Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Shortage of Conventional CRT Televisions

Last response: in Home Theatre
Share
Anonymous
May 26, 2004 2:28:29 AM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

I know this sounds crazy, but please bare with me,

I work at a small television and appliance store here in Central New York.
Lately we seem to be oversold on conventional CRT television sets. There
doesn't seem to be much we have in stock in sizes 13" to 36" and there are
alot of holes on the shelf where product should be. My boss had came out and
explained to the staff that there is a shortage in glass for the CRT analog
television sets. This shortage in glass he explains is the reason we are out
of stock and that the industry cannot supply us with TV's.

All comments will be appreciated. Especially the flames. I know my
co-workers would appreciate this.


Joe
Anonymous
May 26, 2004 2:28:30 AM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

Maybe your boss is in financial trouble...


"d3adr0ck" <d3ad333REMOVE@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:hMPsc.87306$hY.49946@twister.nyroc.rr.com...
> I know this sounds crazy, but please bare with me,
>
> I work at a small television and appliance store here in Central New York.
> Lately we seem to be oversold on conventional CRT television sets. There
> doesn't seem to be much we have in stock in sizes 13" to 36" and there are
> alot of holes on the shelf where product should be. My boss had came out
and
> explained to the staff that there is a shortage in glass for the CRT
analog
> television sets. This shortage in glass he explains is the reason we are
out
> of stock and that the industry cannot supply us with TV's.
>
> All comments will be appreciated. Especially the flames. I know my
> co-workers would appreciate this.
>
>
> Joe
>
>
Anonymous
May 26, 2004 2:40:20 AM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

d3adr0ck wrote:
> I know this sounds crazy, but please bare with me,
>
> I work at a small television and appliance store here in Central New
> York. Lately we seem to be oversold on conventional CRT television
> sets. There doesn't seem to be much we have in stock in sizes 13" to
> 36" and there are alot of holes on the shelf where product should be.
> My boss had came out and explained to the staff that there is a
> shortage in glass for the CRT analog television sets. This shortage
> in glass he explains is the reason we are out of stock and that the
> industry cannot supply us with TV's.
>
> All comments will be appreciated. Especially the flames. I know my
> co-workers would appreciate this.
>
>
> Joe

Given that glass is a trade commodity on the future's exchange, it's
quite possible that there is a shortage of glass. Some researchers have
even suggested they try and make glass from sand, but so far that has
only been accomplished in the labs on the international space station.
Maybe one day glass will be available to those who are underprivileged.
But until then, we are at the mercy of the corporations who control
glass. Why just the other day, while digging a hole in my backyard, I
found a diamond the size of Ford Pinto. I thought to myself, if only
that were glass, I would be rich.

Either that, or it's because the RV market has peaked and those vehicles
do better with glass televisions.


--
David G.
"Men dream. And when they dream, they dream of glass."
Related resources
May 26, 2004 4:02:04 AM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

Sixtysixzero wrote:
> Maybe your boss is in financial trouble...
>

That would be my guess!
there are plenty at Kmart, Wal-Mart, and Best BUy and CC.

You guess!

Clay
Anonymous
May 26, 2004 10:20:37 AM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

On Tue, 25 May 2004 22:28:29 GMT, "d3adr0ck"
<d3ad333REMOVE@hotmail.com> wrote:

>I know this sounds crazy, but please bare with me,
>
>I work at a small television and appliance store here in Central New York.
>Lately we seem to be oversold on conventional CRT television sets. There
>doesn't seem to be much we have in stock in sizes 13" to 36" and there are
>alot of holes on the shelf where product should be. My boss had came out and
>explained to the staff that there is a shortage in glass for the CRT analog
>television sets. This shortage in glass he explains is the reason we are out
>of stock and that the industry cannot supply us with TV's.
>
>All comments will be appreciated. Especially the flames. I know my
>co-workers would appreciate this.

http://www.google.com
+tv +glass +shortage
Anonymous
May 26, 2004 11:17:45 AM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

4:3 is dying.

Newer sets will be 16:9 and will be appearing over the next year.

================
"d3adr0ck" <d3ad333REMOVE@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:hMPsc.87306$hY.49946@twister.nyroc.rr.com...
: I know this sounds crazy, but please bare with me,
:
: I work at a small television and appliance store here in Central New
York.
: Lately we seem to be oversold on conventional CRT television sets.
There
: doesn't seem to be much we have in stock in sizes 13" to 36" and there
are
: alot of holes on the shelf where product should be. My boss had came
out and
: explained to the staff that there is a shortage in glass for the CRT
analog
: television sets. This shortage in glass he explains is the reason we
are out
: of stock and that the industry cannot supply us with TV's.
:
: All comments will be appreciated. Especially the flames. I know my
: co-workers would appreciate this.
:
:
: Joe
:
:
Anonymous
May 26, 2004 2:05:23 PM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

Buzzer wrote:
> On Tue, 25 May 2004 22:28:29 GMT, "d3adr0ck"
> <d3ad333REMOVE@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> I know this sounds crazy, but please bare with me,
>>
>> I work at a small television and appliance store here in Central New
>> York. Lately we seem to be oversold on conventional CRT television
>> sets. There doesn't seem to be much we have in stock in sizes 13" to
>> 36" and there are alot of holes on the shelf where product should
>> be. My boss had came out and explained to the staff that there is a
>> shortage in glass for the CRT analog television sets. This shortage
>> in glass he explains is the reason we are out of stock and that the
>> industry cannot supply us with TV's.
>>
>> All comments will be appreciated. Especially the flames. I know my
>> co-workers would appreciate this.
>
> http://www.google.com
> +tv +glass +shortage

As I see it from Google, articles are about LCD glass shortage.

--
David G.
Anonymous
May 26, 2004 10:10:51 PM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

I told you to recycle that bottle, didn't I?

"David G." <david_please_dont_email_me@i_hate_spam.com> wrote in message news:<_uednV12O5-9OSnd4p2dnA@comcast.com>...
> > http://www.google.com
> > +tv +glass +shortage
>
> As I see it from Google, articles are about LCD glass shortage.
May 27, 2004 12:01:23 AM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

On Wed, 26 May 2004 07:17:45 -0700, "Richard C." <post-age
@spamcop.net> wrote:

>4:3 is dying.
>
>Newer sets will be 16:9 and will be appearing over the next year.
>

Unfortunately the premium for 16:9 will still be there.
Thumper
>================
>"d3adr0ck" <d3ad333REMOVE@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>news:hMPsc.87306$hY.49946@twister.nyroc.rr.com...
>: I know this sounds crazy, but please bare with me,
>:
>: I work at a small television and appliance store here in Central New
>York.
>: Lately we seem to be oversold on conventional CRT television sets.
>There
>: doesn't seem to be much we have in stock in sizes 13" to 36" and there
>are
>: alot of holes on the shelf where product should be. My boss had came
>out and
>: explained to the staff that there is a shortage in glass for the CRT
>analog
>: television sets. This shortage in glass he explains is the reason we
>are out
>: of stock and that the industry cannot supply us with TV's.
>:
>: All comments will be appreciated. Especially the flames. I know my
>: co-workers would appreciate this.
>:
>:
>: Joe
>:
>:
>
Anonymous
May 27, 2004 12:01:24 AM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

"Thumper" <jaylsmithx@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:978ab0pctvq8o46aobgv2evrqetlaucmml@4ax.com...
: On Wed, 26 May 2004 07:17:45 -0700, "Richard C." <post-age
: @spamcop.net> wrote:
:
: >4:3 is dying.
: >
: >Newer sets will be 16:9 and will be appearing over the next year.
: >
:
: Unfortunately the premium for 16:9 will still be there.
: Thumper

=====================
But there will be NO 4:3 soon.
Hence, no premium.
====================
Anonymous
May 27, 2004 8:35:43 PM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

"Richard C." <post-age @spamcop.net> wrote in message
news:40b5150e$0$204$9a6e19ea@news.newshosting.com...
>
> "Thumper" <jaylsmithx@comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:978ab0pctvq8o46aobgv2evrqetlaucmml@4ax.com...
> : On Wed, 26 May 2004 07:17:45 -0700, "Richard C." <post-age
> : @spamcop.net> wrote:
> :
> : >4:3 is dying.
> : >
> : >Newer sets will be 16:9 and will be appearing over the next year.
> : >
> :
> : Unfortunately the premium for 16:9 will still be there.
> : Thumper
>
> =====================
> But there will be NO 4:3 soon.
> Hence, no premium.
> ====================

If the TV makers and retailers have any say in it, there will always be a
premium for HD.
The commodity 4:3 business had very risky razor thin margins for the entire
chain.
Anonymous
May 27, 2004 9:43:03 PM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

"Randy Sweeney" <rsweeney1@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:QoqdnVK0jMy8zCvdRVn-tw@comcast.com...
:
: "Richard C." <post-age @spamcop.net> wrote in message
: >
: > =====================
: > But there will be NO 4:3 soon.
: > Hence, no premium.
: > ====================
:
: If the TV makers and retailers have any say in it, there will always
be a
: premium for HD.
: The commodity 4:3 business had very risky razor thin margins for the
entire
: chain.
:
================================

Once 4:3 dies, there will only be one aspect available: 16:9
Where would the premium be?

Even before that happens, economy of scale will make the 4:3 more
expensive than the 16:9.

Have you priced a vacuum tube vs. a transistor lately?

==================================
Anonymous
May 28, 2004 12:56:20 AM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

"Richard C." <post-age @spamcop.net> wrote in message
news:40b68a2c$0$234$9a6e19ea@news.newshosting.com...
> "Randy Sweeney" <rsweeney1@comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:QoqdnVK0jMy8zCvdRVn-tw@comcast.com...
> :
> : "Richard C." <post-age @spamcop.net> wrote in message
> : >
> : > =====================
> : > But there will be NO 4:3 soon.
> : > Hence, no premium.
> : > ====================
> :
> : If the TV makers and retailers have any say in it, there will always
> be a
> : premium for HD.
> : The commodity 4:3 business had very risky razor thin margins for the
> entire
> : chain.
> :
> ================================
>
> Once 4:3 dies, there will only be one aspect available: 16:9
> Where would the premium be?
>
> Even before that happens, economy of scale will make the 4:3 more
> expensive than the 16:9.
>
> Have you priced a vacuum tube vs. a transistor lately?

It's not the shape of the tube that matters

A high resolution CRT costs more to make than a low resolution CRT -
regardless of shape.
HD electronics cost more to make than NTSC electronics
HD DD5.1 audio costs more to reproduce than analog stereo

An ATSC HDTV has incredibly better picture and sound, thus more value than
NTSC

TV makers have lived with historically low profit margins from analog TV for
over a decade
They have invested a lot of money to develop and make HDTV's - money they
want back - with interest.

Not to mention that as HD reaches critical mass, the number of people who
will NOT buy it will decrease, leading to ever lower prices on the declining
market for analog TV's as production moves to the lowest possible costs and
lowest prices to wring out the last of the market.

Therefore:
HD's are going to be sold for higher prices than an equal sized analog set
for many, many years or until a disruptive influence breaks the pricing
power of the conventional supply chain - and when analog is gone, HD will
still be more than the analog prices as they left the scene.

The makers and retailers of HD set have said this publicly - I personally
have heard it directly from the lips of both TV makers and national
retailers at CEA meetings on HDTV.
Anonymous
May 28, 2004 5:16:41 PM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

Randy Sweeney (rsweeney1@comcast.net) wrote in alt.tv.tech.hdtv:
> A high resolution CRT costs more to make than a low resolution CRT -
> regardless of shape.
> HD electronics cost more to make than NTSC electronics

Not any more.

The economies of scale have already kicked in, since hundreds of millions
of CRTs have the electronics to do a wide variety of scan rates...some
beyond that offered by ATSC.

> HD DD5.1 audio costs more to reproduce than analog stereo

Again, not any more.

A $30 DVD player has the ability to decode Dolby Digital of any form,
although it only outputs analog to downmixed 2-channel. Digital output
is cheap...I have $5 sound cards that have SP/DIF output. This is all
most TVs with ATSC tuners will do. I have such a TV right now, and that's
all it does.

--
Jeff Rife | "I feel an intense ambivalence, some of which
SPAM bait: | doesn't border entirely on the negative."
AskDOJ@usdoj.gov |
uce@ftc.gov | -- Ned Dorsey, "Ned and Stacey"
Anonymous
May 28, 2004 11:49:55 PM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

"Jeff Rife" <wevsr@nabs.net> wrote in message
news:MPG.1b213cc427c7c6c198b43f@news.nabs.net...
> Randy Sweeney (rsweeney1@comcast.net) wrote in alt.tv.tech.hdtv:
> > A high resolution CRT costs more to make than a low resolution CRT -
> > regardless of shape.
> > HD electronics cost more to make than NTSC electronics
>
> Not any more.
>
> The economies of scale have already kicked in, since hundreds of millions
> of CRTs have the electronics to do a wide variety of scan rates...some
> beyond that offered by ATSC.
>
> > HD DD5.1 audio costs more to reproduce than analog stereo
>
> Again, not any more.


> A $30 DVD player has the ability to decode Dolby Digital of any form,
> although it only outputs analog to downmixed 2-channel. Digital output
> is cheap...I have $5 sound cards that have SP/DIF output. This is all
> most TVs with ATSC tuners will do. I have such a TV right now, and that's
> all it does.


Economies of scale apply to both conventional mature low performance
electronics (in spades!) and the far more sophisticated, far less mature,
far lower production rate, and far higher quality HD brothers. There is a
heck of a lot of stuff in an ATSC receiver that just isn't found in a NTSC
receiver and that stuff costs money. More money to make the parts, install
the parts, test the parts, and money to pay the royalties on the additional
technologies not found in a NTSC receiver.

HD TV's really DO cost more to make.
HD costs MORE than SD - really.

Quality, performance, and computing power really do cost money
More memory costs more money than less memory
More plugs and connections in the back costs more money than fewer ones.

A $2 Microchip PIC microcontroller really does cost much less to make than a
$200 Pentium
less to design, less to create masking and tooling, higher yields, more dies
per wafer, lower costs overall... not $198 less but substantially less.

same for tv
Anonymous
May 29, 2004 5:29:38 AM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

Randy Sweeney (rsweeney1@comcast.net) wrote in alt.tv.tech.hdtv:
> Economies of scale apply to both conventional mature low performance
> electronics (in spades!) and the far more sophisticated, far less mature,
> far lower production rate, and far higher quality HD brothers. There is a
> heck of a lot of stuff in an ATSC receiver that just isn't found in a NTSC
> receiver and that stuff costs money.

The things you previously gave examples of "costing more" don't actually,
and you have yet to show something that adds significant cost to an HD
monitor. I agree that there are extra costs, but they aren't really a
large percentage.

> HD TV's really DO cost more to make.

Really, they don't. An LCD panel that does 1600x1200 costs less than
$1000. Sure, it's only a 20" diagonal, but large LCDs don't cost more
for the technology part...only the fact that there are more physical
materials. Large TVs cost more than small TVs, but much of that is the
"what the market will bear"...a 60" RPTV really doesn't have a lot more
cost than a 42" RPTV.

> Quality, performance, and computing power really do cost money

And your point is?

You said that HDTV electronics cost more money than SD, yet the truth is
that the economies of scale for many of those very same electronics
(multiple scan rate auto-select, line doublers, YPb'Pr' to RGB and vice-
versa, etc.) have all been reduced in cost to the point that a $50 VGA
monitor has them all (yes, even a line doubler...every VGA monitor these
days displays 640x480 as 640x960 because it's cheaper to design the guns
to stay closer to the same resolution all the time).

> More memory costs more money than less memory
> More plugs and connections in the back costs more money than fewer ones.

Again, your points are?

An HDTV doesn't have to have 42 inputs on the back. Choosing to do this
does make the set more expensive, but it's not required to be able to
slap an "HDTV" label on the front.

--
Jeff Rife |
SPAM bait: | http://www.nabs.net/Cartoons/RhymesWithOrange/GiantWate...
AskDOJ@usdoj.gov |
uce@ftc.gov |
Anonymous
May 29, 2004 4:32:30 PM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

"Jeff Rife" <wevsr@nabs.net> wrote in message
news:MPG.1b21e9d2f197cca098b444@news.nabs.net...

> Really, they don't. An LCD panel that does 1600x1200 costs less than
> $1000. Sure, it's only a 20" diagonal, but large LCDs don't cost more
> for the technology part...only the fact that there are more physical
> materials. Large TVs cost more than small TVs, but much of that is the
> "what the market will bear"...a 60" RPTV really doesn't have a lot more
> cost than a 42" RPTV.
>
> > Quality, performance, and computing power really do cost money
>
> And your point is?

My point is that we can't seem to agree that there are differential costs
behind a HD versus NTSC product of the same size nor the need for the
manufacturers to get more margin out of a newer, higher quality product to
pay for the development and conversion from the old mature lines.
Anonymous
May 29, 2004 6:00:51 PM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

Randy Sweeney (rsweeney1@comcast.net) wrote in alt.tv.tech.hdtv:
> My point is that we can't seem to agree that there are differential costs
> behind a HD versus NTSC product of the same size nor the need for the
> manufacturers to get more margin out of a newer, higher quality product to
> pay for the development and conversion from the old mature lines.

I'll agree that manufacturers want to get more margin, but not that they
need to in order to recoup anything special in terms of R&D. For an HDTV
*monitor*, there is nothing new in the hardware...it's all been in PC
monitors for years. There are a few new connectors on the back, but that
doesn't double the cost.

For direct-view HD sets, the screen *is* a major cost spike over SD. This
is the *only* thing that gets significantly more expensive. There are no
other HD display technologies where this is true...LCD (both projection
and panels), RPTV and front-projection CRT all have minimal cost increases
for the physical display.

This is why it's taken less than 2 years for a 30" widescreen to hit the
sub-$700 price point. The only reason the sets are expensive at all is
that they are priced at what the market will bear. Now that most of the
early-adopters have been gouged, it's time for the rest of the market to
spend whatever *they* can afford.

--
Jeff Rife | "You fell victim to one of the classic blunders,
SPAM bait: | the most famous of which is 'Never get involved
AskDOJ@usdoj.gov | in a land war in Asia', but only slightly less
uce@ftc.gov | famous is this: 'Never go in against a Sicilian,
| when death is on the line!'"
| -- Vizzini, The Princess Bride
Anonymous
May 29, 2004 6:54:29 PM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

"Jeff Rife" <wevsr@nabs.net> wrote in message
news:MPG.1b2299db8248cd36989686@razor.nabs.net...
> Randy Sweeney (rsweeney1@comcast.net) wrote in alt.tv.tech.hdtv:
> > My point is that we can't seem to agree that there are differential
costs
> > behind a HD versus NTSC product of the same size nor the need for the
> > manufacturers to get more margin out of a newer, higher quality product
to
> > pay for the development and conversion from the old mature lines.
>
> I'll agree that manufacturers want to get more margin, but not that they
> need to in order to recoup anything special in terms of R&D. For an HDTV
> *monitor*, there is nothing new in the hardware...it's all been in PC
> monitors for years. There are a few new connectors on the back, but that
> doesn't double the cost.
>
> For direct-view HD sets, the screen *is* a major cost spike over SD. This
> is the *only* thing that gets significantly more expensive. There are no
> other HD display technologies where this is true...LCD (both projection
> and panels), RPTV and front-projection CRT all have minimal cost increases
> for the physical display.
>
> This is why it's taken less than 2 years for a 30" widescreen to hit the
> sub-$700 price point. The only reason the sets are expensive at all is
> that they are priced at what the market will bear. Now that most of the
> early-adopters have been gouged, it's time for the rest of the market to
> spend whatever *they* can afford.

So you think that low resolution low quality optics cost the same as high
resolution, high quality optics?
And that the computing power for digital TV comes from free?
And that high bandwidth, high dynamic range electronics cost the same as low
bandwidth / low dynamic range circuits?
And that there are not decades of expensive R&D across the globe in
digital/hi-def TV to be paid for?

As for PC monitors... when is the last time you purchased a 32" inch XVGA PC
monitor?
What did you pay? Was it anywhere close to a 19" monitor?

I am curious, just what is your background in electronics and/or finance
that you should think that everything comes for nothing.
Anonymous
May 29, 2004 10:40:40 PM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

In article <MPG.1b2299db8248cd36989686@razor.nabs.net>,
Jeff Rife <wevsr@nabs.net> writes:
>
> For direct-view HD sets, the screen *is* a major cost spike over SD. This
> is the *only* thing that gets significantly more expensive. There are no
> other HD display technologies where this is true...LCD (both projection
> and panels), RPTV and front-projection CRT all have minimal cost increases
> for the physical display.
>
For a full HDTV set (I mean a TV set, not a monitor), the MPEG2 decoder
is also more expensive than the associated NTSC electronics. It
might be true that an SD MPEG2 decoder would be essentially the
same (plus or minus a few dollars), but MPEG2 decoders still tend
to be expensive.

I am not disagreeing with you that for a monitor, the HD display technology
is probably the biggest price spike (everything from finer grained phosphors
to more exotic display technologies), but on the electronics side itself,
the HD-MPEG2 decoder does overshadow almost everything else (including
the OTA receiver technology.)

John
Anonymous
May 30, 2004 1:45:54 AM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

John S. Dyson (toor@iquest.net) wrote in alt.tv.tech.hdtv:
> I am not disagreeing with you that for a monitor, the HD display technology
> is probably the biggest price spike (everything from finer grained phosphors
> to more exotic display technologies), but on the electronics side itself,
> the HD-MPEG2 decoder does overshadow almost everything else (including
> the OTA receiver technology.)

No question, although the ATSC demod and licenses are part of the cost,
too. Those won't drop in cost as fast as the MPEG hardware, either.

--
Jeff Rife | "If the world were destroyed and you were the
SPAM bait: | last man within a thousand mile radius, I would
AskDOJ@usdoj.gov | swim across the ocean on a rumor that Screech
uce@ftc.gov | from 'Saved by the Bell' was spotted in Japan."
| -- Ellen
Anonymous
May 30, 2004 2:06:54 AM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

Randy Sweeney (rsweeney1@comcast.net) wrote in alt.tv.tech.hdtv:
> So you think that low resolution low quality optics cost the same as high
> resolution, high quality optics?

Yes, since those very same high-resolution, high-quality optics are selling
for less than $100 in a PC CRT monitor. It's just the size issue, and what
the market will bear.

> And that the computing power for digital TV comes from free?

Most HDTV *monitors* have little to no computing power, and what they do
have can be found in a $70 PC monitor.

> And that high bandwidth, high dynamic range electronics cost the same as low
> bandwidth / low dynamic range circuits?

Likewise, this same circuitry can be found in a $70 PC monitor that does
1280x1024.

> And that there are not decades of expensive R&D across the globe in
> digital/hi-def TV to be paid for?

They have already been paid for...by the computer monitor manufacturers.
A 4:3 PC monitor that does 1280x1024 is damn near identical to an 4:3 HDTV
monitor that has 1080 scan lines (with 810 in the 16:9 area), at least
as far as electronics are concerned.

> As for PC monitors... when is the last time you purchased a 32" inch XVGA PC
> monitor?
> What did you pay? Was it anywhere close to a 19" monitor?

Of course not because (drum roll please) that's what the market will bear.
Also note that a 32" monitor that specs to 1600x1200 really can display
every one of those pixels, while an HDTV that can take a 1920x1080 input
might only display 1200x1080.

> I am curious, just what is your background in electronics and/or finance
> that you should think that everything comes for nothing.

I know what components are inside these boxes. The *electronics* in a $70
computer monitor are identical to those in a $3000 direct-view HDTV
monitor. The electronics in a $250 LCD computer monitor are identical to
those in a $4000 LCD HDTV monitor. In both cases, the electronics aren't
a significant part of the cost.

Bigger displays obviously have more cost...plastic, glass, etc., are a
large part of the increase. Another thing that increase the cost of an
HDTV monitor is that every model year the plastic box is slightly
different, requiring a full retooling on the injection molding line.
Computer monitor manufacturers have realized this is a useless expense in
a market where $20 at retail is the deciding factor. You also see a lot
more sharing of electronics and physical features in the computer world.

Again, this is just a matter of "what the market will bear". Anyone with
observation skills would realize this, just by tracking the price of 42"
RPTVs. They have dropped steadily throughout the last 10 years, despite
the fact that this year they *all* are HD-ready.

In other words, HDTV capability in a display doesn't cost anything...all
the R&D has already been paid for years ago.

--
Jeff Rife |
SPAM bait: | http://www.nabs.net/Cartoons/OverTheHedge/BrokenInterne...
AskDOJ@usdoj.gov |
uce@ftc.gov |
Anonymous
May 30, 2004 8:08:35 PM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

"Jeff Rife" <wevsr@nabs.net> wrote in message
news:MPG.1b230bc4d6152aa798968b@razor.nabs.net...
> Randy Sweeney (rsweeney1@comcast.net) wrote in alt.tv.tech.hdtv:
> > So you think that low resolution low quality optics cost the same as
high
> > resolution, high quality optics?
>
> Yes, since those very same high-resolution, high-quality optics are
selling
> for less than $100 in a PC CRT monitor. It's just the size issue, and
what
> the market will bear.

The optics I was speaking of are in RP's
the $100 PC CRT is a 15" model that is hard pressed to display over SVGA.

It takes at least a 19" CRT to display HD quality and these are more like
$250 in 4:3.


> > And that the computing power for digital TV comes from free?
>
> Most HDTV *monitors* have little to no computing power, and what they do
> have can be found in a $70 PC monitor.

I was speaking of HDTV... and the smalled HDTV I know of was the 30" diag
Philips selling for $999 at Wal-Mart
I am unaware of a 30" PC monitor which can be purchased for a dramatically
lower price.


> > And that high bandwidth, high dynamic range electronics cost the same as
low
> > bandwidth / low dynamic range circuits?
>
> Likewise, this same circuitry can be found in a $70 PC monitor that does
> 1280x1024.

it takes at least a 17" CRT to display 1280x1024 and these are not $70
monitors.

> > And that there are not decades of expensive R&D across the globe in
> > digital/hi-def TV to be paid for?
>
> They have already been paid for...by the computer monitor manufacturers.
> A 4:3 PC monitor that does 1280x1024 is damn near identical to an 4:3 HDTV
> monitor that has 1080 scan lines (with 810 in the 16:9 area), at least
> as far as electronics are concerned.

You think that PC monitor R&D has paid for ATSC signal processing, high
resolution RP optics and plasma panels?

> > As for PC monitors... when is the last time you purchased a 32" inch
XVGA PC
> > monitor?
> > What did you pay? Was it anywhere close to a 19" monitor?
>
> Of course not because (drum roll please) that's what the market will bear.
> Also note that a 32" monitor that specs to 1600x1200 really can display
> every one of those pixels, while an HDTV that can take a 1920x1080 input
> might only display 1200x1080.

Got a price on that high performance 32" UXGA monitor versus a 32" NTSC TV?

> > I am curious, just what is your background in electronics and/or finance
> > that you should think that everything comes for nothing.
>
> I know what components are inside these boxes. The *electronics* in a $70
> computer monitor are identical to those in a $3000 direct-view HDTV
> monitor. The electronics in a $250 LCD computer monitor are identical to
> those in a $4000 LCD HDTV monitor. In both cases, the electronics aren't
> a significant part of the cost.

And so you don't think there are any non-linear difference in cost between a
commodity 15" LCD with a limited color gamut, low viewability angle, low
transition speeds, and 500,000 pixels and a 30" LCD TV with twice as many
transistors and much higher quality visual specs?

How about that tuner in the TV panel... one of those in the monitor too or
is it also without costs?
And the amp/speakers...the cheapo LCD have those too or is audio also free?


> Bigger displays obviously have more cost...plastic, glass, etc., are a
> large part of the increase. Another thing that increase the cost of an
> HDTV monitor is that every model year the plastic box is slightly
> different, requiring a full retooling on the injection molding line.
> Computer monitor manufacturers have realized this is a useless expense in
> a market where $20 at retail is the deciding factor. You also see a lot
> more sharing of electronics and physical features in the computer world.

Bigger displays are non-linearly more expensive than smaller ones - in all
technologies.

> Again, this is just a matter of "what the market will bear". Anyone with
> observation skills would realize this, just by tracking the price of 42"
> RPTVs. They have dropped steadily throughout the last 10 years, despite
> the fact that this year they *all* are HD-ready.
>
> In other words, HDTV capability in a display doesn't cost anything...all
> the R&D has already been paid for years ago.

Better call the CEA and let the manufacturers know that the billions in R&D
is already paid and that no additional work is needed.
Anonymous
May 31, 2004 12:32:21 AM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

Randy Sweeney (rsweeney1@comcast.net) wrote in alt.tv.tech.hdtv:
> The optics I was speaking of are in RP's
> the $100 PC CRT is a 15" model that is hard pressed to display over SVGA.

1024x768 is enough to qualify for "HDTV monitor", acording to the CEA,
and that $70 figure is a 17" monitor.

> It takes at least a 19" CRT to display HD quality and these are more like
> $250 in 4:3.

The quality of the electronics in a 19" PC monitor is the same (or
sometimes lower) than the electronics in a 17" monitor. Only the size
is different.

Last, a 19" monitor that does 1600x1200 (OK, not very well, but it can
do 1280x1024 quite nicely) costs about $175. For $250, you can get a
fairly stunning 19" monitor...at least as far as HDTV is concerned.

> > Most HDTV *monitors* have little to no computing power, and what they do
> > have can be found in a $70 PC monitor.
>
> I was speaking of HDTV... and the smalled HDTV I know of was the 30" diag
> Philips selling for $999 at Wal-Mart

Philips doesn't make a 30" HDTV. They do make 30" HDTV monitors, but they
don't make any 30" set with built-in ATSC tuner. So, basically, that
30" HDTV monitor is the same as a computer monitor, but bigger. The
electronics are the same. The tube is slightly better than an NTSC tube,
but not much (notice that no company gives us dot-pitch specs on their
HDTVs...that's because it would show just how "not really HD" they are,
most of the time).

> I am unaware of a 30" PC monitor which can be purchased for a dramatically
> lower price.

1. Because nobody wants one...they'll buy a projector first.
2. Because a 30" PC monitor has to show you every pixel...the 30" HDTV
monitor doesn't.

Face it, there is a lot of profit in HDTVs because of the "what the market
will bear" phenomenon. The actual cost of the components is only slightly
higher than in an NTSC set, and the R&D has long since been paid for
in other markets.

The Sony XBRs are a great example of just how little the difference is
between a good NTSC set and an HD set.

> > Likewise, this same circuitry can be found in a $70 PC monitor that does
> > 1280x1024.
>
> it takes at least a 17" CRT to display 1280x1024 and these are not $70
> monitors.

Yes, they are. I can find them right now in *lots* of places for $80...$70
isn't hard with any kind of a sale (and there was on for that when I wrote
the first post).

> > They have already been paid for...by the computer monitor manufacturers..
> > A 4:3 PC monitor that does 1280x1024 is damn near identical to an 4:3 HDTV
> > monitor that has 1080 scan lines (with 810 in the 16:9 area), at least
> > as far as electronics are concerned.
>
> You think that PC monitor R&D has paid for ATSC signal processing, high
> resolution RP optics and plasma panels?

There is no ATSC signal processing in an HDTV monitor. You need an ATSC
receiver to require that. Plasma is a new technology. By itself, it
has nothing to do with HD, and thus doesn't matter.

As for RPTV...there have been high resolution 7" and 9" CRTs around for
a long time. Now they are scanning 1080 lines instead of 960 (like some
did with internal line doubling). 80 more lines ain't a big deal.

> And so you don't think there are any non-linear difference in cost between a
> commodity 15" LCD with a limited color gamut, low viewability angle, low
> transition speeds, and 500,000 pixels and a 30" LCD TV with twice as many
> transistors and much higher quality visual specs?

Again, not in the electronics that drive it. I wouldn't be surprised
if you found the same chip in some.

> How about that tuner in the TV panel... one of those in the monitor too or
> is it also without costs?

An NTSC tuner costs about $10. Big deal.

> And the amp/speakers...the cheapo LCD have those too or is audio also free?

$1 speakers and a $0.50 amp is what you probably find in that LCD TV.
Again, big deal. The extra plastic that is required to house the speakers
costs more than the speakers.

> > In other words, HDTV capability in a display doesn't cost anything...all
> > the R&D has already been paid for years ago.
>
> Better call the CEA and let the manufacturers know that the billions in R&D
> is already paid and that no additional work is needed.

They already know it...they're the ones who wanted an HD transition in the
US, because they knew that selling a TV for $700 when it cost them $400 to
make is better than selling a very similar TV for $300 when it cost them
$250 to make. The companies making HDTV monitors are all turning better
profits than they were a few years ago, and it's not from selling $50 DVD
players.

--
Jeff Rife | "Having your book turned into a movie is like
SPAM bait: | seeing your ox turned into bouillon cubes."
AskDOJ@usdoj.gov |
uce@ftc.gov | -- John Le Carré
Anonymous
May 31, 2004 3:31:01 AM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

"Jeff Rife" <wevsr@nabs.net> wrote in message
news:MPG.1b24471f81efcc12989697@razor.nabs.net...
Randy Sweeney (rsweeney1@comcast.net) wrote in alt.tv.tech.hdtv:
> The optics I was speaking of are in RP's
> the $100 PC CRT is a 15" model that is hard pressed to display over SVGA.

1024x768 is enough to qualify for "HDTV monitor", acording to the CEA,
and that $70 figure is a 17" monitor.

> It takes at least a 19" CRT to display HD quality and these are more like
> $250 in 4:3.

The quality of the electronics in a 19" PC monitor is the same (or
sometimes lower) than the electronics in a 17" monitor. Only the size
is different.

Last, a 19" monitor that does 1600x1200 (OK, not very well, but it can
do 1280x1024 quite nicely) costs about $175. For $250, you can get a
fairly stunning 19" monitor...at least as far as HDTV is concerned.

> > Most HDTV *monitors* have little to no computing power, and what they do
> > have can be found in a $70 PC monitor.
>
> I was speaking of HDTV... and the smalled HDTV I know of was the 30" diag
> Philips selling for $999 at Wal-Mart

Philips doesn't make a 30" HDTV. They do make 30" HDTV monitors, but they
don't make any 30" set with built-in ATSC tuner. So, basically, that
30" HDTV monitor is the same as a computer monitor, but bigger. The
electronics are the same. The tube is slightly better than an NTSC tube,
but not much (notice that no company gives us dot-pitch specs on their
HDTVs...that's because it would show just how "not really HD" they are,
most of the time).

> I am unaware of a 30" PC monitor which can be purchased for a dramatically
> lower price.

1. Because nobody wants one...they'll buy a projector first.
2. Because a 30" PC monitor has to show you every pixel...the 30" HDTV
monitor doesn't.

Face it, there is a lot of profit in HDTVs because of the "what the market
will bear" phenomenon. The actual cost of the components is only slightly
higher than in an NTSC set, and the R&D has long since been paid for
in other markets.

The Sony XBRs are a great example of just how little the difference is
between a good NTSC set and an HD set.

> > Likewise, this same circuitry can be found in a $70 PC monitor that does
> > 1280x1024.
>
> it takes at least a 17" CRT to display 1280x1024 and these are not $70
> monitors.

Yes, they are. I can find them right now in *lots* of places for $80...$70
isn't hard with any kind of a sale (and there was on for that when I wrote
the first post).

> > They have already been paid for...by the computer monitor manufacturers.
> > A 4:3 PC monitor that does 1280x1024 is damn near identical to an 4:3
HDTV
> > monitor that has 1080 scan lines (with 810 in the 16:9 area), at least
> > as far as electronics are concerned.
>
> You think that PC monitor R&D has paid for ATSC signal processing, high
> resolution RP optics and plasma panels?

There is no ATSC signal processing in an HDTV monitor. You need an ATSC
receiver to require that. Plasma is a new technology. By itself, it
has nothing to do with HD, and thus doesn't matter.

As for RPTV...there have been high resolution 7" and 9" CRTs around for
a long time. Now they are scanning 1080 lines instead of 960 (like some
did with internal line doubling). 80 more lines ain't a big deal.

> And so you don't think there are any non-linear difference in cost between
a
> commodity 15" LCD with a limited color gamut, low viewability angle, low
> transition speeds, and 500,000 pixels and a 30" LCD TV with twice as many
> transistors and much higher quality visual specs?

Again, not in the electronics that drive it. I wouldn't be surprised
if you found the same chip in some.

> How about that tuner in the TV panel... one of those in the monitor too or
> is it also without costs?

An NTSC tuner costs about $10. Big deal.

> And the amp/speakers...the cheapo LCD have those too or is audio also
free?

$1 speakers and a $0.50 amp is what you probably find in that LCD TV.
Again, big deal. The extra plastic that is required to house the speakers
costs more than the speakers.

> > In other words, HDTV capability in a display doesn't cost anything...all
> > the R&D has already been paid for years ago.
>
> Better call the CEA and let the manufacturers know that the billions in
R&D
> is already paid and that no additional work is needed.

They already know it...they're the ones who wanted an HD transition in the
US, because they knew that selling a TV for $700 when it cost them $400 to
make is better than selling a very similar TV for $300 when it cost them
$250 to make. The companies making HDTV monitors are all turning better
profits than they were a few years ago, and it's not from selling $50 DVD
players.

Jeff

You think that something costs nothing and that those who spend money in R&D
and manufacturing investments over years deserve little or nothing in return
and that performance and quality have nothing to do with either cost or
price.

I disagree.

This discussion is going nowhere.

Let's quit while we are still on speaking terms.

Enjoy your life, buy cheap, sell high, make a fortune.

Randy
Anonymous
May 31, 2004 4:08:06 AM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

"Randy Sweeney" <rsweeney1@comcast.net> wrote in
news:zqudnSkrYOfaoifdRVn-uQ@comcast.com:

>
> "Jeff Rife" <wevsr@nabs.net> wrote in message
> news:MPG.1b230bc4d6152aa798968b@razor.nabs.net...
>> Randy Sweeney (rsweeney1@comcast.net) wrote in alt.tv.tech.hdtv:
>> > So you think that low resolution low quality optics cost the same
>> > as
> high
>> > resolution, high quality optics?
>>
>> Yes, since those very same high-resolution, high-quality optics are
> selling
>> for less than $100 in a PC CRT monitor. It's just the size issue,
>> and
> what
>> the market will bear.
>
> The optics I was speaking of are in RP's
> the $100 PC CRT is a 15" model that is hard pressed to display over
> SVGA.
>
> It takes at least a 19" CRT to display HD quality and these are more
> like $250 in 4:3.
>
>
>> > And that the computing power for digital TV comes from free?
>>
>> Most HDTV *monitors* have little to no computing power, and what they
>> do have can be found in a $70 PC monitor.
>
> I was speaking of HDTV... and the smalled HDTV I know of was the 30"
> diag Philips selling for $999 at Wal-Mart
> I am unaware of a 30" PC monitor which can be purchased for a
> dramatically lower price.
>
>
>> > And that high bandwidth, high dynamic range electronics cost the
>> > same as
> low
>> > bandwidth / low dynamic range circuits?
>>
>> Likewise, this same circuitry can be found in a $70 PC monitor that
>> does 1280x1024.
>
> it takes at least a 17" CRT to display 1280x1024 and these are not $70
> monitors.
>
>> > And that there are not decades of expensive R&D across the globe in
>> > digital/hi-def TV to be paid for?
>>
>> They have already been paid for...by the computer monitor
>> manufacturers. A 4:3 PC monitor that does 1280x1024 is damn near
>> identical to an 4:3 HDTV monitor that has 1080 scan lines (with 810
>> in the 16:9 area), at least as far as electronics are concerned.
>
> You think that PC monitor R&D has paid for ATSC signal processing,
> high resolution RP optics and plasma panels?
>
>> > As for PC monitors... when is the last time you purchased a 32"
>> > inch
> XVGA PC
>> > monitor?
>> > What did you pay? Was it anywhere close to a 19" monitor?
>>
>> Of course not because (drum roll please) that's what the market will
>> bear. Also note that a 32" monitor that specs to 1600x1200 really can
>> display every one of those pixels, while an HDTV that can take a
>> 1920x1080 input might only display 1200x1080.
>
> Got a price on that high performance 32" UXGA monitor versus a 32"
> NTSC TV?
>
>> > I am curious, just what is your background in electronics and/or
>> > finance that you should think that everything comes for nothing.
>>
>> I know what components are inside these boxes. The *electronics* in
>> a $70 computer monitor are identical to those in a $3000 direct-view
>> HDTV monitor. The electronics in a $250 LCD computer monitor are
>> identical to those in a $4000 LCD HDTV monitor. In both cases, the
>> electronics aren't a significant part of the cost.
>
> And so you don't think there are any non-linear difference in cost
> between a commodity 15" LCD with a limited color gamut, low
> viewability angle, low transition speeds, and 500,000 pixels and a 30"
> LCD TV with twice as many transistors and much higher quality visual
> specs?
>
> How about that tuner in the TV panel... one of those in the monitor
> too or is it also without costs?
> And the amp/speakers...the cheapo LCD have those too or is audio also
> free?
>
>
>> Bigger displays obviously have more cost...plastic, glass, etc., are
>> a large part of the increase. Another thing that increase the cost
>> of an HDTV monitor is that every model year the plastic box is
>> slightly different, requiring a full retooling on the injection
>> molding line. Computer monitor manufacturers have realized this is a
>> useless expense in a market where $20 at retail is the deciding
>> factor. You also see a lot more sharing of electronics and physical
>> features in the computer world.
>
> Bigger displays are non-linearly more expensive than smaller ones - in
> all technologies.
>
>> Again, this is just a matter of "what the market will bear". Anyone
>> with observation skills would realize this, just by tracking the
>> price of 42" RPTVs. They have dropped steadily throughout the last
>> 10 years, despite the fact that this year they *all* are HD-ready.
>>
>> In other words, HDTV capability in a display doesn't cost
>> anything...all the R&D has already been paid for years ago.
>
> Better call the CEA and let the manufacturers know that the billions
> in R&D is already paid and that no additional work is needed.

Some of it, of course, has been paid forward by monitor manufacture (and
these ARE the same manufacturers we're talking about). Better dot-pitch
CRT coatings and masks are a fallout as are some of the improved LCD
technologies (not much plasma in the computer field yet). And my 20"
Viewsonic will, with the right hardware to split out the colours, do a
credible job on a 1080i signal. It's tiny, though! Capture cards will
probably be the way to go for that.

Now sources in the industry tell me that we may well see a HUGE drop in
screen real estate prices by the end of the decade, ending somewhere
around $1-$10 per square foot of viewable screen area. But you know, I'm
not sure I want to wait that long. My CRT HDTV wasn't all that expensive
(it's not all that big either--but I live in small quarters). But it
does a credible job on the 1080i signals from my satellite provider and
that's really all I want out of it. If I wanted to wait for cheaper,
then I could have done so, but along with cheaper there is always the
newer and more expensive!!!


--
Dave Oldridge
ICQ 1800667

Paradoxically, most real events are highly improbable.
Anonymous
May 31, 2004 6:58:52 PM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

Randy Sweeney (rsweeney1@comcast.net) wrote in alt.tv.tech.hdtv:
> You think that something costs nothing and that those who spend money in R&D
> and manufacturing investments over years deserve little or nothing in return
> and that performance and quality have nothing to do with either cost or
> price.
>
> I disagree.
>
> This discussion is going nowhere.
>
> Let's quit while we are still on speaking terms.

Hey, no big deal. I don't mind a heated discussion if the other guy is
polite and reasonable, as you are.

--
Jeff Rife |
SPAM bait: | http://www.nabs.net/Cartoons/Dilbert/InstallVirus.gif
AskDOJ@usdoj.gov |
uce@ftc.gov |
!