\


The reason HD sales are increasing is because the majority of people (i.e. not anyone on this forum, but the wives, mothers, girlfriends, joe six packs etc) love the form factor of the flat, wall hung T.V. That's it.

...and you're standing by this sweeping generalization?

I am. I work for Universal, who supports only HD-DVD, who has company-wide meetings to discuss HD-DVD and why they're not supporting BD, who had HD-DVD demo trucks come to show off what HD-DVD can do...

and people I work with still don't really know what HD-DVD and BD are. Most of the people in my department have standard def tvs.

I actually know people who bought HD sets for their flatness feature, not their HD capabilities -- and I don't know that many people with HD TVs.

Edited to add: My boss has an HDTV, doesn't care about HD-DVD or BD and told me she can't tell the difference between SD and HD.

There is definitely truth in that generalization. That and the fact you would have to go out of your way to find and buy an SD set these days. Like I said above, HD penetration has nothing to do with the consumer. SD has been fazed out by the manufacturers based on the FCC mandate NOT because the consumer is choosing HD over SD. The consumer may have been in the loop a few years ago when there was still a choice between the two, but not so much anymore.

As for HD vs BD, it certainly seems at this early stage BD has the edge. I figured once they both hit consumer price points HD would have the edge based on the name alone. High Definition DVD. Makes sense to Joe Consumer. Blu-ray? What the fuck is that? Does it play DVDs? Does it play HD-DVDs?
It doesn't look like it will matter at that point of saturation now. The BD camp was smart in snagging Disney. No parent will buy a new machine that they can't get their Disney movies on. On the flipside of that coin, HD-DVD has porn, generally the biggest pusher of new formats. Whoever has porn wins. :lol:

So it looks like BD has the edge, but HD-DVD will hit a consumer friendly price a lot sooner than BD will. Things could still change. I think we are in for another year of indecision.

so basically, two examples

with many people involved. I talk to people about HD at my work -- a place that makes HD movies...

Where's your evidence that HDTVs are selling because people are actually hooking them up to watch HD broadcasts/media. I wonder if Comcast has numbers showing what percent of their subscribers request an HD box -- compared to the percent of homes that have HD.

well, basically, I have as much, or as little, of empirical evidence as you.

A very true and correct generalization.

I've had many friends and family members buying HDtvs recently and only 2 out of almost 40 of them watch any HD content. My parents got a nice HDtv only because my mom liked how it looked hung on her wall like she saw in some interior design magazine - these are just a few examples, but so far, it is the rule, not the exception. My parents eventually got an HD satellite, and may dad still ended up recording the SD feed of Planet Earth - after recording an HD episode for him, I had to walk him through the differences. And while he did note the great improvement in HD, he didn't really seem to care all that much. And my mom still likes how the TV looks hung on the wall, like a picture frame.

Another thing that can tip you off as to how people view their HDtvs are how they're hung. A lot of people hang them at the same level as picture frames (center at approximately eye-level when standing), while it should actually be eye-level when sitting. Almost every HDtv I've seen hung on a wall is way too high up - a dead giveaway of the owner's intentions.

It is a sweeping generalization, but really since Apple started making the ipod, design in consumer electronics has mattered. Before flat screens became popular TV's were ugly giant boxes, now they're svelte and trendy looking. People like that, and IMO, for the majority of people, the difference in the physical appearance of the TV vs the difference in resolution, is a larger one and more importantly one they get out of the box. As opposed to paying for a HD box and then paying more per month for whatever service they have.

<--- Stupid.

In terms of the set top boxes, it looks like I'll be building my own. Comcast is already raping us, I can just picture it once its all DTV all the time.

I stayed in a nice hotel room last week that had two HDTVs, one in the bedroom, one in the main room. There was no HD content to be found...it was all stretched SD! And that INCLUDES the HD-DVD demo! :wtf:

Apparently, there's a rumor on the forum that I play HD-DVDs on an SDTV. :lol:

This forum dislikes Sony so much that i'm amazed it still have a sticky PS3 thread... Or maybe it's used to semi-bash Sony.

Sample of 6-44 age group? What does a 6 years old know about HD? Hell, the fact that some of you, yes you, don't see the difference between SD and HD broadcast, makes me want to say "what are you, stupid?"

The few of you still saying "you must be dumb to own a PS3," grow up a bit please, show some respect. The PS3 is a solid machine (god, how many times i said that already). I love the FW updates, i can now use it as an AVCHD player, instant picture slide with own music (SD, CM and Duo mem cards), upscaled dvd player...

Oh, Ocelot must be a media freak, not so... I play games too. I already pre-ordered Lair and HS (for those you gonna say "oh, what a Sony ass kisser," shut the hell up, i buy games i like, HS demo is okay, Lair probably not, but i'm in for the music score).

At the same time i joined dvdtalk, i got rid of my VHS collection (i made good money out of them too). You can stick with dvds, i don't mind, b/c i need an audience to sell my dvds to :)

It's not so much anti PS3 it is the fact that everything you enjoy out of your PS3, everyone here already gets out of their 360. Sony hasn't brought anything new/worthwhile to the table to justify that $500-$600 price other than Blu-ray.

That and the fact that you are more forgiving since you only paid like $50 bucks for your PS3. You aren't going to be as objective as someone who spends an entire paycheck on one.

I like both machines and both have the pluses and minuses (I could go on for a while about what I like about each, but that wouldn't belong in this thread). But this forum is definately biased (which can be okay, because everyone should have their opinion), as Ocelot said.

And to your last point... if you are interested in HD-DVD or Blu-Ray, the PS3 is no more expensive than the 360. And I doubt too many people buy either console whose paycheck is $500. It isn't like the PS3 is just crazy-expensive compared to the 360.

:shrug:

More anecdotal evidence. I am attempting to get a couple of more HD cable boxes but am on a two month long waiting list. The demand for HD equipment, (and the corresponding programming), is far outpacing the availability, at least as of now. People in my are are all, the ones I speak to at any rate, watching HD content on HD tv sets.



As far as the PS3 is concerned, it is far cheaper for me than my 360, and does quite a bit more. Besides, I haven't had to send it in for service or replace it at the store like I had to, (both), with my 360.

-confused-

I haven't seen anyone on these forums who says he can't tell the difference between SD and HD (other than that guy who says his 20+ year old 13" TV outputs at HD-level quality).

It isn't that we hate Sony or anything... it is just that there are a ton of warranted criticisms that can not be denied. Playstation up until now has meant video game first and foremost. Well, so far, the PS3 has flat out sucked as a video game machine. When it is more than half a year after launch and the number of quality games on your machine can be counted on one hand, you know you have a major problem. It may be a good Blu-ray movie machine, but that is not what most of us want.

It would be like if Nintendo made their next machine primarily a movie-watching machine with video gaming as a distant secondary thought. It would seriously piss off Nintendo fans. This is what Sony has done. They have pissed off many of their former fans.

I like how Ocelot is having an imaginary debate with this entire forum, guessing our responses to all his statements before we can post them. :lol:

Imaginary? A bit... Groucho, i gotta give you credit for come up with the proper terms (sorry, thread discussions are thread discussions, more often or not, people digress and interpret differently). In my case, i kinda speed read the whole thing and posting my comments from everything i read up to the current post.

Anyhow, as to "can't tell the difference between SD and HD" statement, that i got off from.... "SD is fine, no need to see it HD" "I work in the HD company, and seriously, people work here don't know what HD is..." "Dvds are cool, HD is not gonna catch up..." "my boss got a HD, can't tell the difference..."

I wish i got my PS3 for $50... anyhow, didn't i mentioned that i brought a 2nd one as a gift? Why would i buy another if it's not a solid machine? I have considered a X360, but the RROD is keeping me away. Not to mention that it's not a better upscaled dvd player (there are still a lot of dvds in my collection) and more importantly, not a AVCHD player, and SD slots only...

Okay Taffer, you got some good points there... PS3 game library sucks, i'm not gonna defend that one. However, like many others, i don't have times to play games like back in the old days. I'm still struggling to finish Resistance and many other PS2 titles. Stardust HD and Calling All Cars are keep me busy as well. So, i don't feel like any new games gonna do me any good right now. Yes, i want more games for the PS3 just so that people can shut up about it already, not b/c i got nothing to play.

....There is an Edit button you know...

i know that... i rarely use it to edit the quote... unless the post is a pic or very long, then i don't do the quote thing.

oh you mean, edit my posts to make it into one? i guess i could do that...

I know exactly what you mean. We have about 20 LCDs at my work hanging on the walls. Not one of them has any HD content playing on them whatsoever, but people comment on them all the time on how nice they look. They look like shiat, but they're flat and hung at a sweet angle!! I was watching a baseball game on them awhile ago and could barely make out the name on the back of the pitcher it was so blocky and stretched out.
Most people care more about the look/shape of a TV than the picture quality of it and I don't get it at all. I can't count how many times people say to me Man, "I want a 50 inch plasma for my house so bad" and you'll ask them is it a 1080p? and they say whats that?? Many times they really want an LCD but they call it a plasma anyway cause it sounds cooler I guess.

I don't know if this has been posted yet, but in answer to the original question: yes, yes we are.

I thought it was a well-known fact that a person is smart but people are dumb.