Official 70"+ LCD thread - Page 25 - AVS Forum
Forum Jump: 
Reply
 
Thread Tools
post #721 of 1421 Old 07-02-2011, 11:13 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
rogo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Sequoia, CA
Posts: 30,088
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 62 Post(s)
Liked: 439
Quote:
Originally Posted by Augerhandle View Post

Forgive me, but information off the top of your head, guessing, and knowing people does not qualify as facts and links. Nothing personal, I just like to weigh the facts themselves. Without them, yours is just another biased opinion.

I know things you don't know. That bugs you. Tough. On top of that, I cited sources for nearly every important fact. If you want to go get industry historical data, go get it. It's proprietary but much of it is probably on the open internet. The 4 million units as the size of the RPTV market was certainly an open "secret" for year. I'm not your researcher, but clearly I am privy to facts you are not.

Quote:


As far as opinions, I have read that most companies got out of DLP because they could not implement it cheaply enough to make a profit, due to lawsuits and failed components across the board that gave the whole industry a black eye. Mitsubishi, with more experience in RPTV tech, held out and perservered through all of it.

Nonsense. Samsung sold more DLPs over a 3-4 year span that Mitsubishi will sell from now till the end of time. They had the best possible pricing from TI. They had brand cachet to charge decent prices. Demand evaporated. Period.

Quote:


No company would do that if they weren't making a profit, and Mitsubishi was and still is.

Mitsubishi has not made a profit in TVs in North America this century.

Quote:


As for percent of market share, Sony didn't sell a lot of Betamax players, yet they had arguably better quality the the VHS players that sold in the millions. The wii (standard definition) outsold both PS3 and XBox. Sales isn't always connected to picture quality, especially in electronics.

I fail to see how the relationship between picture quality and sales relates here. No one in the industry thinks RP DLP provides state of the art picture quality. That's not to say it's bad, but let's not get carried away here. And the factual reality is, we can easily prove that the maximum market size for DLP last year was 2% of 35 million minus all the 65" plasmas sold. We also know Mitsubishi sold 1% of 35 million and DLP was 1% of the market minus all the flat panels they sold. It is mathematically impossible for that to be >350,000. And based on a reasonable guesstimate of the plasma sales, the ~100,000 figure for DLP is most likely correct.

Again, this probably bothers you, but it's correct.

There is no difference in HDMI cables. If you can see the picture without visible dropouts or sparklies, the cable is working at 100%. No other cable will display a better version of that picture. You're simply wrong if you think there is a better digital cable than one that is already working.
rogo is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #722 of 1421 Old 07-02-2011, 11:51 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Augerhandle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 2,584
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 13 Post(s)
Liked: 47
Quote:
Originally Posted by rogo View Post


I know things you don't know...

...Samsung sold more DLPs over a 3-4 year span that Mitsubishi will sell from now till the end of time...

Mitsubishi has not made a profit in TVs in North America this century.

...No one in the industry thinks RP DLP provides state of the art picture quality...

Okay, you "know things", you can tell the future, can read minds, and you speak for everyone in the industry.

I'm completely satisfied. Forgive me for ever doubting you.

"The wise understand by themselves; fools follow the reports of others"-Tibetan Proverb
 
Augerhandle is offline  
post #723 of 1421 Old 07-03-2011, 03:34 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
rogo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Sequoia, CA
Posts: 30,088
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 62 Post(s)
Liked: 439
I really give up with you. I actually know things you don't know, this clearly bugs you. That's common in America these days, people without information and knowledge being bothered by people who just know more than them.

Samsung quite literally sold north of 2 million DLPs. It might have been twice that, I'm not really sure. And yes, Mitsubishi will never catch that number. I get that you don't understand why. That's fine, you're incapable of understanding that the market demand is simply not there, not coming, and that nothing is going to change that.

None of that means that the product is bad or that there isn't some demand for it.

Perhaps if you think otherwise, you can find any of the following:

1) A videophile-quality review source static it's a state-of-the-art videophile picture. Maybe that is out there, I'm not willing to state categorically it isn't. That said, I've not seen one, nor have I seen any excitement in the videophile community around these TVs. They appear to be marketed to people who want big, big, big at a really good price. Such a product has historically never delivered videophile picture quality.

2) A single industry forecast calling for growth in the DLP/RPTV market to something north of the 1% level. What you are totally and utterly confused by in my opinion is the same thing a lot of people here are confused by: The belief there is some secret massive pent up demand for these giant TVs that the market just isn't satisfying. Quite frankly, the 73" DLP is a bargain, but since the 70" LCD is a bargain, the 73" DLP is going to fail to expand the DLP market much (if at all).

Yes, some small number of price sensitive customers are going to buy it. But since it has a consumable and uses far more power than the Sharp LCD, it's lifecycle cost is not lower, even if the acquisition cost is. And it's big, deep, ugainly and therefore can't exist in many places the Sharp can. And in many places the wife might tolerate the Sharp simply to avoid getting the Mitsubishi.

The notion that there is some massive multi-million-unit market waiting for the 80+" models is quite frankly laughable. If they were wall hanging units, the market would be perhaps 1 million units annually in N. America, emphasis on perhaps. But since they are 22" deep or more, the market is in the 10s of thousands at most. Again, go ahead and find a forecast that says otherwise. And then a year from now show me reptutable sales figures to back it up.

I've backed up pretty much everything I've said here and none of my figures have been refuted. I get that it troubles you I have some industry data. Tough. I've been following the industry for 15 years. Sometimes I get to see proprietary industry data. I also make it a point to catch iSuppli, DisplaySearch, Twice, et al. when they reveal data to the general public.

From what I know, I can make statements that are either (a) unequivocally true or (b) most probably true but subject to correction. For example, it's I suppose remotely possible that Mitsubishi is so fantastically good at supply chain management that their TV business in N. America has eked out a single-digit profit some year this century. I have very good reasons to doubt this. Since they make nothing, procure everything, are forced to mark down last year's models, have virtually zero retail presence, do next to no volume, etc. there is almost no chance they have shown a profit in that group any year this century. And in aggregate for the century, they have absolutely netted out a negative number. I'm sorry you don't know this like I do, but it's really not my job to explain to you how to learn this fact or why I know this fact.

You keep responding to me sarcastically after I take my time and effort to explain to you things the best I can without (a) doing work for you I'm not going to do and (b) revealing information and sources that I'm not in any way at liberty to reveal. I do this because maybe someone else reading who actually cares to learn something will in fact learn something from the discussion.

You clearly don't care and you want to believe things that are not in any way substantiated by facts or reality. So you concoct fictions about failed DLP components and black eyes to the industry. Yet Sony also left microdisplay RPTV and used their own proprietary SXRD microdisplay. The entire LCOS market, in fact, came and went over 2 years as it came late to the DLP party and by the time it showed up the party was over. Panasonic came and went with LCD RPTV. Everyone came... and went. Was every technology given a black eye? Was everything hit with lawsuits? If anything was going to die to lawsuits, it should've been plasma, which had some early, nasty burn-in victims and screwed up a lot of people's remote controls to boot.

Were there any major class actions involving TVs of any type? Nope. (Minor ones? Maybe, but nothing of any import.). Flat panels absolutely obliterated microdisplay RPTV from the market. It went as fast as it came. Many of us predicted this would happen and even told the mfrs. not to invest in it. They ignored us and lost millions. I recall discussing Mitsubishi's strategy with them one year at CES and learning, very clearly, that they were counting on their leadership in CRT RPTV to carry them into the HD era. This was at the point where you already couldn't give away a CRT RPTV.

The irony of the fact that DLP RPTV exists at all at this point is that the most glacial player in the market was so late to everything, they were pretty much last one in to DLP (of those that once mattered). So when everyone else quit microdisplay RPTV and the prices for the light engines were driven down to nothing by years of office projectors combined with an amazing mini-run of DLP RPTVs driven almost entirely by aggressive folks at Samsung including a fellow named Steve Panosian, Mitsubishi was still there kicking.

And here we sit in 2011 and Mitsubishi has admitted that their LCD TV strategy is a failure and they've had to leave the market entirely (which maybe happened some time last year, I really don't care to be honest). So they are out of the one category that dominates the market and they have pretty much nothing but a once really proud brand name in TV. And the weird thing about TV brands is they last forever. A few years ago people dredged up names like Westinghouse and Sylvania to slap on TVs because there was still brand equity in them.

And as a person who owned a Mits RPTV for a bunch of years (and loved it) and owned a Mits CRT 26" (Ok, technically I still own it), I can tell you that there was a time where if someone asked me, "Who builds the best TVs on earth?", I wouldn't have hesitated to answer "Mitsubishi".

So here they sit, nursing a tiny corner of a few big box retailers with a jumbo TV that's a bargain, one that sells well for basements and bonus rooms, but not particularly at all for family rooms (of course, exceptions exist). Most people in a big box store would never even consider it as an option irrespective of price, but a few will buy them and enjoy the heck out of them.

But clearly, I am incapable of understanding any of this. And clearly you follow your own advice and "understand" by yourself. You just choose not to understand much of what actually occurs in the market.

There is no difference in HDMI cables. If you can see the picture without visible dropouts or sparklies, the cable is working at 100%. No other cable will display a better version of that picture. You're simply wrong if you think there is a better digital cable than one that is already working.
rogo is offline  
post #724 of 1421 Old 07-03-2011, 05:06 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Augerhandle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 2,584
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 13 Post(s)
Liked: 47
Quote:
Originally Posted by rogo View Post

[snip]...

Quote:


As far as opinions go, I have read that most companies got out of DLP because they could not implement it cheaply enough to make a profit, due to lawsuits and failed components across the board that gave the whole industry a black eye. Mitsubishi, with more experience in RPTV tech, held out and perservered through all of it.

Nonsense. ...

Quote:
Originally Posted by rogo View Post


[snip] ...you concoct fictions about failed DLP components and black eyes to the industry. Yet Sony also left microdisplay RPTV and used their own proprietary SXRD microdisplay...

... Was every technology given a black eye? Was everything hit with lawsuits? ...

Were there any major class actions involving TVs of any type? ...[snip]

RPTV class action lawsuits and settlements (in alphabetical order, Sony included).

Hitachi http://www.angelreyesblog.com/2008/0...iled-by-horpb/

JVC http://www.topclassactions.com/open/...uit-settlement

Samsung http://esupport.sony.com/docs/350799...s_Notice_2.pdf

Sony http://esupport.sony.com/docs/350799...s_Notice_2.pdf

Toshiba http://www.wired.com/gadgetlab/2009/03/class-action-se/

"The wise understand by themselves; fools follow the reports of others"-Tibetan Proverb
 
Augerhandle is offline  
post #725 of 1421 Old 07-03-2011, 10:15 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
walford's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Orange County, CA
Posts: 16,789
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 12
I was surprised that with all of the TV ads that come with my Sunday paper here in Southern California that this week for the first time there was not a single add for a Mits TV. The Web sites for some of the local stores that carry a lot of TV brands and models did however have some Mits 2010 DLP models at what appeared to be close out pricing.
walford is offline  
post #726 of 1421 Old 07-03-2011, 01:25 PM - Thread Starter
AVS Special Member
 
irkuck's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: cyberspace
Posts: 3,482
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 21 Post(s)
Liked: 60
Quote:
Originally Posted by rogo View Post

Um, it's not, but for every 10 million chips capable of scaling to 1920 x 1080p there are a few thousand capable of scaling to 4k x 2k. The cost difference is significant.)

Difference is only due to small scale of manuf. With manuf in full swing the difference is close to null.

Quote:
Originally Posted by rogo View Post

And, irkuck, I think you're missing my point (as usual since you declared you wished me dead in these forums). It's pretty unlikely they are stamping entire sheets with 70-inch panels. While motherglass is sometimes cut into a series of equal-size panels, it's often cut into a number of different-sized panels that fit together to minimize waste.

I have not declared you dead, only some arguments are dead-end . Fact is that only Sharp has 10G plant with motherglass which can fit mulitple 70". It would be illogical to use this mother glass for different size panels. Logic says Sharp really must use this for full scale stamping, only this brings costs down enormously. There is no other way they could bring the price so much down and be alive still.

Quote:
Originally Posted by rogo View Post

Update: In fact, I checked the best data I could find and it seems to suggest that the glass at Sharp's plant is 2.88m x 3.13m. There is no way to evenly cut that into nothing but 70" panels. We can therefore conclude that Sharp runs mixed cuts every time it makes 70" displays, which is entirely logical. While I don't know how many 70s there are on each sheet of motherglass, it could in fact be one unit. The economies of scale come from processing the sheet of motherglass at once, not from processing a specific display size at once (although the latter might help marginally).

Have you made any calculations to prove that multiple 70 inchers do not fit? According to my calculations they can fit 6of them on a single sheet - and the 70" (or 69.5 precisely) just barely fits in width while 72" would not fit. Stamping 6 from a single sheet brings just such economy of manuf that the cost can be lowered. No way to go down with cost so much if ther is one 70" panel from the motherglass. In other words, Sharp achieves with 70" efficiency which others an do with the 55". They can then have similar cost since the 15" difference in size is not that significant.

irkuck
irkuck is offline  
post #727 of 1421 Old 07-03-2011, 04:11 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
walford's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Orange County, CA
Posts: 16,789
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 12
I consider the increase in screen size significant since a 70" screen has over 60% more screen area then a 55" screen.
walford is offline  
post #728 of 1421 Old 07-03-2011, 05:41 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
rogo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Sequoia, CA
Posts: 30,088
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 62 Post(s)
Liked: 439
@Auger, I rest my case. Your links total what we call a hill of beans. America, land of lawyers filing gibberish class actions. Google shows me scores of class actions on flat panel displays as well. Yet those remain on the market. Intelligent people will correctly conclude that RPTVs were not forced from the market due to a handle of largely nonsensical class-action lawsuits. And you should feel free to ask actually ask anyone at Sony or Samsung if they left RPTV because they got sued once over it. They'll be happy to tell you, "No, it's because no one bought the damn things."

Hitachi and Toshiba both lost their market share and shelf space in N. American TV the same way Mitsubishi did: They stuck with CRT RPTV far too long and developed no relevant technology of their own. Toshiba sort of, kind of tried to market a brand new flat panel technology -- an endeavor that has succeeded exactly twice in history, and each time it took more than a decade.

@irkuck, you used the expression "killed in action" with regards to me. "Rogo is KIA". That's pretty much describing me as dead. And it pretty much ended our good relations here.

I tried to fit multiple 70s on their motherglass and the math did not work. In neither dimension did multiple 70s fit evenly. I'll check again later or you can share your math. It's quite possible I erred.

Regardless, you are wrong about something: It does not matter if there are 2 70s on the sheet or 6 or 1. It matters if they whole sheet can be patterned and processed at once and cut without waste. Almost no motherglass anywhere is cut evenly into 8 of this or 6 of that. They are cut into 4 of this and 2 of that. 1 of this, 3 of that, 6 of the other. If they cut 4 70s but only 3 52s, them the 52s are "less efficient" by your logic. So long as the whole glass is processed, it's fine. There might be some marginal advantage to "perfect cuts" but since no motherglass will have "perfect cuts" across an entire product line, this cannot be important to LCD making.

There is no difference in HDMI cables. If you can see the picture without visible dropouts or sparklies, the cable is working at 100%. No other cable will display a better version of that picture. You're simply wrong if you think there is a better digital cable than one that is already working.
rogo is offline  
post #729 of 1421 Old 07-03-2011, 09:15 PM
Member
 
josephpearson's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 168
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 11 Post(s)
Liked: 25
Irkuck's math is correct. A 70" 16:9 TV has a width of 61.0316" and a height of 34.2874 (an easy to use calculator is located at nicetaco.com--I can't post the full url as this is my first post). 2.88m = 113.385" (slightly more than three times the height) and 3.13m = 123.228" (slightly more than twice the width), 3*2=6. As you can see, I had to edit the post to reflect that fact that I flipped height and width. Otherwise, the math remains the same. It was past my bedtime (I like that explanation better then than "another senior moment").
josephpearson is offline  
post #730 of 1421 Old 07-03-2011, 09:46 PM
Senior Member
 
Lbear's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 264
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Just seen the Sharp Aquos 70" at Costco. They had it for $3,000+ tax.

The same version 60" Sharp Aquos was only $1,400 + tax. Quite the difference in the price tag.

Is the extra 10" really worth another $1,500???


Right now, I can get a 73" LED Mitsubishi DLP - 3D - for $,1350 delivered to my door. It's hard to justify paying another $1,700 for the LCD. One can buy TWO 73" Mitsubishi DLP's for the price of one 70" LCD.
Lbear is offline  
post #731 of 1421 Old 07-03-2011, 10:45 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
rogo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Sequoia, CA
Posts: 30,088
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 62 Post(s)
Liked: 439
Quote:
Originally Posted by josephpearson View Post

Irkuck's math is correct. A 70" 16:9 TV has a width of 61.0316" and a height of 34.2874 (an easy to use calculator is located at nicetaco.com--I can't post the full url as this is my first post). 2.88m = 113.385" (slightly more than twice the width) and 3.13m = 123.228" (slightly more than 3 times the height), 3*2=6.

Thanks Joe, I must've pulled some bad number off cavecreations (the site I used). User error on my part, I'm sure. So they can go 3 x 2. If anyone is bored, see how neatly 60s fit on the sheets.

There is no difference in HDMI cables. If you can see the picture without visible dropouts or sparklies, the cable is working at 100%. No other cable will display a better version of that picture. You're simply wrong if you think there is a better digital cable than one that is already working.
rogo is offline  
post #732 of 1421 Old 07-03-2011, 11:38 PM - Thread Starter
AVS Special Member
 
irkuck's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: cyberspace
Posts: 3,482
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 21 Post(s)
Liked: 60
Quote:
Originally Posted by walford View Post

I consider the increase in screen size significant since a 70" screen has over 60% more screen area then a 55" screen.

Right but from the point of economy of scale this is not so significant. You make same number of 70" as the 55" if you have bigger motherglass, all operational costs are same. The cost of additional glass and layers is not that big.

What is signifcantly higher though is the cost of investment in 10G plant.
This investment has not been particularily profitable to Sharp. One can guess they had to writedown part of it so the full cost is not reflected in the 70" panels

Quote:
Originally Posted by josephpearson View Post

Irkuck's math is correct. A 70" 16:9 TV has a width of 61.0316" and a height of 34.2874 (an easy to use calculator is located at nicetaco.com--I can't post the full url as this is my first post). 2.88m = 113.385" (slightly more than twice the width) and 3.13m = 123.228" (slightly more than 3 times the height), 3*2=6.

At such level of precision it helps to notice that the actual size is 69.5 inch.
Tight packing brings economy of scale.

On a side note one should not expect manufs coming with even bigger panels at low,low,low prices. That would require investment beyond 11G in plants which nobody wants to make as the TV business is rather bad.

irkuck
irkuck is offline  
post #733 of 1421 Old 07-03-2011, 11:47 PM - Thread Starter
AVS Special Member
 
irkuck's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: cyberspace
Posts: 3,482
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 21 Post(s)
Liked: 60
Quote:
Originally Posted by rogo View Post

@irkuck, you used the expression "killed in action" with regards to me. "Rogo is KIA". That's pretty much describing me as dead. And it pretty much ended our good relations here.

Taken out of context which was quite light . I should be anticipating that being dead-serious about TVs is a general sign of not taking things easily .

irkuck
irkuck is offline  
post #734 of 1421 Old 07-03-2011, 11:51 PM
AVS Special Member
 
specuvestor's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 2,399
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 12
Quote:
Originally Posted by irkuck View Post


Right but from the point of economy of scale this is not so significant. You make same number of 70" as the 55" if you have bigger motherglass, all operational costs are same. The cost of additional glass and layers is not that big.

How do u come to this conclusion? This is totally opposite of how the industry work. You are saying Corning & Asahi charge similar for large glass per square inch? And operational cost similar meaning learning curve flat?
specuvestor is offline  
post #735 of 1421 Old 07-04-2011, 12:05 AM
Senior Member
 
wsokolosky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 215
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Is it known yet whether the large (70in and greater) LCD panels will require more aggressive motion handling processing (frame multiplication and interpolation)? It is my understanding that it is this processing which results in the hyperdefined, videoy quality of essentially all LCDs I've seen. 70+ inches of that would be very distracting IMHO.

Wes
wsokolosky is offline  
post #736 of 1421 Old 07-04-2011, 12:53 AM - Thread Starter
AVS Special Member
 
irkuck's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: cyberspace
Posts: 3,482
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 21 Post(s)
Liked: 60
Quote:
Originally Posted by specuvestor View Post

How do u come to this conclusion? This is totally opposite of how the industry work. You are saying Corning & Asahi charge similar for large glass per square inch? And operational cost similar meaning learning curve flat?

OK, you are concerned with cost of material which I consider not a major component (glass costs more but not steeply more). What makes the difference is ability to run manuf at economy of scale. Hence, making one panel at a time is hugely more expensive than 6 panels at a time. The manuf cost of making 6x70" will be closer to 6x50" and many times lower than making 1x70". As said, we are talking only about direct costs not taking into account the cost of investment. If investment would be fully accounted, the cost of making 70" would be higher. But Sharp apparently wrote down part of the investment.

Quote:
Originally Posted by wsokolosky View Post

Is it known yet whether the large (70in and greater) LCD panels will require more aggressive motion handling processing (frame multiplication and interpolation)? It is my understanding that it is this processing which results in the hyperdefined, videoy quality of essentially all LCDs I've seen. 70+ inches of that would be very distracting IMHO.
Wes

I would say current motion processing is sufficient. For big panels the quality of source becomes critical. Extensive compression produces artefacts and they wull be visible. One of the artefacts of compression is reduction of details of moving objects. On big panel this will be visible since one can follow easily
moving objects.

irkuck
irkuck is offline  
post #737 of 1421 Old 07-04-2011, 01:03 AM
AVS Special Member
 
specuvestor's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 2,399
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 12
U are saying cash cost of making 24 32" panel using 10G is cheaper than 2 32" using 4G? That's not how it works based on then LG Phillip's experience 5 years ago making 32" on 7.5G. If what you say is true that Sharp can make 32" cheaper and should just do it to grab market share big time for the biggest segment now globally.

You have to redesign the array, the deposition, process etc for larger fabs and usually lower yield because it is no man's land. Ramp up schedule for latter followers will usually be at least 1/3 faster than the pioneering fab. That's one of the strategic decision for Samsung to decide on a follower 10G fab or a pioneering 12G fab. The motherglass cost usually jumps from usual 10% to almost 1/3 of LCM BOM cost because it is more difficult to manufacture and prone to cracking if the equipments are not stable.

In addition, you are aware that 10G glass is not exactly commodity as only Sharp uses it. OTOH 4G has been running efficiently after 10 years. THAT is operational efficiency. Question for them is just which size offers BEST margins.
specuvestor is offline  
post #738 of 1421 Old 07-04-2011, 01:54 AM
AVS Special Member
 
specuvestor's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 2,399
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 12
Looks inline with my post, though this report actually appeared a day earlier:

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showt...4#post20635924

"Without end-market demand to support continued panel price increases, our Monthly Large-Area LCD and PDP Pricing Report indicates that the increase in panel prices that started in April stopped in the middle of June. Panel makers had hoped that prices would continue to increase, improving their profitability, but the upside seems very short-lived and panel prices are still below costs for a majority of the panel models.


As we indicated in May, panel buyers said that, despite the good sales in China, they did not see strong enough sell-through to support continuous panel price increases. There are several reasons that panel prices are losing upside momentum:
Major TV brands are reducing their 2011 sales targets.
PC set makers are facing inventory pressure.
Consumer markets in Europe and North America are soft, driven by macroeconomic conditions.

Without pull from the end markets, a supply-driven panel price increase is not sustainable.

Panel makers now intend to sustain panel prices at current levels (there is no room for prices to fall further as they are below costs in many cases), and then wait for the market to tighten in late Q3’11 when downstream customers will need to build inventories for the holidays. However, there is also a sense that if panel prices do not increase, then they will fall. Several people in the industry, especially from the panel buying side, have suggested that panel makers will face pressure to either reduce capacity utilization or reduce prices in order to maintain their shipments. In our latest panel price forecast, DisplaySearch adopted the former position. We do not foresee a situation in which panel prices will crash again, so we are forecasting that prices will stay flat for a couple of months and then increase from late Q3’11." -DisplaySearch 29 June
specuvestor is offline  
post #739 of 1421 Old 07-04-2011, 03:21 AM - Thread Starter
AVS Special Member
 
irkuck's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: cyberspace
Posts: 3,482
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 21 Post(s)
Liked: 60
Quote:
Originally Posted by specuvestor View Post

U are saying cash cost of making 24 32" panel using 10G is cheaper than 2 32" using 4G? That's not how it works based on then LG Phillip's experience 5 years ago making 32" on 7.5G. If what you say is true that Sharp can make 32" cheaper and should just do it to grab market share big time for the biggest segment now globally.

You exaggerate my statements in wrong direction. What I was saying concerns only big panels. Small panels have very low margins and it is definitely not worth to build and run 10G plant for them.

Quote:
Originally Posted by specuvestor View Post

You have to redesign the array, the deposition, process etc for larger fabs and usually lower yield because it is no man's land. Ramp up schedule for latter followers will usually be at least 1/3 faster than the pioneering fab. That's one of the strategic decision for Samsung to decide on a follower 10G fab or a pioneering 12G fab. The motherglass cost usually jumps from usual 10% to almost 1/3 of LCM BOM cost because it is more difficult to manufacture and prone to cracking if the equipments are not stable.

In addition, you are aware that 10G glass is not exactly commodity as only Sharp uses it. OTOH 4G has been running efficiently after 10 years. THAT is operational efficiency. Question for them is just which size offers BEST margins.

Obviously yes. But TV is bad business, rathor thin profits or losses. I suspect that Sharp is able to sell 70" TVs so cheaply since they have written down part of the 10G investment. 10G has been considered risky and Sharp has not made big gains on it. Now they can sell 70" cheap but nobody is following them in building 10G plants since total economy of it is shaky. So Sharp is selling because they accommodated investment loss.

irkuck
irkuck is offline  
post #740 of 1421 Old 07-04-2011, 03:42 AM
AVS Special Member
 
specuvestor's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 2,399
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 12
Small panels do not have low margin. If you read my previous post Sharp has good margin on small/ medium panels (which industry defines as <10"). Their $ margin may be smaller though but quite irrelevant from a ROE/ ROI basis. And market for small/ medium panels looks good in the near future because there is so little capacity expansion.

I am of course exaggerating abit but essentially extrapolating what you are saying. Put in another way: Do you think Sharp produces 50" cheaper than Sammy or LG since Sharp has 10G fab and hence can make more cuts? I am saying the below statement is not true all the time that having more cuts is more cost efficient. It depends.

Quote:
Originally Posted by irkuck View Post

Hence, making one panel at a time is hugely more expensive than 6 panels at a time.

We will soon be able to look at Sharp's 1Q results end June to see if 10G investment has been written down sufficient to have "paper" profit.
specuvestor is offline  
post #741 of 1421 Old 07-04-2011, 06:15 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
walford's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Orange County, CA
Posts: 16,789
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 12
Once a new generation fab is built I believe that the manufacturer's objective would be to maximize the $ margin of the mix of panel sizes being produced from it. Also AFAIK each generation of fab has more then one optimum pattern mix of screen sizes in addition to the ability to make a new maximum size panels.
For example the fabs which have a maiximum panel size of 52" are now apparenlty being used with an optimum pattern mix that no longer includes the 52" size since newer generation fabs can make 55" or larger panels.
Does anyone have information on the different optimum panel mixes of the different recent generations of fab?
walford is offline  
post #742 of 1421 Old 07-04-2011, 10:57 AM - Thread Starter
AVS Special Member
 
irkuck's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: cyberspace
Posts: 3,482
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 21 Post(s)
Liked: 60
Quote:
Originally Posted by specuvestor View Post

I am of course exaggerating abit but essentially extrapolating what you are saying. Put in another way: Do you think Sharp produces 50" cheaper than Sammy or LG since Sharp has 10G fab and hence can make more cuts?

My statements were exclusively limited to the case of 70" i.e. cutting single 70" panel from motherglass of size X and multiple (e.g 6) panels from size Y. This is unique situation.

Regarding the 50" panels situation is more complicated, let's
say panel cuts ratio will be 8:6 for Sharp, this will result in 30% gain for Sharp but taking into account other factors like efficiency of machinery, cost of glass the gain might be smaller and turn into deep negative if investment cost is included.

The case 0f 70" is unique. It would be same story for Sharp if they attempted making e.g. 85" panels. Then one or two would fit on the motherglass and costs would go up dramatically.

Quote:
Originally Posted by walford View Post

Once a new generation fab is built I believe that the manufacturer's objective would be to maximize the $ margin of the mix of panel sizes being produced from it. Also AFAIK each generation of fab has more then one optimum pattern mix of screen sizes in addition to the ability to make a new maximum size panels.
For example the fabs which have a maiximum panel size of 52" are now apparenlty being used with an optimum pattern mix that no longer includes the 52" size since newer generation fabs can make 55" or larger panels.
Does anyone have information on the different optimum panel mixes of the different recent generations of fab?

Optimal mix is of identical panels filling the sheet fully. This is the case of Sharp 70" on 10G glass.

irkuck
irkuck is offline  
post #743 of 1421 Old 07-04-2011, 04:09 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
rogo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Sequoia, CA
Posts: 30,088
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 62 Post(s)
Liked: 439
"Optimal mix is of identical panels filling the sheet fully. This is the case of Sharp 70" on 10G glass."

That's probably true, but I don't get how you can say this and then claim glass costs don't matter, when they so obviously matter.

There is no difference in HDMI cables. If you can see the picture without visible dropouts or sparklies, the cable is working at 100%. No other cable will display a better version of that picture. You're simply wrong if you think there is a better digital cable than one that is already working.
rogo is offline  
post #744 of 1421 Old 07-04-2011, 05:05 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Augerhandle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 2,584
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 13 Post(s)
Liked: 47
Quote:
Originally Posted by rogo View Post

@Auger, I rest my case. Your links total what we call a hill of beans. America, land of lawyers filing gibberish class actions. Google shows me scores of class actions on flat panel displays as well. Yet those remain on the market. Intelligent people will correctly conclude that RPTVs were not forced from the market due to a handle of largely nonsensical class-action lawsuits. And you should feel free to ask actually ask anyone at Sony or Samsung if they left RPTV because they got sued once over it. They'll be happy to tell you, "No, it's because no one bought the damn things."

Hitachi and Toshiba both lost their market share and shelf space in N. American TV the same way Mitsubishi did: They stuck with CRT RPTV far too long and developed no relevant technology of their own. Toshiba sort of, kind of tried to market a brand new flat panel technology -- an endeavor that has succeeded exactly twice in history, and each time it took more than a decade. ...[snip]

Million dollar lawsuits with such a "small" market had no effect?

Whenever people give their reasons for not considering DLP or RPTV, they bring up Sony's green blob, Toshiba's bulb life, Samsung's light engine failures, etc. All the issues that required a lawsuit to fix. The problem is they lump all of them into "DLP", with no brand distinction. The lawsuits were a symptom of the real problem. Quality. DLP has a bad reputation because of the problems that were the subject of those lawsuits.

Sales falling off the cliff? Well, yes. Who wants to buy something that breaks, and won't ber fixed by the manufacturer? Perception is everything.

"The wise understand by themselves; fools follow the reports of others"-Tibetan Proverb
 
Augerhandle is offline  
post #745 of 1421 Old 07-04-2011, 10:38 PM - Thread Starter
AVS Special Member
 
irkuck's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: cyberspace
Posts: 3,482
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 21 Post(s)
Liked: 60
Quote:
Originally Posted by rogo View Post

"Optimal mix is of identical panels filling the sheet fully. This is the case of Sharp 70" on 10G glass."

That's probably true, but I don't get how you can say this and then claim glass costs don't matter, when they so obviously matter.

I am not saying glass cost does not matter. I am saying that if there is plant churning out e.g. 6x55" from a sheet and a plant pumping out 6x70" from its sheet then the unit cost of 70" panels is not that much higher than the cost of 55" - provided that the full investment costs of 70" plant is not calculated in. This is why Sharp is able to price its 70" so low.

irkuck
irkuck is offline  
post #746 of 1421 Old 07-04-2011, 10:49 PM
AVS Special Member
 
specuvestor's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 2,399
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 12
Quote:
Originally Posted by irkuck View Post

My statements were exclusively limited to the case of 70" i.e. cutting single 70" panel from motherglass of size X and multiple (e.g 6) panels from size Y. This is unique situation.

Regarding the 50" panels situation is more complicated, let's
say panel cuts ratio will be 8:6 for Sharp, this will result in 30% gain for Sharp but taking into account other factors like efficiency of machinery, cost of glass the gain might be smaller and turn into deep negative if investment cost is included.

The case 0f 70" is unique. It would be same story for Sharp if they attempted making e.g. 85" panels. Then one or two would fit on the motherglass and costs would go up dramatically.

I can assure you that this is not unique. It happens everytime we have a new generation fab.

I'll try to discuss this on simple terms as there are too many variables. Do bear in mind this is more on a strategic and management point of view and I am first to say I am not knowledgeable in details like an engineer.

In general a new generation fab is to address a LARGER size market. The purpose is to attack a blue ocean scenerio rather than to compete existing market because they CANNOT compete in existing space. As discussed, commodity sizes are so commoditised and efficient that the newer fabs will not be able to compete effectively.

Everything from glass to components are more expensive for a newer fab so they need high ASP products to make a margin. The key to cost down at this stage is utilisation and yield rate. The higher these 2 variables are, the cheaper the components and increased operational leverage (ie your economies of scale). BUT THIS HAS LITTLE TO DO WITH NUMBER OF CUTS. But all to do with optimisation of cut and yield. If the entire motherglass can be used for 1 TV, I would actually think that is optimal for yield.

The problem last 2 years was that Sharp was not able to dictate the market (they would say bigger is better) but Samsung and China dictated the market to LED and 32". Frankly they were too far ahead of the curve and from a SHAREHOLDERS' point of view they suck. They were trying to do large size when the high ASP mass market in the world is in Japan, and Japan is the last place that will want large size. Of course hindside is 20/20 but I think strategically they should have foreseen this.

But after 2 years of experience Sharp's operational efficiency for the fab should have been fine tuned enough to deliver a less painful 70" at $3k. Like I posted previously, they need to beachhead the 732 for mass volume to improve utilisation rate even if they lose money on it. With a beachhead, they can ramp utilisation with market adoption as we discussed many times before (which some are still skeptical)

Inline with this thread's discussion topic, why we do not see more 70"+ size is because the existing fabs cannot make them in VOLUME. It's kind of chicken and egg problem. 8G fab probably can make 2 70" but component costs (excluding glass) will not be competitive. Ironically if 10G can ramp to >90% utilisation and hence lower component costs across the board, 8G can actually make them cheaper, if that is the best margin market for them.

In theory hence, larger fabs do not make smaller sizes, but the LG Phillip fiasco taught us people can do stupid things, especially when they are flush with IPO money. However the positive in this is that the industry learnt a lesson and lower utilisation during bad times (like now) rather than maintain it at 95% like DRAM companies, so the industry is more disciplined. In fact it is so discipline that there is still only ONE 10G fab in the forseeable future.

So much so that any discussion of 70"+ LCD TV having more than 1% market share is moot for next 3 years.
specuvestor is offline  
post #747 of 1421 Old 07-04-2011, 10:52 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
rogo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Sequoia, CA
Posts: 30,088
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 62 Post(s)
Liked: 439
Real world: RPTV was a 2+ million unit market. It wasn't small, till demand evaporated. It was on the order of $5 billion worth of stuff. Not peanuts. Certainly not the kind of thing where a few crap-ass class actions would've shut it down pretty much entirely.

Real world #2: Your claim is ludicrous, like everything you claim more or less. Plasma is still allegedly "surely going to burn in" according to so many people. Yet 20+ million have been sold in the U.S. and virtually no one (not no one, virtually no one) complains of burn in. If any technology was going to die to FUD, it was plasma. Yet it thrives -- and grows.

RPTV sales died to flat panel demand. Everyone wanted a flat panel, even if they never hung it on a wall. Many of those people were directed to their choices in concert with something you're probably unfamiliar with called a "woman". They tend to like attractive things and those DLP boxes weren't attractive.

DLP has been the dominant FP technology for more than 10 years and has killed off pretenders to the throne like LCOS (sold in tiny volumes by JVC and Sony, but tiny) and LCD (whose ass DLP kicks all over the sales charts). DLP still has a pretty great reputation overall.

Feel free to believe DLP died to quality, I don't really care what you believe. It died to lack of demand. So did all variants of LCOS RPTV and LCD RPTV. They all died in the span of about 2 years because flat panels got cheap enough that nearly everyone in the market for an HDTV could afford one. That was that. Everyone making RPTVs simply stopped making RPTV -- except the one company that had absolutely no other strategy and (to it's credit) saw the opportunity to be the last to serve the niche market.

If your scenario was even remotely real, Mitsubishi would be especially foolish to be following this niche strategy centered entirely around DLP. But fortunately, this allegedly negative association around DLP never existed, they were just fat and people didn't want fat TVs. Feel free, again, to ask anyone in the industry. RPTV had a great run for 15ish years and then pretty much overnight, it was gone. No one wanted them. (Millions also went to develop several competing microdisplay technologies. All such investment ended when venture capitalists and corporate investors realized that every forecast showing RPTV growth was not only wrong, but terribly, terribly wrong.)

Again, if your logic was valid, Mitsubishi would keep selling DLP in the 50s and 60s categories for peanuts since, well, people would buy them if they didn't reject DLP outright (if they did, they'd also reject the giant Mitsus too). Except they wouldn't be able to give them away. Mitsu is moving only to sell the really big sizes where flat panels (a) can't go realistically at all or (b) can kinda go there, but not at a reasonable price. It's a good, tiny strategy. It's -- as I said -- a few hundred million-dollar business. Not peanuts, but let's not kid ourselves. It's a far, far cry from the old days where Mitsubishi did north of $1 billion in 1990s dollars peddling RPTVs (they probably did north of $2 billion, but I have no figures, just some napkin math).

Again, believe what you want. Since most of this is matters of fact, you'd be believing things that aren't likely accurate, but that's fine. It's a free country. People believe that with 80% of the federal budget tied up in things that are not being discussed for cuts (Medicare -- cuts proposed for 10 years out, Social Security -- no cuts proposed, interest on the debt -- not cuttable, defense -- a sacred cow even though much of the defense budget is jobs/defense contractor programs unrelated to national security), we can zero out the deficit on the other 20% all without raising revenues one thin dime. I point that out because, well, it illustrates how having some small modicum of knowledge without seeing the big picture leads to wildly erroneous conclusions.

(Aside: I believe the government can massively cut spending in the near, intermediate and long term and that it will also need to take in more revenues since the portion of GDP paid in taxes has remained more or less constant for generations and is currently running about 25% below that proportion. I believe the government generally is a terrible user of money, but that some things that already exist are not going to unexist, and we need to live with them. I believe both political parties have smart people in them, but most of what they state publicly is so frighteningly inaccurate or uninformed, it's terrifying that they control my and your tax dollars. If you wish to debate politics with me, we'll find a place that isn't here. That offer is open to most of you, but not one I'm especially hoping anyone takes me up on.)

Finally, perception is everything. My perception is you're an ignoramus. You think you know a lot, but more importantly you think if you can just win one round of this argument, you'll be able to lord it over me for time immemorial. To be clear, I don't wish this to be a personal attack, so I want to emphasize that's my personal opinion. It's quite likely that you are incredibly intelligent, witty, fun to be around, well spoken, mature, good looking and generally the kind of person who people just want to get to know -- and then get to know better. It just doesn't come off that way here.

Your perception is that I'm an ass. I'm not especially bothered by that as it concerns you because I'm not trying to be "nice" in this discussion. I find arguing the compass orientation of the sun rise to be tiresome and you are behaving like the guy who insists the sun rises in the west and sets in the east.

Many people here know me pretty well and are interested in what I have to say. If you aren't, place me on ignore. But please stop trying to argue with me over things I know to be true. I don't wish to be rude, but when you claim things like DLP died off due to lawsuits when probably less than 1% of consumers even knew of such lawsuits (I didn't, and I'm informed here), I just find that borderline laughable.

There are lawsuits around pretty much everything these days and yet virtually none of the things/companies being sued give up or disappear. People in $5+ billion-dollar markets don't go away because of a few lawsuits. If the issue was perception, they'd have spent to counter it. Not unlike the way Panasonic has kept the plasma business growing and thriving in spite of more than 10 years of FUD around the technology. They wouldn't have closed up shop because some tiny, tiny, tiny minority of customers was off put by lawsuits (I actually believe that tiny minority is non existent, but I'll concede there are some crazy people who reject pretty much everything in existence for some reason).

I have no clue what market research you've read, but people don't give reasons for not considering DLP and RPTV, they simply don't even see them anymore at retail. They might as well be gone. The few that seek out the Mitsus can find them, the rest of the world might as well not know they exist. When they did exist, they were very popular, sold very well and made a bunch of people happy. And a bunch of us said, "As soon as flat panels are cheap enough, bye bye RPTV." You can search the AVS archives for my 100s of comments on those topics. And you know what? We were right. If the demand died up due to some perception, it would've been a slow burn because people would've had to learn about it without anyone "marketing" the fact. Instead, demand fell off a cliff. And that can only be explained by a discontinuous change in the market.

What was that change? One year, the 50" flat panel was running 2x the price of the DLP. The next year it was 30% cheaper and was just a few $100 more. More important, it was for sale at a price low enough that people who had already delayed their HDTV purchase were ready to now pay that price for an HD flat panel. And just like that, it was over. I love that you think Hitachi, Toshiba, Sony, JVC and Samsung all left this gigantic market because they just couldn't counter a niggling little perception problem. Not because the market vaporized beneath them.

Ok.

There is no difference in HDMI cables. If you can see the picture without visible dropouts or sparklies, the cable is working at 100%. No other cable will display a better version of that picture. You're simply wrong if you think there is a better digital cable than one that is already working.
rogo is offline  
post #748 of 1421 Old 07-05-2011, 02:39 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Augerhandle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 2,584
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 13 Post(s)
Liked: 47
Quote:
Originally Posted by rogo View Post

... something you're probably unfamiliar with called a "woman".

That's a mature response, and really proves your point
Quote:

... you think if you can just win one round of this argument, you'll be able to lord it over me for time immemorial. ...

Your supercilious responses are one thing, but really? I'm no doctor, but you sound a bit delusional. Do you believe the whole world is out to get you, or just me?

Either way, I hope you get help soon.

"The wise understand by themselves; fools follow the reports of others"-Tibetan Proverb
 
Augerhandle is offline  
post #749 of 1421 Old 07-05-2011, 03:43 AM
AVS Special Member
 
specuvestor's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 2,399
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 12
Quote:
Originally Posted by irkuck View Post

I am not saying glass cost does not matter. I am saying that if there is plant churning out e.g. 6x55" from a sheet and a plant pumping out 6x70" from its sheet then the unit cost of 70" panels is not that much higher than the cost of 55" - provided that the full investment costs of 70" plant is not calculated in. This is why Sharp is able to price its 70" so low.

I may be reading you wrong but it goes against logic that bigger with more material usage is not significantly more expensive... even if you exclude depreciation.

Even if you look at the price difference of a commoditised similar model 32" and 42" there is a big % difference.
specuvestor is offline  
post #750 of 1421 Old 07-05-2011, 05:25 AM - Thread Starter
AVS Special Member
 
irkuck's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: cyberspace
Posts: 3,482
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 21 Post(s)
Liked: 60
Quote:
Originally Posted by specuvestor View Post

I may be reading you wrong but it goes against logic that bigger with more material usage is not significantly more expensive... even if you exclude depreciation.

Even if you look at the price difference of a commoditised similar model 32" and 42" there is a big % difference.

OK, the discussion is why Sharp can make 70" so cheap? My answer is that it is mainy due to the stamping of 6 at a time when others can make 1. To which others say: but how about the material costs? To which I answer: this is not significant, meaning comparing to the economy of scale they have.

irkuck
irkuck is offline  
Reply LCD Flat Panel Displays

Tags
Lg Lz 9700 72 Inch Led Display , Sharp Lc 70le732u Aquos 70 1080p Led Hdtv , Lcd Hdtv , Displays , Sharp Aquos , Lg , Sharp
Gear in this thread - 70le732u by PriceGrabber.com

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page


Forum Jump: 

Posting Rules  
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off