Often times in the past, I've preferred Sony to other brands because Sony offers a quality product. You usually have to pay more for it than if you were going to someone like Samsung or Sylvania, but it's been worth it.
Now, Sony posted a loss for this past quarter because of millions of bad batteries through Dell, and other laptop manufacturers.
They announced that potentially thouands of Cybershot cameras were defective, and may not work in warm weathr.
The PS3 is full of problems, and I've heard rumors of units being returned because of problems, to say nothing of the fact that I heard elsewhere that every unit they sell at a loss of $200, meaning they'll never make it in the black with this thing (a dubious rumor).
Is Sony no longer a quality company? Will all these reports of problems shake consumer confidence? Their video game sector is what was helping keep the company afloat, amidst big losses in other markets from competitors. Is Sony in trouble? What do you all think?
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Sony hasn't been a "quality company" for years.
Posted by quidscribis (Member # 5124) on :
Sony hasn't been a "quality company" ever in my lifetime of consuming electronic goods.
(Waits for it. Waits for it...)
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
I'm stuck between whether to tease you about your age or the fact that you eat electronics.
Decisions, decisions....
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Quite apart from the question of quality, Sony is evil and you shouldn't be supporting them anyway.
Posted by quidscribis (Member # 5124) on :
(And there it is. Thanks, Stormy. )
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Still, their products have ALWAYS been more expensive than the "lesser" brands, and yet they always sell well (well, until recently when their video game division pretty much drove the whole company).
They must have been doing SOMETHING right to be near the top of the industry.
Posted by quidscribis (Member # 5124) on :
Um, yeah, I'm not so sure of that. People do all sorts of things for all sorts of dumb reasons. And advertising does seem to work.
Personally, I stopped buying their products after a walkman I bought had to be replaced three times in the first week I owned the thing, and then the store refused to give me my money back because it was outside their return policy dates. Of course, I got my money back anyway after complaining loudly to the manager, loudly enough that other customers could hear exactly why I wanted my money back.
I wouldn't touch their products unless they were given to me, and hopefully by someone with enough money that it didn't matter to them that whatever they bought was essentially disposable electronics. Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
PS3 is gonna blow away the competition just you wait.
Its a dedicated gming platform with some of the most awesaome games and the rumurs of losing its FF franchise are lies and vile rumurs!
Posted by Human (Member # 2985) on :
Say what you will about the PS3's power and quality as a gaming system (and I don't wish to turn this into another endless PS3 vs. The World debate), the launch was horribly flawed. Not enough systems, problems with distribution, not filling preorders, an insane base price...they haven't been doing good. Not to mention that they take a loss on every PS3 they sell right now. If Sony doesn't do something good in the next six months with the PS3, it'll die before the PS2 does, and be regarded as the modern gamer's Sega Saturn or Dreamcast. You have to do more to back up Sony or it's systems than say "Oooh, ooh, Sony is great, they've bought my soul, they're awesome!"
((Also, it's not 'rumurs', it's 'rumours', 'gaming' not 'gming' and 'awesome' not 'awesaome'. Would it kill you to look at a dictionary or a spellcheck before posting? Also, using the word rumors twice in the same sentence is probably not the best use of the english language. Just to let you know.))
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
Lies, everyone knows Humans are cheats, they go around from one habitat to another draining its resources.
Posted by Human (Member # 2985) on :
Does that even remotely have any relevance to anything I said, or that has been said in the thread recently? Actually, does it even make sense, period? Try again, Blayne.
Back on the topic of the thread: As for whether or not Sony is a quality company...I can't really say. I've never owned anything by them other than my PS2. However, my PS2 has operated flawlessly from the day it was unpacked, and has even survived being yanked off of my dresser a few times. It's also been through being carted around in my backpack, being set out in my car in temperatures that probably aren't good for electronics, and having me throw my controller around when I get pissed. Their gaming systems, at least, have so far been quality products, I'd say.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
It is standrad buisness to sell at a loss, alot of buisness decisions are based on the concept of gamgling money you dont even have but do it strategically to the point you reap huge profits.
Remeber the fights in toystores by soccer moms over plushy dolls? it'lll still happen, because regardless of the price of the play station III enough people will be unable to resist the mind control powers of their children and fight tooth and nail for a system.
Sony is synomynous with household gaming in Japan, China, Korea and Europe millions of gamers are die hard Sony fans who'll purchase the system.
There's no way that FFXIII would go to the 360 not without horribly cutting down the games graphics.
Yes, Sony is gambling, they are gambling very big for high stakes but can you imagine the beefits when this gamble suceeds? 5 billion $ profit in hard net profit I assure you.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
I was making a pun on your name Human.
I've had a PS2 since it came out and ive no problems with it that werent vcr related.
Posted by Lalo (Member # 3772) on :
In my experience, Sony's been known for quality design and excellent sound fidelity. But that was back in the days of the Walkman -- now, they're an arrogant, overpriced company reliant on proprietary formats and invasive rootkits. I'll never buy a Sony product again, if I can help it.
Which is really a shame, since I did love my Sony CD player. It gave magnificent sound, much better than any other player I've heard. The PS1's apparently also a cheap, incredibly high-quality CD player itself. The Sony MP3 player, even if it is dependent on that damn ATRAC3 crap, is being touted as another high-fidelity player -- anyone know if that's true? Do any other MP3 players rival it for sound quality?
Posted by Human (Member # 2985) on :
((Directed at Blayne))
Maybe in Japan they're making money, I don't know. I know that in the US their sales aren't doing too well, mostly because they haven't even been able to fill their allotted quota of preorders. Some of that may have to do with the fact that the diodes of the blu-ray systems, for instance, have not yet had their production process refined. While it may be a fairly standard business practice to sell at a loss until one has enough of a consumer base to sell at a profit, right now, the analogy doesn't hold. It's not that Sony is selling millions of these things, they can't even get that many of them to stores. Add the fact that the games that they plan on being best-sellers aren't out yet, and they're still taking a tremendous risk.
Also, while the fights are going on in toystores over these systems right now, will that still hold true in six months? If the 360 and the Wii become able to completely fill demand while the PS3 falls behind, underproduced, undersold, and undergamed? The fights will die, and Sony will lose a huge edge. This isn't me saying I want Sony to fail, it's just that unless the situation changes soon, I can't see them getting a good outcome from this. Also, the 'mind control' factor, as you so sophomorically put it, doesn't hold when holiday budgets are stretched, and one can get a Wii and games, plus more presents, for the cost of a PS3 that you can't even get your hands on.
By the way, I was never arguing that FFXIII was going to be on the 360--I never stated anything like that. They've already spent quite a bit of time developing it on the PS3, it'll stay there. However, SquareEnix likes profit far too much to dream of sticking on the PS3 if it doesn't take off. If FFXIII doesn't sell well, it's not inconcievable that they'll take the franchise elsewhere; and the 360 isn't as graphically inferior as Sony would like you to think.
You're right, Sony's gambling for high stakes--but if that means you can win big, the inverse is true as well. I most definitely 'assure' you that.
((Spellcheck. I'm not asking--that post of yours was almost unreadable, and only out of sheer boredom did I try and decipher it. Next time, I probably won't bother. You want to debate, do it in english.))
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
My Sony Discman still works. Heck, I had one that was like a record in the sense that I had to place a CD on it and be careful not to touch the cd, but it still worked pretty well until I dropped it. So perhaps they are still making fairly good discmen at least.
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
I loved my Discman as well...but if at all possible, I try to buy Samsung nowadays.
-pH
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
Holy crap am I drunk!? I havent relaized my spelling was so bad!
Posted by Human (Member # 2985) on :
No, really? Well, good thing the rest of us realized for you, Blayne. Otherwise, you might have continued committing heinous crimes against the english language, for which you would have been imprisoned and executed by rabid cats on crack. Think of the cats!
Posted by erosomniac (Member # 6834) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: The PS3 is full of problems, and I've heard rumors of units being returned because of problems, to say nothing of the fact that I heard elsewhere that every unit they sell at a loss of $200, meaning they'll never make it in the black with this thing (a dubious rumor).
I haven't really used many of Sony's products recently, but wanted to chime in to say (if it hasn't been said already, I skimmed the thread) that Sony taking a loss on the consoles isn't unusual. Microsoft took a loss on every single XBox console sold and, I believe, is taking the same hits with the 360. Console developers have never made a sizable amount of money from console sales; the money is in the software, so it's impossible to say whether the PS3 is panning out based on them taking losses.
Sadly, it's also become something of a standard for first gen consoles to be pretty buggy. The gen-one PS2s were pretty problematic, especially after three years of release. The XBox and 360 both had numerous first-wave problems, and it doesn't surprise me that the PS3 is any different. Due to these new standards, it wouldn't surprise me if we have to wait for the third or fourth wave of PS3s to be able to truly judge the hardware.
Posted by quidscribis (Member # 5124) on :
quote:which you would have been imprisoned and executed by rabid cats on crack. Think of the cats!
Lovely! Execution by cat! I can't wait! *takes a prime seat* *breaks out the popcorn*
Posted by Wowbagger the Infinitely Prolonged (Member # 7476) on :
My first Ps2 had the annoying Disk Read Error problem, also a Sony DVD player that suddenly suffered a drive failure just when the warranty expired. What irks me about Sony is the numerous useless standards they keep trying to force us to use. Betamax, SACD, UMD, minidisk, Sony memory stick and now BluRay.
P.S. Firefox 2.0 has a built in spell checker
Posted by Goody Scrivener (Member # 6742) on :
*takes a seat next to quid and watches her own two kittens prepare for battle*
I've not bought anything Sony in several years now. Actually, now that I think about it, I haven't bought any electronics that weren't computer peripherals. However, when I have looked around in my wistful, "I want that and that and that" mode, I've been seeing significantly fewer Sony components than other brands.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
Sony's low-end Palm OS devices were fantastic, and the best on the market for their price, before Sony discontinued them, even if they did use the annoying memory stick.
Posted by Gecko (Member # 8160) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: to say nothing of the fact that I heard elsewhere that every unit they sell at a loss of $200, meaning they'll never make it in the black with this thing (a dubious rumor).
Every single comapany that makes consoles sells them at a loss. The money is not in the consoles, it's in the licensing fees from software companies. The more people who have a ps3, the more money sony can charge. They make the money back that way, and then some.
Posted by Wowbagger the Infinitely Prolonged (Member # 7476) on :
quote:Originally posted by Gecko:
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: to say nothing of the fact that I heard elsewhere that every unit they sell at a loss of $200, meaning they'll never make it in the black with this thing (a dubious rumor).
Every single comapany that makes consoles sells them at a loss. The money is not in the consoles, it's in the licensing fees from software companies. The more people who have a ps3, the more money sony can charge. They make the money back that way, and then some.
Actually Nintendo is making a profit on every Wii they sell.
If the cost of making a Wii game is so much smaller, shouldn't the games cost a fraction as much as well?
Sony is taking a pretty damned big hit on each unit sold, especially given the repairs they're having to make for returned units, the expense and complexity of the manufacturing process, to say nothing of the fact that no one is buying those damned Bly-Ray DVDs they are cramming down our throats. If games are prohibitively expensive, on top of a pricey, defect prone system, with a small library of games at launch...I mean I'd say it'll hurt them, but I guess by the time they actually get good amounta of working units out to the people, they'll actually have games out for people to play.
I wonder what Nintendo's next move is. They're going to make a KILLING on the Wii. Do they make a Wii 2 in the next Gen that has the motion sensitivity of the Wii and the graphics of a theoretical PS4? Or do they go in some strange totally new direction, like creating a motion sensitivity field that detects all body movements to enhance the gameplay experience. They have some nice options. Sony, not so much.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
David Manning says that Sony is the hottest, most reliable and innovative electronics company around, and that the PS3 is the best console ever! I bet you can't wait to get your hands on some Sony stock, huh? Manning's got the inside scoop that the hemorrhaging losses of their non-game franchises will end any day now!
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Sony's too big for their insistence on bundling to work effectively. They create these bundles with too many things people don't want/don't want yet/would rather live without for cheaper, like Blu-ray, memory sticks, et cetera, then are dismayed when they don't end up raising demand for all their products.
If they let each division compete independently and use the best components available instead of the latest components Sony makes, they'd probably do a lot better.
Posted by General Sax (Member # 9694) on :
((Also, it's not 'rumurs', it's 'rumours', 'gaming' not 'gming' and 'awesome' not 'awesaome'. Would it kill you to look at a dictionary or a spellcheck before posting? Also, using the word rumors twice in the same sentence is probably not the best use of the english language. Just to let you know.))
Its English not 'english'
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
And Lyrhawn: no, they shouldn't. While price being lower means companies are more willing to supply them at the same price, for something as commoditized as games the demand curve will be fairly flat, so they'll just produce more and sell them rather than lower price much, if any.
The big mystery is why most games are the same price new, instead of the really high demand ones being more expensive and the bad ones less. There are some plausible explanations, but its still a little odd.
Posted by Gecko (Member # 8160) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: no one is buying those damned Bly-Ray DVDs they are cramming down our throats.
Honestly, when VHS was all the rage, why did we need dvd? They both play movies and such, don't they? As technology advances, companies latch onto the new, bigger, better thing and the public follows.
Blu-ray is a new technology and a much better one than the DVD, which will be on it's way out in a few years.
What Sony is doing is pretty smart, actually.
Blu-Ray or HD-DVD are going to be the future in a few years time. The winner of this console war will also dictate the winner of this media storage war too, IMO. Microsoft is backing HD-DVD and Sony is backing Blu-Ray. But what sony is doing is instead of having people buying a Blu-Ray player seperatly right out of the box for the price tag of 1000 bucks, they are including it in their PS3 for 400 less. They are trying to get people who would normally not buy a Blu-Ray and those who would not normally buy a video game console to compromise for the sake of cost.
It's a good strategy.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Sony to me is a black hole of creativity within at least the video game market. The only creativity that comes out of that company is what 3rd party developers effectively force on them when they make games.
I still love a ton of games for the PS2 but I was not happy when Sony following Nintendo's inventiveness added joysticks to their controllers, and rumble functionality.
I am sure they have a team of guys who do nothing but try to figure out how to design a copy design of the Wiimote for PS3 use, without infringing on the copyright.
Sony at least no longer has exclusive use of Final Fantasy, but I can't see SquareEnix doing business with Microsoft, and I think the Wii's limitations in the graphics department might be too much for Square to accept, but hey what do I know.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
My ps2 doesn't read movies unless it wants to.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Gecko: there may not be enough of a benefit in blu-ray to justify price though. Greater storage space to many simply does not matter.
It reminds me of Sony Mini Discs, they were smaller then CD players, and they sounded better IMO. There is still a market for them in China, Taiwan, and Japan. But they never picked up in the US, and even that was lucky way for things to play out. Beta Max was BETTER then VHS but VHS won because of price.
Unless PS3 finds a clutch title that everyone wants (much like what Final Fantay VII did for the first Playstation) I think its going to be more than a year before we see Sony making profits from the PS3, it was poorly executed IMO, they simply had to make the holiday sales rush or risk a bust.
Posted by Goody Scrivener (Member # 6742) on :
quote:Originally posted by Gecko: [QUOTE]But what sony is doing is instead of having people buying a Blu-Ray player seperatly right out of the box for the price tag of 1000 bucks, they are including it in their PS3 for 400 less. They are trying to get people who would normally not buy a Blu-Ray and those who would not normally buy a video game console to compromise for the sake of cost.
It's a good strategy.
I have to admit, this was how I finally began the conversion from VHS to DVD. The ex just *had* to have the PS2, stood in line overnight and everything (I think this was the last Sony item I've had in my home). After we'd had it about 6 months, he started renting DVDs from Hollywood and Blockbuster, and then we slowly started buying discs instead of tapes. When I moved out, he got the PS2 but I got most of the discs, so I finally went out and got a DVD player.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley: There's no way that FFXIII would go to the 360 not without horribly cutting down the games graphics.
I don't expect to see the game on the 360, but I don't see how the game's graphics would have to be "horribly cut down" to run on the 360.
quote:Originally posted by Human: Maybe in Japan they're making money, I don't know.
Not a chance -- the attach rate for games on PS3 sales in Japan was only 0.98. They can't possibly make up that $200 loss per console if everyone only buys one game. The North American attach rate was only 1.5.
I completely agree with your post.
quote:Originally posted by erosomniac: Microsoft took a loss on every single XBox console sold and, I believe, is taking the same hits with the 360.
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: ...I can't see SquareEnix doing business with Microsoft...
Final Fantasy XI is already on the 360. I'm not sure if it was a launch title, but I think it was close. SquareEnix have also promised at least one Xbox 360 exclusive game.
Added:
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: I think the Wii's limitations in the graphics department might be too much for Square to accept, but hey what do I know.
A sequel to the GameCube's Final Fantasy: Crystal Chronicles title has already been announced for Wii.
Added 2:
Gecko, I think the question with respect to high-definition optical disc formats is: will they take off before digital distribution eclipses them both? I don't think they will, which is why I don't think the PS3 will repeat the PS2's massive success. Microsoft are clearly hedging their bets -- in the U.S., you can download high definition movies and TV shows from the Xbox Live Marketplace, as of this week.
Posted by Wowbagger the Infinitely Prolonged (Member # 7476) on :
Square used to be a Nintendo exclusive company at one point, they go where ever the most money can be made.
Posted by Wonder Dog (Member # 5691) on :
One of Sony's big problems, overall, is that their interests are inherently schizophrenic. On one hand, they design and manufacture consumer goods that display various forms of media. On the other hand, they own and produce a lot of content which they stuff onto media (mostly movies and music). You would think (as they probably do) that this is a fantastic setup, because they have more control over their area of business.
But instead of focusing on making hardware that meets consumers desires and needs simply and effectively, they are constantly being pulled by their content divisions to create hardware that shows off or prefers their content (and their DRM). This is the really schizo part: One half of the company makes and sells devices that should make it easier for you to enjoy media on a variety of devices, while the other half of the company makes media and tries to lock it into only one way of playback.
This is what they want: You buy Sony music or video or games, encoded in Sony's proprietary compression, on Sony's proprietary physical media (whether it be MD, Memory Stick, UMD or Blu-Ray). In this situation, a lot of what Sony does makes sense.
This is what really happens: You buy Sony hardware 'cos it's been marketed well, but you want to play music you already have encoded the way you like or movies that aren't Blu-Ray or UMD on that hardware - and it's NOT easy. Because you're not doing it the way Sony wants you to (ie. through all their preferred channels).
Add to that the problems of manufacturing tons of (sometimes) proprietary hardware (consumer electronics fritz out or break down even when they're making non-proprietary hardware - proprietary designs and components simply compound the problem) and now you have fun little mess.
IMO, this is what comes of trying to clobber all levels of your target market - yes, you get you fingers into all the pies, but you don't accomplish any one thing particularly well, and you have to deal with waaay more problems than your competitors who focus on only a few things. This is why open standards and designs (or at least easily licensed ones) will always win in the end, even though that may be "inferior" (eg. BetaMax): They're licensed easier, they get more market share for cheaper, multiple parties deliver them to consumers, and the whole thing snowballs until the "cheaper, inferior" product dominates the market place.
Beyond BetaMax, you could say this also might explain the success of the IBM PC, Windows, the Floppy Disk, CD's (vs. MD), etc.
To make a long and pretentious rant short: Sony is trying to be too many companies to too many consumers.
Posted by Elmer's Glue (Member # 9313) on :
Yay Sony bashing! Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Originally posted by General Sax: Its English not 'english'
It's 'it's', not 'its'. And note the comma. Posted by TL (Member # 8124) on :
You're lucky that starting sentences with conjunctions has become acceptable.
Posted by blacwolve (Member # 2972) on :
Wonder Dog- Thanks for that post. I've been hearing a lot about this recently, but never got a clear explanation of what was actually happening.
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
Another reason Samsung is the best:
Aside from the fact that I once accidentally submerged my Samsung phone in water and when I fished it out, the other person was still on the line...
I was just out biking and (like a genius) accidentally dropped my mp3 player IN FRONT of the bike. And ran it over. And it was still playing when I rescued it from the street. A little bent and with tiger claw marks all over the back of it, poor thing, but still ticking.
-pH
Posted by andi330 (Member # 8572) on :
Blu-Ray v. HD DVD is like Beta v. VHS. However, unlike the Beta v. VHS (in which the system with a poorer video quality won out) I have no idea which system will win. Beta had better picture quality on tapes that ALWAYS lasted 6 hours (and you didn't have to remember to change the speed on your VCR) yet, eventually, they still lost to the competition. I was sad the day our old Beta died (mostly because my tape of the final episode of Star Trek: TNG was all sound and no picture).
I've advised my parents not to buy an HD DVD player for a year or so. By then the price should have dropped, and we should know which will win.
Posted by andi330 (Member # 8572) on :
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: And note the comma.
This is a sentence fragment. Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I know everyone is making the comparison between beta vs. VHS and HDDVD vs. blu-ray, but both the beta and VHS could be played on the same TV.
For an HDDVD or a Blu-ray, you have to have a Hi-Def tv for it to matter, otherwise you're just buying a more expensive player for the same quality on your old TV, so really, the price of these players for someone who doesn't already have a plasma set with high resolution output is a grand for the player and another grand and change for the TV, making the price prohibitively expensive when a DVD player is $30 at Best Buy.
I'm not convinced the DVD is on the way out in a few years, I think it'll be around for a long, long time. And I think the price for HiDef tvs has to drop another 30-50% before enough households have them so they can buy a bluray or hddvd player that has dropped 30-50% in price.
Also, you have to look at who is backing the different mediums at a higher level. If NBC backs bluray and not hddvd, you have to buy a bluray player to watch seasons of Friends and West Wing, if ABC backs hddvd, then you have to buy one of those to watch LOST. Same goes for the big movie houses. Companies are taking sides, and I think the quality of picture is good enough to be equal. What'll make the difference, to vast, vast majority of NON-Gamers, will be the price of the unit, and the quality of the hardware. Whichever one doesn't break down for the cheapest is it, and even then, not until people already have a Hi-Def tv set.
This is just the first salvo, we're a decade or more away. The DVD just recently got on top, it has awhile to reign yet.
Posted by andi330 (Member # 8572) on :
I don't think it's as far off as a decade. Remember, the FCC has mandated that all television broadcasts must be digital by the year 2011. That's actually an extension on the first date which, I'm pretty sure, was 2009 (but don't quote me). So, by 2011, if you want to see tv at the quality it was produced, you'll either have to have an HD TV or...well, there actually isn't an or.
Technically, if you stay with an analog set, you'll be able to buy a converter box (much like with cable) but, you'll be sacrificing picture quality for it. And it's dollars to doughnuts that if broadcasting companies are going to be required to produce in HD, the DVD releases of their current tv shows will be HD as well. Why spend the money to lower the quality just so people who haven't upgraded their technology can watch the show?
No, I expect the Blu-Ray v. HD DVD to be decided by the time networks have to broadcast in digital, which is only 4 years away.
Edit: Sorry, it turns out 2009 was the correct date. At least according to dtv.gov That makes the conversion only 2 years away, rather than 4.
[ November 26, 2006, 01:15 AM: Message edited by: andi330 ]
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
The big advantage I could see for HDDVD is the name. HDDVD is like DVD. Blu-ray sounds like a stinging sea creature. In terms of familiarity, HDDVD wins just because of that. And familiarity plays a pretty big role in this kind of thing.
-pH
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by andi330: I don't think it's as far off as a decade. Remember, the FCC has mandated that all television broadcasts must be digital by the year 2011. That's actually an extension on the first date which, I'm pretty sure, was 2009 (but don't quote me). So, by 2011, if you want to see tv at the quality it was produced, you'll either have to have an HD TV or...well, there actually isn't an or.
Technically, if you stay with an analog set, you'll be able to buy a converter box (much like with cable) but, you'll be sacrificing picture quality for it. And it's dollars to doughnuts that if broadcasting companies are going to be required to produce in HD, the DVD releases of their current tv shows will be HD as well. Why spend the money to lower the quality just so people who haven't upgraded their technology can watch the show?
No, I expect the Blu-Ray v. HD DVD to be decided by the time networks have to broadcast in digital, which is only 4 years away.
I have digital cable as it is, and I have a six year old 32 inch Sharp. When they switch it over, and when DVDs are sold with higher quality or whatever, I'll still have my six year old 32 inch Sharp.
HD already exists, and will be more widespread in a decade, but I can still watch it the way it is, so if I can't afford a thousand dollar or more television, why is this any sort of nudge to me to upgrade? Besides, I don't need HD to watch my old Friends DVDs.
Posted by andi330 (Member # 8572) on :
Sure, old DVDs will still be watchable, but what about new shows, etc. The digital age is coming on faster than most people like to think. As I said in my edit on the previous page. Dtv is actually going to be required by 2009, not 2011 as I first thought. Dtv and HDTV are not entirely the same thing, so it may take a little longer than 2 years, however, people seem to forget just how fast VHS took over from beta, or even how quickly DVDs took over.
People have also forgotten just how much quality electronics cost. We've gotten used to being able to purchase a decent set for around $100. I found the receipt to my parents last good tv, though (not the HD but the last one before that)and it was around $400 when they purchased it. My parents paid $200 for their VCR.
No, my parent's aren't wealthy, but electronics prices have dropped significantly in the last few years. The phenomenon of a tv in every room of the house is relatively new, and only because the cost of a tv has dropped so low so quickly. I remember when we only had one tv in the house. I'm under 30, and my parents made decent money. When they bought the second tv, wow, that was a BIG deal.
People are moaning about the cost of HD sets, but only because we've gotten so used to cheap electronics. Once 2009 hits and Dtv is the requirement, expect all set prices to go up, whether purchasing a Dtv or an HDTV set. I'd expect to see tv prices at $200-$400 for a Dtv set, at least in the beginning. By then, HDTV set prices will have dropped to about the $400 range. Why pay $400 for a top of the line Dtv when I can have an HDTV instead? And, if I'm going to own an HDTV, I would want an HD DVD player. After all, the good ones will be backwards compatible, so I won't have to replace all my old DVDs, and the new DVDs will probably be released in which ever HD format wins out.
quote:Receiving the DTV and HDTV signals over-the-air requires an antenna and a new DTV receiver that can decode the digital signals. In general, an antenna that provides quality reception of over-the-air analog TV signals will work for DTV reception.
If you are a cable or satellite customer, you may need a set-top box to receive DTV signals and convert them into the format of your current analog television, even after the DTV transition is complete. A DTV set-top box also may receive multicast channels and high definition programming and display them in analog picture quality. Check with your cable or satellite provider to determine if and when you will need a set-top box.
If I'm going to need a converter box for every room of the house again (like back in the day, when tv sets weren't cable ready) then I might as well replace my sets to the new digital version. It'll probably save money (and frustration) in the long run.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
People are going to be able to purchase a converter, which most of us probably already have in our homes and given to us from our cable provider, making most of this a moot point anyway. Or, the US government, in the same law that you're citing about making all TV signals digital, authorized giving all US homes (contingent on rules) two $40 coupons towards the purchase of a converter (won't pay for the whole thing, but it makes a nice dent). And DTV sets will only fall in price as time goes on.
You say "things are too cheap" like that is going to light a fire under us to buy expensive sets that we don't NEED. When all digital tv gets here, most of us probably won't even notice, not everyone who has cable anyway.
I don't see the big push you are seeing. DVD is going to be around for a long, long time. VHS is still around because I think it's easier still to tape something on VHS than DVD, but that'll go away when everyone has TiVo or an equivilant. But DVD will be around for years to come. When HDTV sets fall DRAMATICALLY in price, and the same with the new players, then you'll see the big switchover, but until then I don't think you're going to see the kind of vast revolution in just a couple years when no one really HAS to, and prices are still up.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
I think it's important to separate the questions of HDTV adoption rate and HD optical format adoption rate. Regular DVDs look significantly better on HDTVs than on SDTVs, because DVDs are encoded at 720x480p. SDTVs can only display 640x480i. That's a lot of lost resolution when you watch a regular DVD on an SDTV, even before considering letterboxing losses.
Finally, the overwhelming majority of HDTVs being sold are either 1280x720p native or 1920x1080i native, while HD-DVD and Blu-ray are both designed to store video at 1920x1080p. Hardly anyone has a 1080p-capable set right now, and they're a lot more expensive than 720p/1080i sets. People with 720p sets will notice a bit more sharpness when watching downsampled 1920x1080p, but it isn't going to be a huge difference from watching upsampled 720x480p. It isn't the kind of difference you see when you switch from watching regular DVDs on an SD set to an HD set, nor the kind of difference you get when you switch from VHS to DVD on an SD set.
Based on my own upgrade experience and those of people I know personally, I think new HDTV purchasers will be largely content watching their existing DVD collections on their shiny new TVs. I'm definitely in no hurry to buy a Blu-ray or HD-DVD player, even though I could buy the HD-DVD add-on drive for my Xbox 360 relatively inexpensively. I don't know a single person who is interested in either of the new optical formats. As I said on the last page, I think digital distribution will take over before either HD-DVD or Blu-ray have a chance to take off the way DVD did.
Posted by Strider (Member # 1807) on :
quote:As I said on the last page, I think digital distribution will take over before either HD-DVD or Blu-ray have a chance to take off the way DVD did.
ditto.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
You can buy an HD set without getting one of the new players, but you can't get one of the new players without getting an HD set, which is why I think you aren't going to see a major adoption of this new media format until AFTER the HD set revolution is over, which is AFTER prices fall, then we can DISCUSS those players being sold.
We're still years away.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: I think you aren't going to see a major adoption of this new media format...
I think by that time, both new optical media formats will have been rendered obsolete by on-demand digital distribution.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Maybe.
People still like hard copies of things.
And it is more convenient than downloading something and then burning it yourself. People still trust "official" copies more than the ones they make at home, but I think store bought copies of ANY medium will see a decline in the years to come.
Posted by Little_Doctor (Member # 6635) on :
Maddox had a lot to say about Sony recently. Be warned of vulgar language and inappropriate humor.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Jesus, that WAS graphic.
Posted by Little_Doctor (Member # 6635) on :
Yet, I found it hilarious.
Posted by Tstorm (Member # 1871) on :
quote:I think by that time, both new optical media formats will have been rendered obsolete by on-demand digital distribution.
I'm not convinced of this. At the current pace of Internet infrastructure upgrades, there will still be a majority of users for whom downloading high definition content will not be realistic. I've got a broadband connection, but I'm not sure I'd be able to download a DVD worth of video. My provider would cut off my connection somewhere in there. Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
Have you ever tried it? Posted by Tstorm (Member # 1871) on :
Ah, no, not deliberately. I've played games that probably saturated the line for an hour or three...but that wouldn't come close to the amount of bandwidth needed to pull down a DVD.
I average right around 1mb/sec (that's a lower-case 'b', so ~128KB) download on this cable internet connection. But that's measured at a test site. Actual download from another server would probably be less. Even assuming the best-case, it would take more than 10 hours to download a standard-definition DVD. I shudder at the thought of downloading high definition content.
Oh, and the provider told me, "We cap your usage...exceed the cap and we'll cut you off (temporarily)." Their words. Not mine. Posted by Sterling (Member # 8096) on :
It's worth pointing out that actual DVDs are chained to the MPEG-2 standard; movies streamed to a computer can use any standard and any compression that the end user is willing to install software to support, and some of those available are a mite bit more bandwidth-efficient than MPEG-2.
I'm somewhat curious which HD disc standard will get cracked first. Just curious... I'm not one of those people with a hard drive full of pirated movies. But I do find myself annoyed by the way the copy protection standards are doing at least as much to make equipment obsolete as the upgrade in image quality.
Posted by Tstorm (Member # 1871) on :
quote:It's worth pointing out that actual DVDs are chained to the MPEG-2 standard; movies streamed to a computer can use any standard and any compression that the end user is willing to install software to support, and some of those available are a mite bit more bandwidth-efficient than MPEG-2.
This is true. Unfortunately, until the company finishes its upgrades, I won't be doing much streaming video. (At my current connection quality, even streaming video from YouTube or CNN is far from good.)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
)
![[Laugh]](graemlins/laugh.gif)
![[Embarrassed]](redface.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)