or Connect
AVS › AVS Forum › Blu-ray & HD DVD › HDTV Software Media Discussion › HDTV in U.S. home percentage
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

HDTV in U.S. home percentage

post #1 of 35
Thread Starter 
From the looks of it HD content is no where near the total number of SD and from the software sales of both bluray and HD-DVD. It looks like blu-ray and hd-dvd still have allot to work on and I only bring this up to say this is not a war but a religous war right now. Also to say the bickering in these forums need to stop, it's getting quite annoying and there is no winner and wont be for years.

http://www.tomshardware.co.uk/2007/0...t_year_report/
post #2 of 35
Quote:
Originally Posted by jugganutz View Post

From the looks of it HD content is no where near the total number of SD and from the software sales of both bluray and HD-DVD. It looks like blu-ray and hd-dvd still have allot to work on and I only bring this up to say this is not a war but a religous war right now. Also to say the bickering in these forums need to stop, it's getting quite annoying and there is no winner and wont be for years.

http://www.tomshardware.co.uk/2007/0...t_year_report/

I agree on the bickering and snide remarks. It should stop.

As a companion to your article - I had started a thread in the HDTV Programming area with an article that states that only 44% of those with an HDTV are watching HD on their HDTV and that is because they either don't want to pay the extra expense or that they simply don't want HD, but they are aware of it.

Those FPD's are Hang on the wall TV's - George Jetson displays - not necessarily HDTV's.
post #3 of 35
Quote:
Originally Posted by jugganutz View Post

Also to say the bickering in these forums need to stop, it's getting quite annoying and there is no winner and wont be for years.

I'm all for an end to the bickering but IMO the format war will be resolved within a year, 18 months top.
post #4 of 35
Forgive me but 36.5 million now and 52.5 million by 2008 and growing? That is one huge ass market if you ask me. I don't know a business person in the world who wouldn't want to try and tap that market. Who cares what the percentage is compared to SDTV's out there. That is irrelevant. Eventually HDTV's will outnumber SDTV's. It just takes time. But right now, there is already a big market out there to support an HDM format. Maybe even two, but one for sure.
post #5 of 35
Quote:
Originally Posted by LynxFX View Post

Forgive me but 36.5 million now and 52.5 million by 2008 and growing? That is one huge ass market if you ask me. I don't know a business person in the world who wouldn't want to try and tap that market. Who cares what the percentage is compared to SDTV's out there. That is irrelevant. Eventually HDTV's will outnumber SDTV's. It just takes time. But right now, there is already a big market out there to support an HDM format. Maybe even two, but one for sure.


Exactly. I'm sick of these nonsensical comments about sd compared to hd when hd is an emerging and growth market. It took roughly 7 years for HDTVs to get at about 30% of the US market and the point is it's continuing to grow. And as it grows the market for more high def content will grow and then come to the point of inevitability.
post #6 of 35
Quote:
Originally Posted by HPforMe View Post

Exactly. I'm sick of these nonsensical comments about sd compared to hd when hd is an emerging and growth market. It took roughly 7 years for HDTVs to get at about 30% of the US market and the point is it's continuing to grow. And as it grows the market for more high def content will grow and then come to the point of inevitability.

The problem is that an HDTV does NOT mean a demand HD Media.

Of that 30% maybe 10% cares about HD Media. Now 10% of the market is still something to shoot for.

The majority of consumers will be SD for a long time.
A large portion of HDTV are hooked up to SD sources and consumers are happy.
A large portion of consumers buy an HDTV simply because you CAN'T buy a 46" SDTV.

DVDs looks better on an HDTV then on a 10 year old uncalibrated tube SDTV. Many consumers are very happy when they realize all their DVDs look better. Some consumers are so impressed with upconverted DVDs that they think DVD are HD you just need an HDTV to get the full quality.

More consumers are interested in getting broadcast HDTV which is a magnitude better than SDTV then they are on upgrading DVD which looks fine to HD Media which is a a smaller jump.

HD Media will replaced DVD eventually. It took DVD 10 years to replace VHS and that is with a huge list of advantages (extras, lower media cost, doesn't wear out, no rewind, compact, and improved PQ/AQ). HD Media doesn't offer much more than improved PQ/AQ. So do you think it will take HD Media a longer or shorter amount of time to replace DVD? I think DVD will still have the majority of the market in 2012.
post #7 of 35
Quote:
Originally Posted by namechamps View Post

The problem is that an HDTV does NOT mean a demand for BD or HD Media.

Yes it does as awareness grows. Indeed several reports recently have surfaced about people demanding more HD content.

Quote:


Of that 30% maybe 10% cares about HD.

Larger than that and growing. The point is that it's growing not flattening out as sd is.

Quote:


A large portion of HDTV are hooked up to SD sources and consumers are happy.
A large portion of consumers buy an HDTV simply because you CAN'T buy a 46" SDTV.

This means absolutely zero in a growth market. You don't seem to understand this crucial point. I don't give a damn about what may be happening now as all indicators are towards growth not regression. Get it?

Quote:


DVD looks better on an HDTV then a 10 year old uncalibrated SDTV. Many consumers are very happy when they realize all their DVDs look better.

More consumers are interested in getting broadcast HDTV which is a magnitude better than SDTV then they are on upgrading DVD which looks fine.

Let me try to make this clearer to you. In a growth market like hdtv HD content is inevitable and not dependent on the whims of the "happy" consumer.

Quote:


HD Media doesn't offer much more than improved PQ/AQ. So do you think it will take HD Media a longer or shorter amount of time to replace DVD? I think DVD will still have the majority of the market in 2012.

Doesn't offer more than improved PQ/AQ? It offers several times the resolution and color saturation improvement in fact the jump to 1920x1080 is several times bigger a jump then from vhs to dvd in both resolution and color saturation. I'm not concerned with dvds eventual replacement in terms of time periods because it is inevitable. When a person is faced with an HD disk player at the same cost as a decent sd dvd player which do you think they'll buy? That time is coming very quickly.
post #8 of 35
Quote:
Originally Posted by nyg View Post

I'm all for an end to the bickering but IMO the format war will be resolved within a year, 18 months top.

IMHO HD DVD will be around as long as BD if not longer. The are not going away no matter how much independent BD owners want them to.

For the record I dont think BD is going away either.
post #9 of 35
Quote:
Originally Posted by HPforMe View Post

Yes it does as awareness grows. Indeed several reports recently have surfaced about people demanding more HD content.

Latest report shows 44% of HDTV owners are watching HD. Other 56% are aware of it - either don't want to pay extra for it or they are not intereted in it

Quote:


Larger than that and growing. The point is that it's growing not flattening out as sd is.

Correct


Quote:


This means absolutely zero in a growth market. You don't seem to understand this crucial point. I don't give a damn about what may be happening now as all indicators are towards growth not regression. Get it?

Your point is correct - not sure if was properly presented


Quote:


Let me try to make this clearer to you. In a growth market like hdtv HD content is inevitable and not dependent on the whims of the "happy" consumer.

HDTV is not an option. We have made a committment to change from NTSC to HDTV. The intention is not to off both forever. Eventually NTSC will go away and all we will have left is HDTV


Quote:


Doesn't offer more than improved PQ/AQ? It offers several times the resolution and color saturation improvement in fact the jump to 1920x1080 is several times bigger a jump then from vhs to dvd in both resolution and color saturation. I'm not concerned with dvds eventual replacement in terms of time periods because it is inevitable. When a person is faced with an HD disk player at the same cost as a decent sd dvd player which do you think they'll buy? That time is coming very quickly.

HDM will never replace DVD. By the time it even has a chance there will be a new delivery system for HD movies which will replace both DVD and HDM or at least HDM. HDM is an evolutionary product while DVD was a revolutionary product. Two totally different things.

I don't care if HDM players hit $99 - as long as the software is priced at $29.99 and higher - it will not "take off" I can buy 6 DVD's for the same price as 1 HDM movie.

Oh and the HD signal still continues to carry the 8bit color. The major improvement in HD over SD is the B & W portion of the signal which is correct as stated - 6X greater. Deep Color is an option (16 bit color) which requires everything to change from the Telecine's to the displays and everything in between
post #10 of 35
Thread Starter 
Yeah sorry, I know that SD is getting phased out and that for sure is a fact, what i was meerly pointing out is the media sales for HD, There miniscual compared to those numbers, meaning yes there is a large market for it but not one side is corniring that market so blu-ray has just much chance as hd-dvd and vice versa. I just am tired of looking at the flame wars every other thread the majority of us are grown up's i think i know there is probbably some av teenage nerds you could say that i am since im only 22. But I guess it's just as bas as gear heads arguing about Ford vs. Chevy or Import vs. Domestic vehicles which those do get bad. I also wanted to say i agree with perception people really don't know what HD is except millions apon millions of people but there is still a reason why they have to put warning stickers on SDTV's about the 2009 change over. People just don't know, don't care or it is still to expensive for them. But the format war is not going to be decided at the drop of a hat so lets lay back and watch the HD role.
post #11 of 35
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lee Stewart View Post

Latest report shows 44% of HDTV owners are watching HD. Other 56% are aware of it - either don't want to pay extra for it or they are not intereted in it

I think everyone is forgetting one critical factor. The stupidity of people.

Alot of people don't realize that HD programming is free over the air.

A ton of people have HDTV's hooked up to Sat or Cable boxes and are not watching HD programming, when all they have to do is stick an antenna into the back of their TV and they will get all the network stations in perfect HD.

To those rare few outside of a major market, who can't pick up the free HD channels, all you have to do is spend 5 to 10 bucks a month extra on Sat or Cable to get HD Programming, I doubt anyone would refuse that small charge if they were fully informed of the situation.

Most people are just sorely uninformed, and if someone explained their situation to them in detail, I have a feeling that 44% of HDTV owners watching HD Programming would jump to 80%.
post #12 of 35
Quote:
Originally Posted by HPforMe View Post

Doesn't offer more than improved PQ/AQ? It offers several times the resolution and color saturation improvement in fact the jump to 1920x1080 is several times bigger a jump then from vhs to dvd in both resolution and color saturation. I'm not concerned with dvds eventual replacement in terms of time periods because it is inevitable. When a person is faced with an HD disk player at the same cost as a decent sd dvd player which do you think they'll buy? That time is coming very quickly.

You know that, and you bother to know and care about it. The shorthand to the consumer is that it offers a sharper picture, most don't know about or think they will notice a bump-up in the audio or number of colors.
post #13 of 35
Quote:
Originally Posted by mike171979 View Post

I think everyone is forgetting one critical factor. The stupidity of people.

Alot of people don't realize that HD programming is free over the air.

Sure they do - they want more HD than just locals - if they want HD at all

Quote:


A ton of people have HDTV's hooked up to Sat or Cable boxes and are not watching HD programming, when all they have to do is stick an antenna into the back of their TV and they will get all the network stations in perfect HD.

Are we talking about the 56% of owners who have HDTV and don't want HD?


Quote:


To those rare few outside of a major market, who can't pick up the free HD channels, all you have to do is spend 5 to 10 bucks a month extra on Sat or Cable to get HD Programming, I doubt anyone would refuse that small charge if they were fully informed of the situation.

Well in this case . . . your doubt is misplaced. The people - 56% who have an HDTV and don't want it . . . ...split between two "no's" - too expensive - not interested. So that $5 to $15 a month must mean something.

Quote:


Most people are just sorely uninformed, and if someone explained their situation to them in detail, I have a feeling that 44% of HDTV owners watching HD Programming would jump to 80%.

If you know the 44% number, then you have read the article - you know that those that don't want HDTV - the majority are aware of it. Says so right in the article.

http://www.twice.com/article/CA6455975.html
post #14 of 35
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lee Stewart View Post

Sure they do - they want more HD than just locals - if they want HD at all



Are we talking about the 56% of owners who have HDTV and don't want HD?




Well in this case . . . your doubt is misplaced. The people - 56% who have an HDTV and don't want it . . . ...split between two "no's" - too expensive - not interested. So that $5 to $15 a month must mean something.



If you know the 44% number, then you have read the article - you know that those that don't want HDTV - the majority are aware of it. Says so right in the article.

http://www.twice.com/article/CA6455975.html

The article and you are still giving people way too much credit.

The key giveaway is that only 8% of the people receiving HD Programming receives it from Over the Air.

That should tell you that people just aren't grasping the situation.

I still contend that if someone sits down and explain things fully to the 56% of people who "Don't want" HD programming, that the majority of them would take it for $7 bucks extra a month from Direct TV, or $0 extra from OTA if they are within range of the free broadcast.

Also, I highly doubt that because someone answers a poll question not interested. That it means they don't want it.

I contend they do want it, they just believe it to be too much of a hassle or too expensive, they just say they are not interested in it, because quite simply some crazy guy is trying to sell them HD over the phone, or at least thats what they think.
post #15 of 35
hp,

E
Quote:


xactly. I'm sick of these nonsensical comments about sd compared to hd when hd is an emerging and growth market

Then you miss the point of the comparison. BD supporters routinely declare the war over and declare that BD is stomping, destroying (you pick your term) HD DVD.

The point is that, at this time, the market is so small that:

1. Declarations of victory are PR excercises
2. Destroying, etc in this context amounts to a few thousand discs out of millions of DVDs of all types and hence the term is rather silly.
3. No company is going to change their position when the numbers are so small and the stakes are so high.
post #16 of 35
Quote:
Originally Posted by mike171979 View Post

The article and you are still giving people way too much credit.

The key giveaway is that only 8% of the people receiving HD Programming receives it from Over the Air.

That should tell you that people just aren't grasping the situation.

I still contend that if someone sits down and explain things fully to the 56% of people who "Don't want" HD programming, that the majority of them would take it for $7 bucks extra a month from Direct TV, or $0 extra from OTA if they are within range of the free broadcast.

Also, I highly doubt that because someone answers a poll question not interested. That it means they don't want it.

I contend they do want it, they just believe it to be too much of a hassle or too expensive, they just say they are not interested in it, because quite simply some crazy guy is trying to sell them HD over the phone, or at least thats what they think.

#1 - Many people buy an HDTV because it is flat and hangs on the wall -WAF - up 200% because of this.

#2 - Of all the household that have TV (98%) - 22% choose to have TV via antenna - for whatevef reason. So it makes sense that with HDTV - that OTA is going to be smaller because the market is smaller (in 30% of homes)

#3.Education factor - being handled poorly - but it would have to be handled by the CBL, TELCO and SAT companies because they are the only ones making money on HD delivery. Should improve.

#4 We have to use the article as a guide as the CEA is pretty good about things like this.
post #17 of 35
Thread Starter 
Also not all over the air HD is true HD, My father works at a fox station and they pump mostly upconverted signals also it has a pretty weak range they pretty much did a cheap ghetto route to comply and also to make people happy.
post #18 of 35
Quote:
Originally Posted by jugganutz View Post

Also not all over the air HD is true HD, My father works at a fox station and they pump mostly upconverted signals also it has a pretty weak range they pretty much did a cheap ghetto route to comply and also to make people happy.

I don't know if they still do it but when I left NYC - Fox was broadcasting 16x9 480P and calling it "Fox Widescreen" which all of us called "Fox Widescrew"
post #19 of 35
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lee Stewart View Post

HDM will never replace DVD. By the time it even has a chance there will be a new delivery system for HD movies which will replace both DVD and HDM or at least HDM. HDM is an evolutionary product while DVD was a revolutionary product. Two totally different things.

I'm not so sure that the studios will ever want to get rid of physical media entirely since that means they are giving up an element of control. There is already friction between record companies and itunes because of pricing.
post #20 of 35
Quote:
Originally Posted by vancouver View Post

IMHO HD DVD will be around as long as BD if not longer. The are not going away no matter how much independent BD owners want them to.

For the record I dont think BD is going away either.

I never said HD DVD would stop releasing movies, just that I believe the format war will be over and all studios will support Blu-ray within the time frame I mentioned. HD DVD may very well coexist on a smaller scale.
post #21 of 35
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lee Stewart View Post

HDTV is not an option. We have made a committment to change from NTSC to HDTV. The intention is not to off both forever. Eventually NTSC will go away and all we will have left is HDTV

I'm pretty sure this is False.

We have made a commitment to "Digital." Most channels for at least the immediate future, following the change-over deadline will be Digital SD. The added bandwidth, however will certainly make room for more HDTV channels, but AFAIK that is not what is stated in the congressional deadline.
post #22 of 35
NTSC is definitely going away, NTSC OTA broadcast will cease on 2/17/2009. Even though it's not technically NTSC to HDTV transition, it's NTSC to ATSC, analog to digital transition, HD format being part of ATSC.

I do hope cable will go all digital too, analog channels are hogging too much bandwidth now.
post #23 of 35
Quote:
Originally Posted by nyg View Post

I never said HD DVD would stop releasing movies, just that I believe the format war will be over and all studios will support Blu-ray within the time frame I mentioned. HD DVD may very well coexist on a smaller scale.

Thanks for the laugh - I needed it.
post #24 of 35
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wesley5 View Post

NTSC is definitely going away, NTSC OTA broadcast will cease on 2/17/2009. Even though it's not technically NTSC to HDTV transition, it's NTSC to ATSC, analog to digital transition, HD format being part of ATSC.

I do hope cable will go all digital too, analog channels are hogging too much bandwidth now.

Cable companies hope that they can go all digital too or else they are going to be in for some pain - which is going to be passed onto their subscribers. New FCC law went into effect yesterday and the cable companies only have so much time before the hammer drops.
post #25 of 35
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sketcha View Post

I'm pretty sure this is False.

We have made a commitment to "Digital." Most channels for at least the immediate future, following the change-over deadline will be Digital SD. The added bandwidth, however will certainly make room for more HDTV channels, but AFAIK that is not what is stated in the congressional deadline.

In 20 years almost all programming will be HD - keep in mind that the delivery sytems have to have two channels - an SD channel and an HD channel. When we are up to 100 HD channels - we will also have 100 SD channels to match - that's not a good use of resources.
post #26 of 35
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lee Stewart View Post

When we are up to 100 HD channels - we will also have 100 SD channels to match - that's not a good use of resources.

Lee,
I think you should do a little research on this subject. I have personally watched a HD channel on a SD only TV. You see these majik digital cable boxes we have are able to receive HD content and then transform it into SD material for us to watch. Come over some time and I'll hook up my HD receiver to the SDTV and we can watch some Universal HD in glorious 480i.
post #27 of 35
Quote:
Originally Posted by todrigo View Post

Lee,
I think you should do a little research on this subject. I have personally watched a HD channel on a SD only TV. You see these majik digital cable boxes we have are able to receive HD content and then transform it into SD material for us to watch. Come over some time and I'll hook up my HD receiver to the SDTV and we can watch some Universal HD in glorious 480i.

I did not say you would be watching HD on an HDTV . .did I? I was discussing the change from NTSC to HDTV and the problems that the delivery companies (CBL, SAT and TELCO have to deal with.)

Trying reading my posts as opposed to finding a way to attack them

Quote:


In 20 years almost all programming will be HD - keep in mind that the delivery sytems have to have two channels - an SD channel and an HD channel. When we are up to 100 HD channels - we will also have 100 SD channels to match - that's not a good use of resources.
post #28 of 35
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lee Stewart View Post

I did not say you would be watching HD on an HDTV . .did I? I was discussing the change from NTSC to HDTV and the problems that the delivery companies (CBL, SAT and TELCO have to deal with.)

Trying reading my posts as opposed to finding a way to attack them

Lee, this is not an attack on you, I just wanted to point out that in the future when there are 100 HD channels there will be no need to broadcast any SD material over CBL,SAT,NET,TELCO,) everything is/will be scaled to the resolution of the TV. IE. currently I have a 4:3 SDTV circa 1998 when it was hooked up to my DTV HD receiver I could watch the HD only channels just fine, UHD, ShowtimeHD, ESPNHD, DiscoveryHD, all these broadcasts came in just fine. There will not be a need for 100 HD and 100 SD, just 100HD.
post #29 of 35
Once everything is digital, there is no need for SD simulcast because all ATSC receivers are required to decode all ATSC formats, including HD. Even right, I am not sure why they do SD digital simulcast since it's purely redundant, perhaps for testing, SD only takes 1/3 of HD bandwidth, so it's not as bad as analog SD, which consumes twice HD bandwidth.

Cable's transition to digital is going to be slower that OTA, unless they want to give everyone a set top box for free.
post #30 of 35
Where does the 30% penetration # come from? I always hear this on AVS, but it's higher than anywhere else I hear about it (20-25% is what I usually hear)
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: HDTV Software Media Discussion
AVS › AVS Forum › Blu-ray & HD DVD › HDTV Software Media Discussion › HDTV in U.S. home percentage