this plan, called multicasting, would enable stations to compete for the $30 billion a year that consumers spend on subscription TV. "Despite the fact that we broadcasters have the most expensive, most sought after and most watched programming in the business, the networks and our affiliates get virtually none of that revenue," Padden said in August. But several legislators likened the proposal to a bait-and-switch scheme. "Congress would not have given broadcasters as much spectrum as we did if there wasn't an expectation that they would move to HDTV," House Telecommunications Subcommittee Chairman Billy Tauzin, R-La., said. "Broadcasters need to understand that this is not a 6-for-1 stock swap." The Clinton administration, for its part, says broadcasters - and the market - should decide whether HDTV or multicasting wins out. Fading multicasting Still, multicasting's prospects appear to be fading. Padden backpedaled in September. He told the Senate Commerce Committee that ABC does not have a plan to transmit subscription programming. He said that the network is "committed to giving HDTV a fair market test." Padden declined to comment for this story. NAB chief Fritts adds that broadcasters, who pay about $15 billion a year for programming, would just hurt themselves if they offer multiple channels. "The audience is already fragmented substantially," he says. "Why would a broadcaster put on channels to fragment the audience more?" The conventional wisdom is that the networks will initially offer some movies and splashy events - like the Academy Awards - in HDTV during prime time. But it's unclear what will happen during the day. Some broadcasters are thinking about using multicasting. Viewers who missed, say, Seinfeld Thursday night might be able to tune in to the show Friday afternoon. This plan would face stiff opposition. "It would be a nightmare for advertisers, programmers and probably for audiences, too," says TV station adviser Jack Fentress of Petry Television. "If you have Seinfeld on at four in the afternoon, don't you think it would have an impact on Oprah?" Broadcasters also seem to be losing faith that they could make a profit by renting out their DTV spectrum to information and data companies. "What business data (needs) to be broadcast?" Yudkoff asks. "I just don't know." By David Lieberman, USA TODAY