Originally Posted by jsmiddleton4
Well now that I've had a chance to take apart a light engine and play with its insides I will stand 100% behind my observation that this is a technology that by design is impaired. Way too many parts all of which play a critical role in the final product, the picture on our screens.
Obviously at least one person does not like that observation and conclusion. Doesn't change the validity of it just because a person doesn't like it.
Clearly a technology that to keep it on par with cost points that make it competitive is unable to survive at those cost points.
Talked to MIT extended warranty folks last week. They can not find an under writer to fund extended warranties for the MIT DLP TV's. Again the simple realities of the market speak for themselves. Repairs more likely than less likely which means money is not going to be made in the same way extended warranties for other technology offer those who fund such things. IF the cost of repairs presented itself as a rarity then money could be made and MIT Extended Warranty folks would have any number of folks looking to underwrite them.
So again, passionate defense of this technology does not prove its ability to stay profitable and at that profit price point represent a solid reliable long term viewing option is solid. The technology can not stay both competitive and reliable. Cost too much to make it so it is solid and long lived.
Again wish it were not so. If it were the case that MIT Ext Warranty folks were able to extend the warranty I would have. Would have been my third time too. I don't look forward to buying a new 60 to 65 inch television again. But there it is.
Bye bye MIT DLP RPTV.
Cue the Charlie Brown school instructor muted trombone voice/sound. "Wa waaa wa waaa wa wa wa waaaa."
Your observation has been duly noted. Your repetition of it, proffering all sorts of problematic "support" that assumes market values should rule the day on what is arguably an enthusiast Website about a product category that has been around for years is specious, myopic and annoying. Just because my 1993 Acura Legend has design flaws that only in recent years have some mechanics become more able to clearly identify compared to other vehicle/engine designs doesn't mean that that car has not served and is not continuing to serve well for nearly 20 years.
And who knows what the situation is with Mitsu purportedly not being able to "find an under writer to fund extended warranties." We have no idea what the calculus is for those underwriters. Maybe their decision is based on nothing more than the fact that Mitsu is no longer making the sets going forward. You're reifying that decision into some form of ipso facto
support for your foregone conclusion. Those underwriters' decisions may or may not be dispositive of anything. It is the logical fallacies and assumption that whatever doesn't make it in the market clearly had no place in that market that is offensive, tiresome and, again, tautological.
Your persisting with this issue herein (and your penultimate "Bye bye MIT DLP RPTV" remark, regurgitating the questionable thread title) IMO borders on thread crapping. It would be nice if an attitude of rueful appreciation of Mitsu DLPs was the prevailing sentiment here, not this attitude of "nanner nanner" and good riddance.