Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

I can't believe Sony has discontinued their crt line, incl..

Last response: in Graphics & Displays
Share
Anonymous
a b U Graphics card
May 2, 2004 11:13:30 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.video (More info?)

Sure, the F5** line had their problems, but the F520 was (and still
is) the best damn monitor out there.

I guess I'm going to have to rethink my dream triple F520 system that
I was going to build someday (I have 1 right now).
Anonymous
a b U Graphics card
May 3, 2004 12:34:44 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.video (More info?)

> Sure, the F5** line had their problems, but the F520 was (and still
> is) the best damn monitor out there.
>
> I guess I'm going to have to rethink my dream triple F520 system that
> I was going to build someday (I have 1 right now).

Welcome in the flat panel era... ;-)
Anonymous
a b U Graphics card
May 4, 2004 3:09:49 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.video (More info?)

"AbbieNormal" <none@none.com> wrote in message
news:1hha905s0frir937apeakt6np2ofcqlsu3@4ax.com...
> Sure, the F5** line had their problems, but the F520 was (and still
> is) the best damn monitor out there.
>
> I guess I'm going to have to rethink my dream triple F520 system that
> I was going to build someday (I have 1 right now).
>
>

Link for this news?

--
Derek
Related resources
Anonymous
a b U Graphics card
May 4, 2004 5:28:10 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.video (More info?)

On Mon, 3 May 2004 23:09:49 +0100, "Derek Baker"
<me@XYZderekbaker.eclipse.co.uk> wrote:

>> Sure, the F5** line had their problems, but the F520 was (and still
>> is) the best damn monitor out there.
>>
>> I guess I'm going to have to rethink my dream triple F520 system that
>> I was going to build someday (I have 1 right now).
>>
>>
>
>Link for this news?

Nope. I think they did it a few months ago already, but I just noticed
it now.

Go to sony.com and you'll see that the only crt they're still making
is the Artisan. Do a Froogle search for F520 and you'll see that no
one is selling it (out of stock/discontinued)

Eizo's crt line is also dead if you check out their website.
Anonymous
a b U Graphics card
May 4, 2004 6:48:14 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.video (More info?)

Doug Bolton wrote:
> To add to the gripe, I recently compared flat panels to ctrs and the crts still
> offer a considerably better image. Panels may be better for text but certainly
> not for graphics. Because of this I do hope, and believe, that some company
> somewhere will continue to offer superior crts until panels finally catch up.


LCDs (good ones) have caught up in every area, except contrast/colour
fidelity. not too long to go i hope.. :) 
Anonymous
a b U Graphics card
May 4, 2004 6:48:15 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.video (More info?)

gimp <gimpboy@smegville.com> wrote:

>Doug Bolton wrote:
>> To add to the gripe, I recently compared flat panels to ctrs and the crts still
>> offer a considerably better image. Panels may be better for text but certainly
>> not for graphics. Because of this I do hope, and believe, that some company
>> somewhere will continue to offer superior crts until panels finally catch up.
>
>LCDs (good ones) have caught up in every area, except contrast/colour
>fidelity. not too long to go i hope.. :) 

Wrong.
Anonymous
a b U Graphics card
May 4, 2004 8:09:27 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.video (More info?)

"gimp" <gimpboy@smegville.com> wrote in message
news:c7707c$8pe$1@lust.ihug.co.nz...
> Doug Bolton wrote:
> > To add to the gripe, I recently compared flat panels to ctrs and the
crts still
> > offer a considerably better image. Panels may be better for text but
certainly
> > not for graphics. Because of this I do hope, and believe, that some
company
> > somewhere will continue to offer superior crts until panels finally
catch up.
>
>
> LCDs (good ones) have caught up in every area, except contrast/colour
> fidelity. not too long to go i hope.. :) 

No. LCDs have actually exceeded CRT performance in contrast,
and, for high-resolution displays, brightness already. Color fidelity
is a very broad subject - LCDs have the edge in some areas, CRTs
in others. LCDs still lag in response time, although they are making
rapid progress here. In many respects, "better" is difficult to judge
between the two, as much of this judgment is subjective and therefore
up to the individual. At some point, we just have to realize that the
"look" of the two technologies will always be different, for some very
basic reasons.

Bob M.
Anonymous
a b U Graphics card
May 4, 2004 8:09:28 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.video (More info?)

"Bob Myers" <nospamplease@address.invalid> wrote:

>"gimp" <gimpboy@smegville.com> wrote:
>>
>> LCDs (good ones) have caught up in every area, except contrast/colour
>> fidelity. not too long to go i hope.. :) 
>
>No. LCDs have actually exceeded CRT performance in contrast,
>and, for high-resolution displays, brightness already. Color fidelity
>is a very broad subject - LCDs have the edge in some areas, CRTs
>in others. LCDs still lag in response time, although they are making
>rapid progress here. In many respects, "better" is difficult to judge
>between the two, as much of this judgment is subjective and therefore
>up to the individual. At some point, we just have to realize that the
>"look" of the two technologies will always be different, for some very
>basic reasons.

What bothers me is that those who prefer CRT's are no longer going to
be offered product, with choices decreasing all the time. And why?
Because foolish consumers have bought the "flat is cooler and better"
hype hook, line, and sinker.

Why is flat panel being pushed? Why is it you can look through a Dell
flyer and see dozens of flat-panels, but not see even a hint of the
availability of CRT monitors? Can you say "higher margins for the
seller"?
Anonymous
a b U Graphics card
May 4, 2004 8:12:57 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.video (More info?)

"chrisv" <chrisv@nospam.invalid> wrote in message
news:u74f90lu44q1gmidla5me2gk86rhm3o27n@4ax.com...

> >I have a "serious" LCD and I don't regret any CRT...
> >
> >Already this year will be commercialized LCD with
> >LED backlights that exceed the Adobe RGB color space.
> >Next will be LCD with true 30bit color and OLEDs
> >with more applications you can dream.
>
> Lots of technology and hype. Too bad they don't work as well, for me.

Chris, have you even SEEN the technology mentioned here?
I seriously doubt it, since the wide-gamut LED backlight design
(from LumiLeds) hasn't yet been exhibited widely. I've seen
this monitor, though, and the gamut and brightness are very,
very impressive, and far exceed what could be achieved in a
CRT of comparable resolution. "30 bit" LCDs are also, in
fact, coming, although I'm not sure that will be perceived as
quite as significant in terms of its impact on the image quality.
OLEDs - well, time will tell, there. We're still quite some time
from commercial OLED monitors in any significant volumes.

Bob M.
Anonymous
a b U Graphics card
May 4, 2004 8:12:58 PM

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:u74f90lu44q1gmidla5me2gk86rhm3o27n@4ax.com...
>
>> >I have a "serious" LCD and I don't regret any CRT...
>> >
>> >Already this year will be commercialized LCD with
>> >LED backlights that exceed the Adobe RGB color space.
>> >Next will be LCD with true 30bit color and OLEDs
>> >with more applications you can dream.
>>
>> Lots of technology and hype. Too bad they don't work as well, for me.
>
>Chris, have you even SEEN the technology mentioned here?
>I seriously doubt it, since the wide-gamut LED backlight design
>(from LumiLeds) hasn't yet been exhibited widely. I've seen
>this monitor, though, and the gamut and brightness are very,
>very impressive, and far exceed what could be achieved in a
>CRT of comparable resolution.

Will that help with running non-native resolutions?

>"30 bit" LCDs are also, in
>fact, coming, although I'm not sure that will be perceived as
>quite as significant in terms of its impact on the image quality.

"30 bit", huh? Is that rating sorta like the "16ms" response-times
that still smear all over the place? 8)

>OLEDs - well, time will tell, there. We're still quite some time
>from commercial OLED monitors in any significant volumes.
Anonymous
a b U Graphics card
May 5, 2004 5:04:00 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.video (More info?)

On Tue, 04 May 2004 12:33:32 -0500, chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> wrote:

>"Bob Myers" <nospamplease@address.invalid> wrote:
>
>>"gimp" <gimpboy@smegville.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> LCDs (good ones) have caught up in every area, except contrast/colour
>>> fidelity. not too long to go i hope.. :) 
>>
>>No. LCDs have actually exceeded CRT performance in contrast,
>>and, for high-resolution displays, brightness already. Color fidelity
>>is a very broad subject - LCDs have the edge in some areas, CRTs
>>in others. LCDs still lag in response time, although they are making
>>rapid progress here. In many respects, "better" is difficult to judge
>>between the two, as much of this judgment is subjective and therefore
>>up to the individual. At some point, we just have to realize that the
>>"look" of the two technologies will always be different, for some very
>>basic reasons.
>
>What bothers me is that those who prefer CRT's are no longer going to
>be offered product, with choices decreasing all the time. And why?
>Because foolish consumers have bought the "flat is cooler and better"
>hype hook, line, and sinker.
>
>Why is flat panel being pushed? Why is it you can look through a Dell
>flyer and see dozens of flat-panels, but not see even a hint of the
>availability of CRT monitors? Can you say "higher margins for the
>seller"?

Yikes! I hope this Sony F400 has a few years in it yet. I *really* haven't seen
a panel that's nearly as good. I do hope and expect that they will continue to
improve to the point where they are better. Not yet.

Doug Bolton
Anonymous
a b U Graphics card
May 5, 2004 8:42:29 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.video (More info?)

> Chris, have you even SEEN the technology mentioned here?
> I seriously doubt it, since the wide-gamut LED backlight design
> (from LumiLeds) hasn't yet been exhibited widely. I've seen
> this monitor, though, and the gamut and brightness are very,
> very impressive, and far exceed what could be achieved in a
> CRT of comparable resolution.

Bob have you seen the Nec prototype at CeBit?
EIZO say will have a commercial model before
the end of this year.
http://www.eizo.com/press/releases/pdf/pr_WUXGA_drupa.p...

Informed people say also Philips want to use LumiLeds.
This kind of backlight would have 100.000 hours life. o_O


> "30 bit" LCDs are also, in
> fact, coming, although I'm not sure that will be perceived as
> quite as significant in terms of its impact on the image quality.
> OLEDs - well, time will tell, there. We're still quite some time
> from commercial OLED monitors in any significant volumes.

We will see if Minority Report monitors will come true... :-)

Greetings
Anonymous
a b U Graphics card
May 5, 2004 10:27:41 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.video (More info?)

"chrisv" <chrisv@nospam.invalid> wrote in message
news:2dkf90h9as5q9u70gke8i8ms83sgnj4glo@4ax.com...
> >Chris, have you even SEEN the technology mentioned here?
> >I seriously doubt it, since the wide-gamut LED backlight design
> >(from LumiLeds) hasn't yet been exhibited widely. I've seen
> >this monitor, though, and the gamut and brightness are very,
> >very impressive, and far exceed what could be achieved in a
> >CRT of comparable resolution.
>
> Will that help with running non-native resolutions?

Of course not, but that wasn't what was claimed, now was it?


> "30 bit", huh? Is that rating sorta like the "16ms" response-times
> that still smear all over the place? 8)

If you're going to gripe about inflated spec claims made in
marketing literature, that's hardly technology specific. I can
cite a virtually endless list of similar abuses and half-truths
coming from CRT monitor literature, if you'd care to hear it.
Wanna talk contrast specs, for instance? :-)

Bob M.
Anonymous
a b U Graphics card
May 5, 2004 10:32:17 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.video (More info?)

"SR2" <alphasoft_nospam_@libero.it> wrote in message
news:VP8mc.147831$hc5.6404059@news3.tin.it...

> Bob have you seen the Nec prototype at CeBit?

Didn't see it at CeBit, but at a smaller conference a couple of
months back. There will no doubt be commercial models soon. The
main drawbacks at this point are power and cost, and to some
extent overall product thickness, which for now will limit the
use of the technology to some fairly high-end products. But at the
rate LumiLeds is making progress in this area, I have no doubt that
the use LED backlighting will grow. And the color really IS
spectacular...

>
> We will see if Minority Report monitors will come true... :-)
>

Or the Minority Report "printers" - you'd think by the 2050s,
they'd have come up with a better medium than wooden balls...:-)

Bob M.
Anonymous
a b U Graphics card
May 5, 2004 10:50:57 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.video (More info?)

"chrisv" <chrisv@nospam.invalid> wrote in message
news:2hkf90d77003e9f2ks32o3tqab6t6609d2@4ax.com...
> What bothers me is that those who prefer CRT's are no longer going to
> be offered product, with choices decreasing all the time. And why?
> Because foolish consumers have bought the "flat is cooler and better"
> hype hook, line, and sinker.

Chris, not everyone who disagrees with your personal preferences is
"foolish," you know. At the risk of sounding immodest, I would like to
think that I have some degree of both experience and expertise in these
technologies - that IS what they've been paying me to do for over 20
years now - and guess what's on my desk? Hint: it's not a CRT...

>
> Why is flat panel being pushed? Why is it you can look through a Dell
> flyer and see dozens of flat-panels, but not see even a hint of the
> availability of CRT monitors? Can you say "higher margins for the
> seller"?
>

You can say that, but if you do, you're grossly oversimplifying the
situation. CRT monitors are still available, and in times of LCD panel
shortages (which in this industry tend to happen like clockwork!)
it would be a wonderful thing if the majority of customers found them
to be an acceptable substitute for the LCD-based product that they
ordered. Unfortunately, most DO NOT. The plain truth is that it was
customer preference, and not some imagined conspiracy to push flat
panels on a "foolish" buying public, that is driving the CRT monitor out
of the PC market.

Have flat-panel monitors provided higher margins for anyone in the
supply chain, vs. CRTs? In some cases, yes - in more and more, no.
LCD monitor prices fell dramatically during the last few years (and are
now having a rebound a bit due to a worldwide shortage of the large
LCD panels themselves), and in most cases I believe that every bit of
"extra" margin was squeezed out. And please keep in mind that pricing
is NOT determined by cost, it is determined by the market (cost simply
determines whether or not you can make a profit at the market price).
The market has shown very clearly that customers are almost without
exception willing to spend a premium for an LCD-based product over
a CRT-based one. You can call that "foolish," if you like, but again that's
really just a matter of your own personal preferences at work.

Now, without question this leaves those who DO prefer CRTs with
fewer choices than in the past, and that trend is clearly going to
continue. I won't ever attempt to try to talk those people out of their
preferences, any more than I would try to tell someone that they can't
like chocolate-covered mints (even though I personally loathe that
combination). But no amount of sympathy for those preferences will
change the basic facts of life here, which is that it costs a certain amount
to continue to build CRT monitors, not to mention the tubes themselves,
in commercially-viable volumes. And since that IS a fact of life, we should
also be expecting just what we're seeing - that more and more
manufacturers will - must, in fact - walk away from CRT production,
at least as a mainstream product. We can reasonably expect CRT
monitors to continue to be AVAILABLE in two opposite and extreme
ends of the worldwide market, though - as the "entry level" product
for those areas which simply cannot afford anything else (emerging
consumer markets such as India and China, for example), and as
very high-end products for certain niche applications to which they are
best suited. You may not be happy with the performance of the former
category; you definitely won't like the price tag that comes with the
latter (and both with eventually shrink away as well, as the LCD and
other technologies become more competitive in those areas). This
situation may indeed bother you, but what do you propose as an
alternative that's commercially feasible?

Bob M.
Anonymous
a b U Graphics card
May 10, 2004 9:01:24 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.video (More info?)

"chrisv" <chrisv@nospam.invalid> wrote in message
news:u6tn90tibh9b1kjd3kr8mobkf7nr19v22q@4ax.com...

> >Really? Please give the data you used to come to that
> >conclusion. My experience is that the majority of customers
> >make an informed decision, but then, I'm sure you have
> >extensive experience in this area...
>
> What planet are you from? 8) Offhand, I can't think of a single
> market where the majority of customers make an informed decision,
> whether it's cars or computers or couches. In fact, I find that truly
> informed customers are extremely rare.

Again, that's your opinion. Please give the data used to
arrive at this conclusion, if you have any.

Mine comes from fairly extensive experience with real-world customers,
but then, I guess that doesn't really count for much here.




>
> Including the price negative? Obviously, since they by them.
>

Obviously. The benefits of the LCD are, according to the
market, well worth the price premium.


> True, you can't call them fools, any more than you can call someone
> who buys Gucci loafers a fool - they wanted it, they bought it. But
> can better loafers be bought for less?

Define "better" - and not just in the case of the loafers, but
in the case of desktop monitors. It seems at this point that
your definition of better, which you expect "should" apply to
the entire market, is simply "what Chris likes."

> >In the broadest sense, that is the goal of ANY marketing campaign,
> >although I would certainly prefer putting your "B" item in
> >somewhat more diplomatic terms...:-) But so what? If you think
> >marketing alone can sell people on a product that is both inferior to
> >its competition and more expensive than it, I would suggest that you
> >have very, very little experience in this market.
>
> I don't know why you think this market is atypical.

I don't think this market is atypical at all. But it IS the one I
have a couple of decades of experience in.



> 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.
"Sony et al" are not the major suppliers of monitor panels, and
have not been for some time (Sony never HAS made their own
panels, other than some rather specialized small-size LCDs and
their HTPS projector LCDs). 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.

>
> Sure, they realized that people were willing to pay a lot more money
> to get this "cool and new" thing, while their products were perceived
> to be inferior.

Gee, Chris, first you say they drove the market, now you say they were
just responding to market demand - which IS it?

>
> >You
> >would also have to question how smart it would be to try to
> >supposedly force the LCD on a public that really DIDN'T want
> >it (in your scenario), when new LCD panel fabrication capacity
> >costs literally billions of dollars to bring on-line (vs. sticking with
> >well-developed and fully-depreciated CRT production
> >capability!). Why would any company do this, IF market demand
> >were actually against them?
>
> It's called marketing. It's used to create demand. Like the Dell
> flyer. And yes, the flat-panel appeals to people (and I don't mean
> because of it's performance as a display).

Nice try, but you didn't even begin to address the question about
the costs posed above. You can't simply wave your hands and claim
that "marketing" caused these companies to sink billions of dollars
in to LCD fab capacity, at the additional expense of slitting the throat
of a CRT production capability that was already paid for. Do try
to make at least SOME business sense here, OK?

>
> >Answer: they wouldn't, and they DIDN'T.
>
> Didn't they?

Of course not. If you think they did, then please SHOW
otherwise, rather than just making unsupported claims.

> >Instead, the last decade has been characterized by
> >a scramble to build sufficient production capacity to keep up
> >with growing demands. That you do not agree with the basis for
> >that demand is perhaps interesting, but is ultimately irrelevant.
>
> I find I'm often in the minority in what I want. That doesn't make me
> wrong.

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.

> >Sorry, but you and I are using different definitions of "high-end"
> >here. I'm not sure you've ever seen a high-end monitor in the
> >sense of the term I was using.
> >
> >> I suppose it's a catch-22. They had to market them heavily, even
> >> though they had significant shortcomings, in order to get volumes up
> >> and prices down.

Excuse me? Exactly how does that statement relate to the topic
we were discussing at this point?

> >Again, that's a really nice-sounding conspiracy theory, but in
> >flies in the face of what actually happened in the market over
> >the last decade. The industry responded to market demand -
> >it did not create it out of nothing.
>
> And McDonalds sells a lot of burgers and fries due to market demand.
> Nothing to do with marketing, of course. 8)

So you're going to argue that if McDonald's didn't market their
product, no one would like hamburgers and fries? Again, a
little supporting evidence and reasoning would be a most
welcome change.

Obviously, such a thing as marketing exists, and it exists for a reason.
But there is absolutely ZERO evidence (particularly any that you have
presented in support of your statements) that sheer marketing has
driven the changeover from CRTs to LCDs. Please either show SOME
reason to believe this (other than "well, >>>I<<< don't like LCDs,
therefore it HAD to be that!"), or admit that you simply don't know
much about this market.

Bob M.

>
Anonymous
a b U Graphics card
May 11, 2004 5:01:46 PM

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:u6tn90tibh9b1kjd3kr8mobkf7nr19v22q@4ax.com...
>
>> >Really? Please give the data you used to come to that
>> >conclusion. My experience is that the majority of customers
>> >make an informed decision, but then, I'm sure you have
>> >extensive experience in this area...
>>
>> What planet are you from? 8) Offhand, I can't think of a single
>> market where the majority of customers make an informed decision,
>> whether it's cars or computers or couches. In fact, I find that truly
>> informed customers are extremely rare.
>
>Again, that's your opinion. Please give the data used to
>arrive at this conclusion, if you have any.

I don't need to collect data on whether most people are clueless about
most things. It's obvious.

>Mine comes from fairly extensive experience with real-world customers,
>but then, I guess that doesn't really count for much here.

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?

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.

>> 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.

>"Sony et al" are not the major suppliers of monitor panels, and
>have not been for some time (Sony never HAS made their own
>panels, other than some rather specialized small-size LCDs and
>their HTPS projector LCDs).

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.

>> Sure, they realized that people were willing to pay a lot more money
>> to get this "cool and new" thing, while their products were perceived
>> to be inferior.
>
>Gee, Chris, first you say they drove the market, now you say they were
>just responding to market demand - which IS it?

It's obviously both. In case you've forgotten, my major beef is with
gullible consumers, which are exploited by the businessman.

>> >You
>> >would also have to question how smart it would be to try to
>> >supposedly force the LCD on a public that really DIDN'T want
>> >it (in your scenario), when new LCD panel fabrication capacity
>> >costs literally billions of dollars to bring on-line (vs. sticking with
>> >well-developed and fully-depreciated CRT production
>> >capability!). Why would any company do this, IF market demand
>> >were actually against them?
>>
>> It's called marketing. It's used to create demand. Like the Dell
>> flyer. And yes, the flat-panel appeals to people (and I don't mean
>> because of it's performance as a display).
>
>Nice try, but you didn't even begin to address the question about
>the costs posed above. You can't simply wave your hands and claim
>that "marketing" caused these companies to sink billions of dollars
>in to LCD fab capacity, at the additional expense of slitting the throat
>of a CRT production capability that was already paid for. Do try
>to make at least SOME business sense here, OK?

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.) Pretending that the "fault" has to
be either consumers OR manufactures (not both), so my argument is
facing some kind of dilemma. Pretending that I said marketing
"caused" these companies to invest in flat-panel (rubbish, obviously).

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?

Do try to make SOME busienss sense, here, Bob!

>> >Answer: they wouldn't, and they DIDN'T.
>>
>> Didn't they?
>
>Of course not.

Of course so.

>If you think they did, then please SHOW
>otherwise, rather than just making unsupported claims.

Are you claiming they didn't market their product, Bob? Should I next
SHOW that the Sun is hot?

>> >Instead, the last decade has been characterized by
>> >a scramble to build sufficient production capacity to keep up
>> >with growing demands. That you do not agree with the basis for
>> >that demand is perhaps interesting, but is ultimately irrelevant.
>>
>> I find I'm often in the minority in what I want. That doesn't make me
>> wrong.
>
>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.

>> >Sorry, but you and I are using different definitions of "high-end"
>> >here. I'm not sure you've ever seen a high-end monitor in the
>> >sense of the term I was using.
>> >
>> >> I suppose it's a catch-22. They had to market them heavily, even
>> >> though they had significant shortcomings, in order to get volumes up
>> >> and prices down.
>
>Excuse me? Exactly how does that statement relate to the topic
>we were discussing at this point?

Excuse me? Having posting problems, Bob? My "catch 22" statement was
in response to the following paragraph:

>You may not be happy with the performance of the former
>category; you definitely won't like the price tag that comes with the
>latter (and both with eventually shrink away as well, as the LCD and
>other technologies become more competitive in those areas). This
>situation may indeed bother you, but what do you propose as an
>alternative that's commercially feasible?

In other words, my "catch 22" statement was a concession that the
manufacturers may not have had much choice but to do it the way they
did.

>> >Again, that's a really nice-sounding conspiracy theory, but in
>> >flies in the face of what actually happened in the market over
>> >the last decade. The industry responded to market demand -
>> >it did not create it out of nothing.
>>
>> And McDonalds sells a lot of burgers and fries due to market demand.
>> Nothing to do with marketing, of course. 8)
>
>So you're going to argue that if McDonald's didn't market their
>product, no one would like hamburgers and fries?

Having logic problems, Bob? McDonalds is not the only provider of
burgers and fries. But they want you to buy THEIR burgers and fires,
don't they?

>Again, a
>little supporting evidence and reasoning would be a most
>welcome change.

Some clear thinking would be a nice change from you, Bob. You seem to
love throwing-out ridiculous statements like "The industry responded
to market demand - it did not create it out of nothing."

Hint hint, Bob, I never claimed that they "created it out of nothing".
I claimed that they increased demand for their products via marketing.
Nothing wrong with that, of course, but in your intellectual
dishonesty, you like to use words like "conspiracy theory", which I
will denounce.

>Obviously, such a thing as marketing exists, and it exists for a reason.
>But there is absolutely ZERO evidence (particularly any that you have
>presented in support of your statements) that sheer marketing has
>driven the changeover from CRTs to LCDs.

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.

>Please either show SOME
>reason to believe this (other than "well, >>>I<<< don't like LCDs,
>therefore it HAD to be that!")

I never said that, Bob. Having honesty issues?

>or admit that you simply don't know
>much about this market.

There's nothing particularly unique about this market, Bob.
Anonymous
a b U Graphics card
May 12, 2004 3:36:23 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.video (More info?)

"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"....:-)

> 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.
I don't mention which company here, as I most certainly do
NOT speak for my employer in this forum, but it's not much
of a secret. I've been working in displays in one way or another
since about 1982, when I was first involved with (internally-
produced, as most such were in those days) CRT displays. If
you'd really like to know more about my background, a
search on my name and either "displays" or "VESA" will likely
turn up sufficient information.


> 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.

>
> >> 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? 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?

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.


> 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. Then get yourself to any decent
report which covers market share in the LCD monitor (or
monitor panel) market for the past several years.

> 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.
> 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.


> 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.


> 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?


> >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. 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.

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. 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.

> 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.

Bob M.
Anonymous
a b U Graphics card
May 14, 2004 7:51:09 PM

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.
Anonymous
a b U Graphics card
May 17, 2004 7:40:11 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.video (More info?)

"chrisv" <chrisv@nospam.invalid> wrote in message
news:q98aa0db3qkle82vmqtbsb7a1rp2p67884@4ax.com...
> 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.

Gee, that's funny, too - I kind of thought that better than 20 years
doing this, which DOES involve considerable effort invested in
tracking and understanding the market, would be relevant. But I
guess not. I bow to your clearly superior understanding.


> You started it, Bob, with your unsupported allegations of my
> ignorance.

Hardly unsupported, and not delivered in an insulting manner at
all. I merely stated that based on what you were saying, you were
not aware of how the market actually behaved over the past
decade. The correct word for that in English is "ignorant."
"Ignorant" is not an insult, as it denotes a correctable and often
unavoidable situation. Whether you choose to correct it or not
is your business.

> 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.

Unfortunately, to anyone who actually deals on a daily basis in
this market, the distinction between the two is quite important
and carefully made. You claimed to be familiar with the market,
but were misusing the term. Obviously, you were wrong about
one or the other, and I had to figure out which it was. And
again, I am curious as to why you get so defensive just because
someone uses the term "ignorant." Everyone is ignorant about
SOMETHING.


> "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?

No, but then, that's not what you were originally claiming - especially
not if you were responding to the point I originally MADE. We were
talking about CRT MANUFACTURERS. "Dell, Gateway, HP/Compaq,
Apple, IBM," etc. are not now and never have been manufacturers of
CRTs (well, HP WAS at one point, but not at any time relevant to this
discussion). You may - or may not - recall that the original point had
to do with the manufacturers of CRT monitors - those guys who actually
had that market all wrapped up in the early 90s? those same companies
that I listed by name? - having no motivation whatsoever to switch the
world over to a non-CRT technology, and instead strongly motivated
to protect their investment and keep the CRT going as long as it was
a viable product (which, by the way, they DID). The unfortunate (for
your argument, at least) fact of the matter is simply that the CRT
ceased to be viable, and that this was NOT due to the marketing
efforts of those companies you just named. (For one thing, just to
mention the most obvious, it would have been completely absurd for
the systems integrators - those folks you listed - to try to drive the
consumer over to a technology where the production capacity, and
therefore the total product supply, could not support the demand. I
suspect, though, that your memory of this market does not extend back
far enough to cover the severe LCD panel shortages experienced in
the early days of the CRT/LCD transition.) Further, the "consumer"
side of the market (which is actually the one YOU are talking about,
rather than the overall PC display market) was not the one that
actually drove this transition. Commercial sales (which have been
generally around half of the total PC market, give or take a bit over
the years) were a huge factor in the LCD transition. Why do you think
THOSE customers went for the new technology?


> 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"?

I'm not sure what a "good chuck" is, but the point remains
overly simplistic and contrary to the facts as they were.


> 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.

Unfortunately, that still "just as good (or better)" as YOU would
judge it, and the fact remains that not everyone shares your
judgment.


> 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.

I'm sorry, but the fact remains that you ARE ignorant of the
market and its history, and you have yet to give any reason
for me to think otherwise.

But it's pretty clear that we're covering old ground over and over
again, and I have better things to do with my time. You're convinced
you're right, and it's hardly my job to try to educate you further.
The points have all been made, and the facts are out there for
anyone who cares to look them up.

C ya.


Bob M.
Anonymous
a b U Graphics card
May 19, 2004 12:05:32 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.video (More info?)

"Bob Myers" <nospamplease@address.invalid> wrote:

>> "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?
>
>No, but then, that's not what you were originally claiming - especially
>not if you were responding to the point I originally MADE. We were
>talking about CRT MANUFACTURERS.

Wrong, just like most of what you just wrote, Bob. We were talking
about the entire market, including the consumer. Your claim above is
ridiculous.
Anonymous
a b U Graphics card
May 19, 2004 10:59:18 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.video (More info?)

"chrisv" <chrisv@nospam.invalid> wrote in message
news:qomma0193tc7el4m63obk7j25ti99h6vuf@4ax.com...
> "Bob Myers" <nospamplease@address.invalid> wrote:
>
> >> "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?
> >
> >No, but then, that's not what you were originally claiming - especially
> >not if you were responding to the point I originally MADE. We were
> >talking about CRT MANUFACTURERS.
>
> Wrong, just like most of what you just wrote, Bob. We were talking
> about the entire market, including the consumer. Your claim above is
> ridiculous.
>

Conspiracy theories just never seem to gather enough evidence to become
compelling. Bob has offered numerous reasons why that should be the case
here.
But we all know that people will believe whatever they want to - that is
everyones
freedom.
Somehow this chain doesn't seem to merit further agony.

NGA
Anonymous
a b U Graphics card
May 21, 2004 11:54:04 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.video (More info?)

"Not Gimpy Anymore" <nogimpREMOV@msn.com> wrote in message news:<c8gs9s$b2f@library2.airnews.net>...
> Conspiracy theories just never seem to gather enough evidence to become
> compelling. Bob has offered numerous reasons why that should be the case
> here.
> But we all know that people will believe whatever they want to - that is
> everyones
> freedom.
> Somehow this chain doesn't seem to merit further agony.

I don't think there is any way you can argue with someone who thinks
most consumers usually make well informed decisions when making
purchases and who thinks marketing has nothing to do with the success
of a product...
Anonymous
a b U Graphics card
May 21, 2004 10:54:07 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.video (More info?)

"Nil Einne" <nil_einne1@email.com> wrote in message
news:3bafcd2d.0405210654.3ecc9d01@posting.google.com...
> I don't think there is any way you can argue with someone who thinks
> most consumers usually make well informed decisions when making
> purchases and who thinks marketing has nothing to do with the success
> of a product...

Assuming that was directed to me, please show me anything
that would support the assertion that I believe "marketing has
nothing to do with the success of a product." What I do NOT
believe - and I gained this state of disbelief through long years
of experience, unlike some who seem to think that their own
preferences reflect the state of the known universe - is that
marketing ALONE can drive the acceptance of an inferior
product, at least in the case in question here. Whether or not
that same statement applies to the selling of, say, network
television programming is not the issue we're discussing.

As to the "most consumers usually make well informed
purchases" notion, PLEASE keep in mind the following:

- Once again, we have a specific case in mind - a certain
market, with two specific classes of products.

- No one (except you, now) used the word "consumer"; the
operative word here is CUSTOMER, and the "consumer"
(i.e. individual buyers, or "home" sales) does not even make
up the majority of the market in question in many segments. As
has already been noted, the transition from CRT to LCD
was not primarily a CONSUMER-driven event; commercial
users (small through large business customers) were a major
factor here, and yes, THOSE folks DO tend to be a good deal
better informed when it comes to spending their money. Having
to sign checks where the amount is in the millions tends to do
that to someone, you know?

Bob M.
!