Quote:
|
Originally Posted by optivity
I still have difficulties coming to terms with the self professed "A/V enthusiasts" (a.k.a. early adopters) who are willing to spend $10,000 for a "monitor" to hook up to a 3-year-old SA8300. If these "early adopters" were to demand more, which as a consumer is our right to do, I could somehow rationalize this expenditure.
|
I see your rabid obsession with the cableCARD continues to pollute nearly every thread you participate in. Why do you continue to believe that every thread started exists only to provide you with an opportunity to get back on your little soapbox and save the world from the evil cable providers?!?! :rolleyes: You are starting to sound more like a paid lobbyist than a participating member. You are certainly entitled to your opinion; but for gawds sake, please stop hijacking threads with the never ending cableCARD crusade!!
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Getting back on topic...
Optivity's post ignores the fact that some people are more interested in things like HD movies (BluRay or HD-DVD) and full HD gaming; than they are in watching SD sources, or anything else delivered via the cable providers. While HD disk titles do not currently enjoy the sort of distribution that DVDs do, it is only a matter of time before they become more commonly available.
Some folks are making an investment in a display they feel they can live with for more than just a few years. Having a display that can input 1080p and display it natively will allow consumers to stave off obsolescence to a greater degree than less capable displays can. As 1080p is the maximum resolution current HD standards allow for, it is the object of desire for a fair number of people. Panels capable of inputting and displaying 1080p natively will require comparatively minimal processing from 1080p sources. The less processing required, the fewer chances there are of introducing processing related problems. Such advantages are compelling for some consumers.
The money argument is silly. Those that can afford it, most certainly will own it. If you are not at the point in your life where you have enough discretionary income to afford such indulgences (this is a
want -- not a
need), then begrudging those that can, only serves to make your envy all the more obvious. The new Panny 65 1080p already has a street price (if pre-order pricing is any indicator) some 2k below the above mentioned 10k price. While the new Pio 50" 1080p looks to be 2k more, for 15" less screen size than the Panny; rest assured, there will be buyers for their display too.
While this sort of expenditure may seem like big money to some, it is not all that far from what was paid for better 50" displays only a short time ago, and 42" panels not so many years back. The argument for 1080p big screens will become stronger for the average consumer with each ratcheting down of prices. When we get to 6k, another group of potential buyers will deem it as affordable; and so on, as the prices go lower. That is to be expected with most consumer products. What is harder to gauge here, is how much more consumers are willing to spend on average for a display. If the consumer spending floor rises as the cost ceiling is lowered; then 1080p sets will become the norm sooner, rather than later in the upgrade/replacement cycle.
