Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.video (
More info?)
"Bob Myers" <nospamplease@address.invalid> wrote:
>"chrisv" <chrisv@nospam.invalid> wrote in message
>news:ra22a0d5iculodln97182m4k01qdvtmqf2@4ax.com...
>> I don't need to collect data on whether most people are clueless about
>> most things. It's obvious.
>
>You know, it is absolutely amazing just how many
>products have failed due to their being based on market
>"understandings" that were "obvious"....
Your sarcasm is irrelevant. Just because sometimes people err in what
they regard as "obvious" doesn't mean I'm incorrect when I say that
it's obvious that most people are clueless. I'm not. It's only
slightly more obvious that the sun is hot.
>> Oh really? You work at Best Buy? Dell? Maybe you're the guy at Dell
>> who decided to show expensive flat-screens all over the flyer, but not
>> a single picture or mention of a CRT?
>
>Actually, yes, I DO work at one of the companies involved
>in this market, in the role of a display technology consultant.
Irrelevant to my point. I assert that your technical expertise and
experience in the industry doesn't give you any particular insight
into how knowledgable the Average Joe consumer is. You know Average
Joes, and so do I. They are not knowledgable about this stuff, they
are very susceptible to marketing, and no number of years working in
the industry will change that.
>> No, I suspect not. I suspect you are used to working with more savvy
>> folk than the average Joe, who doesn't have the foggiest idea of how
>> displays work and the various design trade-offs among different
>> technologies.
>
>Oh, believe me, I'm used to a pretty wide range of
>people.
So am I. And it's obvious most are clueless.
>> >> True. Of course, I know that there are different manufacturers. On
>> >> the other hand, the name that goes on the panel (and a good chunk of
>> >> the profits), go to the old list of Sony et al.
>> >
>> >Again, you're showing your ignorance of the market.
>>
>> No, you're showing that you don't know how to read.
>
>My, my, Chris - nothing better to do at this point in the discussion
>than to get insulting?
You started it, Bob, with your unsupported allegations of my
ignorance.
>What part of your statement do you think I
>had trouble with? Note that you said "the name that goes on the
>panel." In any sensible discussion involving LCDs, "panel" refers
>to the basic display device itself (what most LCD engineers would
>actually call the "module," "panel" being used to refer to something
>a bit more basic. With that understanding (that "panel" and "monitor"
>point to two very different things, what do you think was faulty with
>my understanding?
Okay, Bob, then either you have reading comprehension problems, or
you're enough of a jerk to call me "ignorant" because I used the word
"panel" when (you feel) I should have said "monitor". It should have
been obvious what I meant, from the context.
>Of course, even if you meant to say "monitor," you're still wrong.
>The majority of LCD monitors do NOT carry the names you think
>they do, or are manufactured by the people you apparently think
>make them.
Here's what I wrote, Bob.
"On the other hand, the name that goes on the panel (and a good chunk
of the profits), go to the old list of Sony et al."
Are you saying that the quantity of flat-panal monitors sold via the
brand names of Sony, Dell, Gateway, HP/Compaq, Apple, IBM, Princeton
Graphics, Viewsonic, NEC, Philips, etc (i.e. the same crowd that has
sold us CRT monitors all along) is less than half the total market?
Are you seriously suggesting that the quantity of monitors sold by the
above companies is so small as to render my point about those same
companies collecting a good chuck of the profits "wrong"?
Sorry, Bob, but the statement quoted above is not "wrong".
>> I never said they did. I said "the name that goes on the panel".
>>
>> >The leading monitor panel makers
>> >these day are Samsung, LG Philips, AU Optronics, Chi Mei Opto,
>> >CPT, and HannStar. Not a monitor maker among them, except
>> >for Samsung, and in their case it is a completely different division
>> >(with indepdendent profit/loss responsibility) that is the monitor
>> >maker. Note that Mitsubishi, Matsushita, Hitachi, Toshiba, Fujitsu,
>> >NEC, Sony etc., etc. - the big-name CRT makers of days gone by -
>> >are nowhere to be seen in this list.
>>
>> See above.
>
>Exactly right. See above.
Exactly right. See above, and this time try to stick to the point I'm
making instead of going off on an tangent.
>> It's obviously both. In case you've forgotten, my major beef is with
>> gullible consumers, which are exploited by the businessman.
>
>Where "gullible customer" is apparently defined as anyone who
>disagrees with your personal set of preferences.
Nope. "Guillible customer" is defined by someone who could have
gotten something that's just as good (or better) for their needs, for
a lot less money.
>> I'm beginning to tire of your intellectual dishonesty, Bob. Using
>> words like "force the LCD on a public that really DIDN'T want it".
>> (Which I have said NOTHING like.)
>
>Well, then please explain exactly what you DO mean to say. I'm
>quite sure I'm not the only one here who is somewhat confused
>about what it is you do mean to say. A bit of clarification would
>likely go a long way. But at least from what I have seen, you have been
>claiming that the public was essentially duped by a slick marketing
>campaign intended to switch them to supposedly more profitable
>products and away from those which actually better filled their
>needs. If this isn't an accurate summary of what you've been trying
>to say, then please clarify.
I've said what I've said. Your bizarre interpretations and straw-man
arguments I cannot account for.
>> Listen, the marketing is part of a plan, okay? The company PLANS for
>> the future. They PLAN the product. They PLAN the factories, and PLAN
>> the marketing for when the product is ready. Is this difficult to
>> figure out?
>
>Not at all - it just ignores the history of the market in this
>particular case.
I disagree.
>> Are you claiming they didn't market their product, Bob? Should I next
>> SHOW that the Sun is hot?
>
>Now who's misrepresenting statements, Chris?
I've got a ways to catch up to you, Bob.
>> >No, it doesn't, and if you'll note, I have NOT at any point said that
>> >your preferences were wrong. They are your preferences, and you are
>> >welcome to them, and you are welcome to base your buying decisions
>> >upon them. But your personal preferences are NOT relevant to a
>> >discussion about how this market has changed, and why.
>>
>> Straw man.
>
>Not at all - in fact, very relevant.
Nope. Not at all.
>Your entire argument so far,
>in the absence of any other supporting evidence, has been based
>on calling those customers who did not come to the same conclusion
>that you did "gullible" and "foolish." (Your words.) Please show how
>this differs from attempting to set your personal preferences up as
>an objective standard of "goodness" for all.
I cannot explain your illogic, Bob.
>The rest of your post consists of further ad hominem arguments
>with essentially zero additional evidence or relevant reasoning.
>Sorry, but I'm not playing that game.
You started it, Bob, leaping to call me ignorant, when in fact I am
not, about any of the things you've stated in this thread. I am sorry
if I inappropriately used the word "panel" when I should have said
"monitor", but that doesn't make me ignorant of this market.
>If you are here merely to
>attempt to insult my reading comprehension or reasoning abilities,
>or to question my experience in the field, then I see no reason to
>continue the discussion. If, though, you would like to continue
>this as a civil and reasoned debate, I would have no objection
>at all. For example:
>
>> Reading comprehension problems, Bob? I never claimed that it was.
>> For the Nth time, I largely blame the gullible consumer, for buying
>> something on "coolness" factor instead of performance and value.
>
>The first sentence is ad-hominem; the rest is a repeat of the
>same claim (as you note), but with absolutely no additional
>reasoning given as to why we should believe this to be the
>case.
The first sentence was a valid question, as I cannot understand how,
after reading what I wrote, you could imply that I was claiming "that
sheer marketing has driven the changeover from CRTs to LCDs." I mean,
that's so ridiculous that it boggles my mind.
Haven't I pointed my finger in other directions besides marketing,
Bob? Yes, I think I have.
>> There's nothing particularly unique about this market, Bob.
>
>About the market, no; in terms of our relative levels of experience
>in this particular market, I would suggest that perhaps there IS.
Irrelevant, as explained above.
When I open a Dell flyer, it's quite obvious what type of monitor they
are pushing, even when it is NOT the best option for large segments of
the market. There's also ZERO attempt on their part to educate the
consumer in a way that may steer them toward a less-profitable type of
monitor. It's ludicrous to deny my points in this regard. The proof
is in the pudding, despite your objections.
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram