posted by
LaminatorX
on Sunday March 30 2014, @06:38PM
from the won't-someone-think-of-the-stores dept.
from the won't-someone-think-of-the-stores dept.
Angry Jesus writes:
Global TV sales have been falling for years dropping 7% to 238M in 2012, another 6% in 2013 to 225M and are expected to drop at least 11% to below 200M in 2014. A major component of the drop seems to be a steep reduction of demand in China beginning in the last two quarters of 2013.
This could be good news for anyone looking to buy a new tv set, manufacturers are expected to cut prices and accelerate the introduction of new technology like OLED, 4k UHDTV and dolby high dynamic range to try to stimulate buying.
How long have you had your current TV, and what would it take to entice you to upgrade?
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by hottabasco on Sunday March 30 2014, @06:43PM
I don't own one at all. As for what would it take to get me to buy one:
1. Shorter advertising breaks
2. Content I actaually want to watch
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Kilo110 on Sunday March 30 2014, @07:00PM
I hook mine up to a chromecast. I then stream what I want to see.
(Score: 1) by DeKO on Monday March 31 2014, @04:40AM
I bought mine to play video games and watch Netflix on my WDTV (mostly replaced recently by a chromecast). The cable company however keeps nagging me every month or so to buy a channels package, but they stop insisting as soon as I mention that "I don't have a TV, but most definitely will upgrade my account as soon as I get one". Only once the guy was so puzzled he wanted to know how I could possibly not have a TV, and I plainly said "there's nothing good to watch when I sit down to watch; Netflix however always has my favourite shows on".
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Fluffeh on Sunday March 30 2014, @07:56PM
I have a 50 inch plasma I bought a number of years back - and I have no plans to upgrade it. I have a Western Digital HDLive media player connected to it and the sound system in the lounge room and it works a charm. Whenever I get a new DVD, I go straight to the server, make a .mkv and add it to the server library, same goes for shows - actually especially for shows.
I actually cracked it when trying to watch Stargate SG1 from the discs that I own - each time you put the disc in, you are forced to sit through the usual "Piracy is a crime..." stuff, which is annoying, but meh, okay - but then the folks that made the discs decided to throw on other advertising - Stargate Atlantis trailers, the Stargate Video game and other rubbish. On one of the seasons there are FIVE advertisements that I could not skip watching with each disc going in.
That was the final straw. Now I shift all the stuff that I buy - and I buy quite a bit as I would like to actually think that if they can make more money off the shows that I like, chances are that they will KEEP making the sorts of shows that I like.
Anyhow, no plans to upgrade my TV until it dies somehow, then maybe one of the 4K sets if the price is reasonable, but I sort of doubt that it will be for the foreseeable future.
(Score: 2) by edIII on Sunday March 30 2014, @09:28PM
Ditto. Pretty much for the same reasons.
I have a 74" slim rdp. It has all the HDMI inputs I could want and every other one that exists. There is no reason for me to change it. It works perfectly fine for me with my vision, more than adequate size, and inputs.
I'm looking for 50" screens to power my new multi-monitor desktop. They've been getting pretty good and I might do so at the end of this year. It's the lower size screens that are seeming to get a lot better in quality compared to the bigger ones.
I will only be looking for a 74"+ TV when the one I have dies. Not a day sooner.
Technically, lunchtime is at any moment. It's just a wave function.
(Score: 2, Interesting) by pjbgravely on Sunday March 30 2014, @08:46PM
Currently I have a 27" CRT in the living room and a 5 year old 32"LCD in the bedroom. I have no use for or will probably buy a new TV in a long time.
(Score: 1) by hash14 on Sunday March 30 2014, @09:52PM
Same here. All I could want to watch is on the internet, and I can download anything I want from youtube, play it in vlc, pause and rewind far more instantaneously than I see friends who struggle with DVRs can (not to mention that those things waste so much power), and I can watch while multitasking, share them with friends and store them indefinitely and on any device that I could want. Why would I possibly want to use a medium like the television which is so inferior?
Lately all I've been watching anyway are tournaments for Dota 2, TF2, etc. and it's not like you would ever see legacy entertainment embrace free internet streaming (with notable exceptions of course) let alone Youtube itself. So in addition to being available on a much better medium, we're not supporting the corrupt media and cable industries to boot (minus the internet link of course). Very nice.
(Score: 1) by zsau on Sunday March 30 2014, @10:14PM
I have an old 24" lcd computer screen which I use when I want to watch some downloaded/streamed tv. Unless the screen broke I doubt I could be enticed to use a new tv (for the record, I use a G1 as my mobile phone and when it breaks, I will probably use the other G1 I've got lying around till it breaks).
I simply don't get the point of buying things because what you've got isn't the newest or perfectly suited to the task. Some people say, Ah, yes, but with this it will be more efficient. But which is more efficient, having something lying around that you don't use—throwing it away while it's still useful—or using it? Especially when most of this stuff is the kind of thing you can't give away...
It works, it's good enough, who cares beyond that?
(Score: 2) by Grishnakh on Sunday March 30 2014, @10:22PM
I don't care about advertising breaks. TVs aren't just for watching TV you know; mine is mostly used as a Netflix display screen. There's no advertising there.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 31 2014, @12:35AM
I think "1. automatic removal of all form of advertising" would be a better answer
number 2. is harder... there probably is things I would want to watch somewhere on the internet just waiting for me to download, but how do I find it? What is needed is better discovery of things you want, or I guess you can rephrase it as automatic hiding things that you probably don't want. If a tv program which title sounds interesting is of the kind that stretches 15 minutes to 2 hours by first telling what they are gonna say, then saying it, and then telling what was told ... then please don't show that program in the list. I will just be depressed of all the wasted time.
Perhaps there is nice websites that automagically can make a list for me with magnetlinks to things I want to see (without me giving any personal information to them), and I just haven't found it? which leads me to
3. "do I really want to see more tv"?
If the current tv my family happen to have would break, wouldn't that be a good thing? if there is something I *really* want to see [now, and can't wait for later.. some other year.. maybe...], then I can see it on the computer screen.
for me to buy a new tv I guess the answer would be: the old one breaks + the new one is twice the size but costs half what the old one did but still is guaranteed to work for 20 years + block the ads on the commercial channels + can use all the new file formats (vp9/opus etc) on the usb stick + some sexy new technology like true holographic video, nah who am I kidding ;-) but like 4K resolution at least + a built in bittorrent client that is easily handled with the remotecontrol perhaps?
the last part would require an network connection that is somehow guaranteed to not be possible to use for spying on me or my viewing habits or phonehome etc, so I guess the tv have to have only open source software in it then, no unknown firmware that can suddenly be changed to something evil... Maybe it is better to skip network connection on the tv.
Now you might say that wouldn't a separate pc besides the tv (or 50" monitor) be better? but I don't want any other boxes next to the tv!
The truth is though that if our current tv breaks I will probably just try to repair it, and maybe having more fun doing that than actually seeing tv (even if I fail...)
(Score: 2) by Grishnakh on Monday March 31 2014, @08:39PM
there probably is things I would want to watch somewhere on the internet just waiting for me to download, but how do I find it?
Perhaps there is nice websites that automagically can make a list for me with magnetlinks to things I want to see (without me giving any personal information to them), and I just haven't found it?
I like torrentz.eu.
(Score: 1) by FakeBeldin on Monday March 31 2014, @12:32PM
Own a TV (one of the first decent-prices LED tvs available around here), but don't have a connection.
I have it for:
- watching DVDs / movies / series locally
- playing games on gamecube/wii.
I don't see myself paying to get a bunch of channels I don't want to watch anyway (living abroad in a country where you won't get channels in English, nor in my native language). By now, I'm addicted to other things. So will I ever replace it? Errr... perhaps when it's broken. Before then? Naaah.
(Score: 2) by takyon on Sunday March 30 2014, @07:01PM
Global UHD TV Shipments Total 1.6 Million Units in 2013 - Analysts. [xbitlabs.com]
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 31 2014, @01:52AM
The difference between 1080p and faux-k (3840 * 2160) is visually imperceptible at regular viewing distances. 4k (4096 * 2160) is for cinema presentation and VR goggles. QuadHD is for morons who fail to understand the limits of human visual acuity.
(Score: 1) by bart9h on Monday March 31 2014, @10:20PM
For a TV, yes, 1080p is pretty sufficient.
But for a monitor, 4K is a welcome upgrade. I'm just waiting for a reasonably priced one not larger than 30" to buy it.
(Score: 5, Interesting) by computersareevil on Sunday March 30 2014, @07:07PM
I don't own a TV. I wouldn't buy one really for any reason. All my video entertainment is displayed on computer monitors attached to simple computers.
If I buy more displays, they'll be monitors first. If they also happen to have a tuner in them and it doesn't cost any more, fine by me.
(Score: 1) by citizenr on Sunday March 30 2014, @08:00PM
you are missing out ... on those great 39' 4K $499 monitors http://www.amazon.com/dp/B00DOPGO2G [amazon.com]
(Score: 3, Informative) by VLM on Sunday March 30 2014, @08:16PM
Its cheap because the input is (intentionally?) crippled to limit it to 30 hz refresh.
If it had a better input you could run 60 Hz or 120 Hz or whatever at full res, then again if the input were not crippled they would probably not be dumping them on the market for $500 or whatever.
(Score: 1) by citizenr on Monday March 31 2014, @12:38AM
its a HDMI limit, not TVs
+ its the best monitor for writing code right now
(Score: 2) by VLM on Monday March 31 2014, @12:23PM
WRT the limit, the cause doesn't matter, you're either going to have to turn that double resolution monitor into single (in which case why blow the money) or deal with 30 hz refresh at high res. Sounds real bad.
How does that work geometrically for coding? Its roughly 3 ft by 2 ft. I have three monitors on my working desk (both at work and home...) hooked up to three different kind of machines, so I'd be looking at 9 lineal feet across probably curved and 2 feet tall. I can't decide if it would feel better or worse to have to move around so much just to look at something else. Also I think I'd need a much larger desk. Or never use them full screen, in which case why blow the money on big screens.
(Score: 1) by citizenr on Monday March 31 2014, @09:17PM
30Hz is fine for everything but games.
(Score: 2) by Grishnakh on Sunday March 30 2014, @10:12PM
Computer monitors are too small for watching Netflix movies with company. Every time I see people write that they only watch stuff on computer monitors, I really wonder if they're single and never date.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by zsau on Sunday March 30 2014, @11:39PM
Or students/otherwise poor? Or they would rather do stuff with company, not watch someone else's video?
(Score: 2) by VLM on Monday March 31 2014, @12:30PM
Or somewhat wealthy. All my income comes from looking at a screen and I've been into this since '81 so I've had time to accumulate some good stuff. As you can imagine my setup at home has become rather luxurious.
Sometimes I get the impression "real gamer dudes" lifestyle looks like a bare 40 watt incandescent lightbulb hanging from wires overhead with a flipped over 5 gallon bucket as a chair and everything laying on the cold bare concrete basement floor because too poor to buy a desk after blowing $1600 on that new pair of video cards. Its possible, but its not very hard to do better.
I live in a nice burb but there are a lot of people who like the "new urbanism" of paying $3K/month rent to live in a small student dorm. So if they literally can't fit a TV into their closet sized room, they're stuck with a monitor. No living room means no TV.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 31 2014, @12:05AM
No TV for the last 25 years for me.
I would like a bigger monitor to watch movies on, but refuse to have a tuner in my house.
Anyone have any suggestions for such a thing?
(Score: 1) by bill_mcgonigle on Monday March 31 2014, @03:23AM
I've got a 37" Vizio that's hooked up to an HDMI-switching amp that has as its two HDMI inputs a Roku box and an XBMC box.
It's in the living room with nice speakers. There might be an ATSC tuner in the thing, but I've never even tried it. It's definitely a TV in its usage, despite its technical characteristics. I'm not sure I've fight the characterization on a technicality.
(Score: 5, Informative) by tnt118 on Sunday March 30 2014, @07:22PM
For me, the TV has become an ubiquitous display device with only a little bit of content that is exclusive to the the TV itself. What I mean by that is yes, I watch an occasional show over-the-air, but all my other content is either streaming (Netflix) or local (Plex) and can go on my TV, computer monitor or tablet just as easily. Appointment viewing is surely at an all-time low. If I had my way (ha!) I'd be using it as a gaming monitor more than anything else right now.
As I work for a TV station I see this unfold first-hand. In the past two years or so eyeballs on the web or mobile became just as valuable as on-air commercials to the sales folks and it's likely that trend will continue. It seems that many younger folks are quite happy without a TV and if folks keep dropping cable I don't see this trend changing drastically in the near future.
I'm not even sure if 4k will be all that compelling to the average consumer. Lack of content aside, it seems quality isn't what is first and foremost in a lot of people's minds (a bit to my surprise). I guess we've gotten too used to the quality of YouTube, Netflix and other streaming services (which are good, sure, but pale to a nice high bitrate encode) so I wouldn't be surprised to see demand fall a bit flat.
I think I like it here.
(Score: 2) by VLM on Sunday March 30 2014, @07:51PM
"it seems quality isn't what is first and foremost in a lot of people's minds (a bit to my surprise)"
We live in a country where the population grew up with analog tubes covered by a 1/16th of an inch of dust and shed cat hair and the brightness/contrast/chroma/hue/luminence or whatever dials were just turned randomly, and in the modern era people randomly click the "zoom" button on the remote until the screen is filled, no matter if it means cutting off the edges or stretching horizontally to freakish proportions. Supposedly high res will sell because drunken old sports fans are so picky about quality when they're drunk WRT hobbies, women, beer, but I'm not buying those claims. So yeah, I don't think its EVER been about image quality.
The HD sold because buyers could show off their conspicuous consumption at a glance to anyone who saw the boxy analog tube replaced by an expensive flat panel. You can't show off your spending / debt ability by replacing a flat panel with an identical in appearance flat panel especially when only the buyer knows it cost 8 times as much or whatever. A successful marketing strategy would be now that most boxy tube TVs are long gone, ship the new 4k TVs in giant mostly empty floor console style boxes, so any casual glance would see a giant box TV and know that someone spent money like a drunken sailor, and conspicuous consumption is the only purpose of the activity.
(Score: 1) by citizenr on Sunday March 30 2014, @08:03PM
>I guess we've gotten too used to the quality of YouTube
except for the fact YT offers _superior_ quality, 720p h264 is the standard, with 1080 quickly becoming the norm
(Score: 3, Insightful) by FatPhil on Sunday March 30 2014, @10:02PM
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
(Score: 3, Informative) by pjbgravely on Sunday March 30 2014, @08:52PM
(Score: 4, Funny) by Dunbal on Sunday March 30 2014, @07:29PM
I blame piracy!
(Score: 1) by jackb_guppy on Sunday March 30 2014, @07:38PM
In our home the first big scrren monitor was a "TV". My wife needed a 32 screen to see clearly. After that all "TV" where monitor first.
I do not understand the reason for smart-tv since all you need a is controller (ITX machine, Roku, old computer).
MAybe that what they should look at monitor with a bundle, so better sound (amp) and processing speeds (Roku 3, ITX machine).
(Score: 3, Interesting) by VLM on Sunday March 30 2014, @07:39PM
Lets be realistic, if they're trying to boost sales its going to be by value engineering the product down to only two to four yrs of life, not by adding all kinds of crazy tech.
What costs more, using smaller heatsinks and closing some ventilation slots, or inventing an entirely new paradigm full of new technology in the hope that maybe people will trained to like it?
I would likely not buy a "TV" if my old TV broke. Probably a somewhat large computer monitor? Why pay for an ATSC over the air tuner and a V-chip and closed captioning decoder and some garbage internal speakers none of which we'll ever use?
(Score: 1) by tnt118 on Monday March 31 2014, @01:18AM
Exactly this. IMO the sweet spot for price and quality was about 4 years ago. Since then, it seems like they are cutting corners to reduce costs. Cheap TVs are indeed that, cheap.
I think I like it here.
(Score: 2) by BradTheGeek on Sunday March 30 2014, @07:51PM
I own one 32in 1080p TV. It is not hooked to cable, and we recently ditched out Netflix streaming sub. It is primarily used as a monitor on the PC in the bedroom, but even that is exceedingly rare. It does have an ATSC tuner, as does the PC, so that in dire need I can tune into the news or something.
When I hook it up that way I feel a but like Jubal Harshaw getting Duke to hook up the blasted stereo tank.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by camaro on Sunday March 30 2014, @07:53PM
I think the biggest reason TVs aren't selling is that to the average consumer, whatever they have is good enough. It's going to be tough to convince them that they will get a significantly better experience watching the latest reality show or their favorite sportsball team than what they have now. My current TV, a 42" 720p plasma, is about five years old. There's not much content out there that makes me think I need something better to display it on.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by GmanTerry on Sunday March 30 2014, @09:11PM
If I had to watch the mindless repeating and sometimes offensive commercials I would end my TV watching. I use a DVR to fast forward through the endless commercials. I'm in my 70s and I remember when TV was 10 minutes an hour of commercials. Now it's 20 minutes and more per hour. Radio seems to be even worse at about 50%. I listen to my music on a thumb drive in my car. Even DVDs are being packed with ads for other movies that sometimes can not be skipped. At my age I'm commercialed out and I just want to be able to enjoy something without someone trying to make me buy something. I will pay more for content if they will stop insulting me with commercials like the the guy who says he saves time by not rewinding DVDs. Give me a break!
Since when is "public safety" the root password to the Constitution?
(Score: 2) by VLM on Monday March 31 2014, @12:41PM
"I remember when TV was 10 minutes an hour of commercials. Now it's 20 minutes and more per hour."
I remember parts of Star Trek episodes which are no longer shown on broadcast because of the need to squeeze in more commercials. Also "the twilight zone". You never see Spock, Bones, and Kirk talking things over at the end of an episode anymore. Also no more dramatic pauses. It is rewriting history. I'm not morally opposed to broadcasts or even a little commercials here and there, but I now prefer my full length DVD rips acquired by alternative technical means over the dramatically altered broadcast versions.
This also happens to a lesser extent on PBS. Now the first two minutes are lead ins and commercials, and the last five minutes are commercials, so older documentaries get chopped up, which is pretty weird. Wait wait wait, doesn't Burns's Civil War have a discussion of XYZ right about now? Where is it?
(Score: 2) by Grishnakh on Monday March 31 2014, @08:44PM
Why on earth are you watching Star Trek reruns on broadcast TV? You can see the full-length remastered versions on Netflix. Or just buy the DVDs if you don't have Netflix and care that much to notice missing footage.
(Score: 2, Interesting) by moylan on Sunday March 30 2014, @08:16PM
a few years ago they started pushing 'smart' tv's. but the first generation of those aren't great as they can't access a lot of services people might want to use from the web and/or aren't getting updates since they were launched.
before that it was 3d tv's which sank like a stone.
now they're pushing super high res when the content isn't there yet.
wouldn't i be better waiting till they sort out instead of having a betamax tv?
then again my last tv died in 2008-2009 and i haven't been tempted by anything out there. even free tv's been offered by friends and family.
(Score: 1) by Immerman on Sunday March 30 2014, @08:17PM
I bought a 40" 1080P Samsung many years ago when the stripped-down Walmart model fell below $1000 on a Black Friday sale. I have never used it for broadcast or cable TV, instead I use it as a conveniently source-switchable monitor for my various computers and gaming consoles. It takes a little longer to warm up than it did new, but to get me to upgrade would require one or both of the following:
- My current TV fails (Note to manufacturers - I read consumer reports and reliability is a major purchase consideration for me. Don't be evil or you won't get my business.)
- high-quality, reliable 40" 4k TVs fall below $500, preferably 3D ready but that's a minor consideration. I don't want a larger TV, if anything I'm considering getting something a bit smaller. And the subjective upgrade from HD to UHD is considerably smaller than from 21" to 40", so I'm going to pay less, even if that means waiting longer. I'm happy enough with my current screen
Also, any TV I buy will need to have a low-latency "gaming mode" available across all input sources, along with the corresponding ability to disable all image processing. My two big complaints with the current TV are that even in the lowest-latency mode it lags several frames behind my old LCD monitor, and that for many of the inputs it is apparently impossible to completely disable image "enhancement", causing various visual artifacts, especially around text, which acquires a horribly eye-strain inducing "halo".
Finally - consider incorporating a co-switchable USB hub! You're already doing A/V switching, which is the hard/expensive part of a KVM switch, throw in a USB switch as well and you've got a major competitive advantage for my business. *Especially* if you guys can route USB over HDMI so that I need only plug a single cable into my laptop to effortlessly connect it to my big screen and nice keyboard, mouse, etc.
(Score: 1) by DuganCent on Sunday March 30 2014, @08:20PM
Still using a 42" standard def tube television at the moment. Got it I around '01 I think. I'll upgrade it when it dies.
No, I don't have a giant computer monitor, just A 13" macbook.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Grishnakh on Sunday March 30 2014, @10:35PM
If you spend much time watching it, it'd be worth it to replace it with a new LCD model (preferably LED-backlit). The power savings will have it pay for itself in a couple years or less.
Plus, if you ever have to move it for some reason, it's easy to move a 42" LCD panel. A 42" CRT almost needs a forklift.
(Score: 1) by monster on Monday March 31 2014, @07:27AM
Yes, but then there's also the cost of opportunity: He may intend to change TV once his current one dies, and sure a new one will pay itself by energy savings alone in a few years but meanwhile he can use that money to buy other things, even if in the long run he ends up spending more overall.
I'm in the same wagon: Old CRT TV (28", ~15 years), will eventually change it but I have no big reason to do it right now. Meanwhile, I can spend that cash in other, more compelling things, and see fads come and go without any "killer feature" which would make me buy right now.
(Score: 2) by VLM on Monday March 31 2014, @12:59PM
"The power savings will have it pay for itself in a couple years or less."
Two rules of thumb, a watt-year of electricity is a buck, and a LCD uses half the power of a CRT, at least back when they were competitive with each other. And I looked up a 42 inch LCD and 200 watts is about the consensus, implying a LCD running 24x7 would save $200 per year of electricity compared to a CRT running 24x7. Amazon will ship me a 42 inch LCD for free/prime for between $400 and $500. I could pay more and have the hassle of transportation by buying locally, so forget that, it'll be amazon prime.
So to pay for itself in 3 years, which is more than a couple years or less, it would have to be running very near 24x7 the whole time.
The actual cut off where you'd start making money off reduced energy costs assuming a reasonable 2 hours of viewing per evening (which is more than twice what I watch on average) would be $200*(2/24)= $16 of savings per year, and $500 for a TV / $16 savings equals a mere 31 years until earning a profit. Of course its value engineered to self destruct long before 31 years, and although you're saving $16 of electricity, if you bought the $500 TV on a 29% credit card the cost of capital would be $145 per year in perpetuity to borrow the money for a pretty spectacular net loss.
Lets assume the LCD is value engineered to only last 4 years, whereas he's already gotten 13 years out of his old CRT and its still not broken which is another issue. You'll save a little on power, but you'll have to buy another every couple years by design, so there may be no net environmental or financial gain at all. Depending on the level of value engineering he may have to pay on average $100 to $200 per year to keep replacing the value engineered modern TV, while saving well under $100 per year of energy at any reasonable level of viewing.
This is aside from the mental health damage of watching that much TV per day which is probably much more expensive to fix.
Therefore it'll be a net loss, so keep the old CRT running as long as you can...
To some extent its much ado about nothing because the annual cost of upkeep for a TV, even if you really screw it up financially, is only about the cost of one month of cable TV, its not that much.
(Score: 1) by lajos on Sunday March 30 2014, @08:55PM
We have a 3 year old 42" Sony HD tv, no "smart" features.
Its picture is awesome. Works great. Cost me $500 back then. I'll upgrade if it dies, or when I can get a 4K tv for the same price.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday March 30 2014, @09:09PM
> How long have you had your current TV, and what would it take to entice you to upgrade?
Since 2005. So 9 years now.
Its failure to operate as a TV anymore.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday March 30 2014, @09:11PM
I will say I am thrilled about 4k just because it can reverse some of the total destruction 1080p TVs wreaked upon monitor resolutions. At least through 2008/2009, you could still find 16:10 laptops reasonably priced. After that, the economics of 16:9 1080p/720p panels won out and manufacturers started advertising that as a "feature" even when the monitors were lower resolution. With 4k, at least I will finally be able to find a panel with a vertical resolution over 1080 on a laptop or for less than $300 on a standalone monitor.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday March 30 2014, @09:45PM
This x1000. I just picked up a 28" 4K monitor and I'm in love with it. So much space. The only issue now is that most of the web is not designed for it. Many websites come across looking like they were designed to be printed on receipt paper. One long, narrow strip right up the middle. I have an old (ancient) Dell XPS laptop that has a better pixel density than anything I've bought in the past 5 years. That's just fucking sad.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday March 30 2014, @10:19PM
Yeah I remember having replacing Dell Precision laptops with 16:10 screens on our hardware refresh a couple of years ago. If I wanted to keep the 16:10, I had to go to 17". Ridiculous.
I found some South Korean imports 16:9 monitors that were reasonably priced... Yamasaki Catleap. You have to get them off of eBay but they are 2560x1440 and roughly $300.
I really dislike the trend toward static designs for websites. The whole point of html was the client side figured out how best to display a site; it is not supposed to look the same on every medium. Marketing folks win again I guess.
(Score: 2) by Grishnakh on Sunday March 30 2014, @10:38PM
I really dislike the trend toward static designs for websites. The whole point of html was the client side figured out how best to display a site; it is not supposed to look the same on every medium. Marketing folks win again I guess.
No, reality won. It just isn't possible to make a site that looks good at any arbitrary horizontal resolution when you have tables, inline pictures, and other complex text layouts involved. Letting the client side figure things out worked fine back in the early days when websites were just simple plaintext with maybe a few small photos. Websites aren't like that any more.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday March 30 2014, @10:56PM
Good is arbitrary... what looked good on my Treo 680 will differ significantly from what looks good on my 24" LCD. That's the point. It's all relative. What's important is the content; this is what lost at the end of the day. HTML was about providing contextual information about content; modern web design is about providing a presentation. Look at Instagram - reference implementation for presentation over content.
It's like comparing apples and oranges; fundamentally, they are different and have nothing to do with each other. It's like the difference between Open Source and Free Software; the first is a methodology, the other, a belief system.
(Score: 1) by Ezber Bozmak on Monday March 31 2014, @01:49AM
No, that's just what bad designers say because they'd rather cripple the web [timkadlec.com] than figure out how to do it right.
The number of websites that actually require that level of precision, versus simply want it because they prefer form over function is vanishingly small. And it should be no surprise that the guys who are so dumb that they think must have that level of control are rarely competent enough to understand principles like graceful degradation and progressive enhancement, so they throw up their hands and say it can't be done. It is visual basic all over again.
(Score: 2) by Grishnakh on Monday March 31 2014, @01:58PM
So all web developers are dumb except for the ones who developed the GNU website?
(Score: 1) by The Archon V2.0 on Sunday March 30 2014, @09:42PM
All I own is a CRT, 7ish years old, and that's only because I moved and had to leave the decades-old CRT behind. But I watch so little TV (Jeopardy! during supper is about it) that I'll probably never replace it. If it dies, not something CRTs are known for, I'll probably just drop an old computer monitor there.
Like this Commodore 1702 monitor I happen to have.
(Score: 1) by gonnzo on Sunday March 30 2014, @09:54PM
Our everyday TV is a ~20 year old Sharp 28" tube model. It died about ten years ago, and while prying it out of its stand for the trip to the dump I lost my grip - it's about 70 pounds - and it fell an inch to the floor. I guess the problem was a broken trace or a cold solder joint, because the drop cured the problem.
Now, once a month or so, it quits and pulling the power cord from the wall for ten seconds will bring it back.
Until dropping or "rebooting" doesn't work, we'll be keeping it. Serves our everyday needs.
We also have a "modern" model with HDMI inputs for movies and a Wii but it probably accounts for 10% of our household's TV usage.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Tork on Sunday March 30 2014, @10:01PM
Actually the next generation of 4k monitors on the horizon are well on their way to making that happen. I'd consider getting at least a couple of those PROVIDED they hook up to my computers. I'd even pay a higher price if they included passive 3D support. (Yes, I'm one of those guys that actually likes 3D.)
That said, I really would like to see higher def projectors and their prices come down. A thousand bucks doesn't even get me full HD!
🏳️🌈 Proud Ally 🏳️🌈
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday March 30 2014, @10:16PM
The last time I bought a TeeVee was 1998. It was a second-hand unit.
Back then, I recorded pretty much everything that I watched to time-shift that and cut out the ads & other junk.
With the writers strikes and the rise of "reality" TeeVee, Newton Minow's "vast wasteland" became even more of a waste.
These days, I find video simply a slow, clumsy way to deliver useful information.
The gutting of the Fairness Doctrine by Reagan and Fowler in 1987 made TeeVee useless as a reliable source of information.
(The Powell Memorandum in 1971 had already sowed the seeds.)
I've given up on fiction, getting more than enough of that when I can't switch the radio station quickly enough and the college station launches into the syndicated corporate "news" and their presstitute blather.
Why aren't folks buying new TeeVee gear?
Part of that may be that the most informed of them are worried (with e.g. revelations of hardware being passed through NSA hands before delivery) [techdirt.com] that their gadgets are becoming too much like the panopticon that constantly watched Winston Smith in Orwell's noteworthy book.
(The constant spew from that device of capitalist/fascist/imperialist drivel offends me just as much.)
People who have a "smart" TeeVee that runs Windoze are the flip-side of that cautious condition, apparently clueless about all the backdoors in that OS (with M$ having voluntarily handed NSA the keys to those). [techrights.org]
-- gewg_
(Score: 1) by theluggage on Sunday March 30 2014, @10:23PM
I've got a ~4 year-old Samsung 38" panel - I'll "upgrade" when that fails.
But what would attract me is
(Score: 1) by cockroach on Sunday March 30 2014, @10:33PM
I'm still using a good old (about 28") CRT from the nineties. Admittedly it's a bit small and blurry but when I press a button it reacts faster than any of the modern TV sets that I've seen so far. No half-minute bootup time, no 3 seconds to switch channels and let's not forget, no additional remote control required to interact with some silly set-top box.
Plus with the "quality" programme that we get over here there's really no need for more pixels.
(Score: 2) by Boxzy on Sunday March 30 2014, @10:47PM
is to blame for me, it was 1987 and there was the (at the time) worlds worst advert on British TV. Since then not a minute of broadcast TV has been watched by me deliberately. So, no. No TV. Monitors, sure. No TV.
Filed under "I feel like chicken tonight!"
Just typing that makes me feel dirty.
Go green, Go Soylent.
(Score: 2) by evilviper on Monday March 31 2014, @12:31AM
I'll just leave this here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f_SwD7RveNE [youtube.com]
Hydrogen cyanide is a delicious and necessary part of the human diet.
(Score: 2) by Boxzy on Monday March 31 2014, @08:15AM
That is pretty bad I have to admit. I would put a link but (thankfully) there is no copy of the original Ainsley Harriot version. The American versions are enough.
Lets just call it a draw.
"Adverts are bad m'kay?, don't do adverts."
"If you're gonna watch adverts, you're gonna have a bad time."
Here endeth the Obligatory South Park Paraphrases.
Go green, Go Soylent.
(Score: 1) by tftp on Sunday March 30 2014, @11:08PM
I have one small TV, but it was purchased to be hardwired to a PS3. Now it just happens that my main 25" monitor (Acer) has a spare HDMI port, so this is no longer necessary. The TV sits in the corner, and I do not use it. I may pull it out and connect when my parents decide show up. Myself, I have no need for TV, and I dislike TV broadcasts. I think I got past that point where they could have told me anything new. Now I learn more from the Internet; I have no need for talking heads to read the news for me - and especially to reinterpret them, so that my puny mind can understand them. I haven't watched a movie for maybe 15 years now. Same reason: nothing new in them; not interesting. I read books instead, lots of books. Television simply does not exist for me.
(Score: 2) by sjames on Monday March 31 2014, @12:21AM
They've spent the last 2 or 3 years pushing a fad novelty that already failed several times before in an effort to keep prices high. It turns out families don't want to sit on the couch in a perfect line like a marketing photo wearing their funky glasses that need batteries to work. Whoda thunkit?
As for 'smart' TV, it's perfectly clear they have no idea how to design software and no willingness to hire people who do and then get out of their way. As a result, my 'smart TV' functionality comes from an old laptop plugged in to the VGA port. In turn, that means the most significant upgrades I can do all come from Free software I install there.
If they accept that TV is a commodity and sell it appropriately, there's plenty of money to be made, just not rockstar money. That will involve accepting that the improvements they currently have are expected features and not a premium that can double the retail price.
(Score: 2) by evilviper on Monday March 31 2014, @12:27AM
That last bit is only El Reg's projection, and they admit they are at odds with major industry analysts:
"DisplaySearch and this week IHS put out headlines which continue to suggest TV sales will recover"
Demand for "TVs" has fallen, but it's supposedly being replaced by demand for tablets. Since those have displays, which manufacturers will keep making good money on, I don't see why the TV sales slump will affect their bottom line, or incite aggressive pricing.
Low demand only reduces prices in the short-term, as they try to stimulate sales to match supply. In the longer term, the same R&D costs spread across fewer sales means HIGHER prices. Furthermore, since those display panels are selling just fine as computer monitors, I don't know why we should expect falling TV prices.
In addition, domestic price-cuts in China won't necessarily extend to US sales. What's more, if we haven't seen bare-bones pricing for the past two years of falling sales, why would we expect different in the coming year? I'd read the Reg's supplied figures the exact opposite way, and say TV prices RIGHT NOW might well be as low as they'll get, for the next several years.
And since it happens to be on-topic, you might also want to see my journal about OTA TV reception:
http://soylentnews.org/~evilviper/journal/216 [soylentnews.org]
Hydrogen cyanide is a delicious and necessary part of the human diet.
(Score: 1) by monster on Monday March 31 2014, @07:37AM
Different sizes, different models and different markups may incite it. Also, inventory cleaning.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 31 2014, @01:01AM
there is certainly better things the world can put its resources to.
Can we hope for a future where no family that already have a tv will ever buy a new one at least?
(Score: 2) by Phoenix666 on Monday March 31 2014, @01:11AM
I have actually never bought a TV in my life. Never bought a radio, either. They are such ubiquitous devices that there's always been someone in my circle who's trying to unload their old one for the latest, greatest. And I haven't watched TV in probably 8 years since we cut the cord. DirecTV left the dish on the side of the building, and I've been toying with the idea of painting it chrome and running a sterling engine off it. Any video entertainment we need we get from Netflix, though we haven't watched an actual DVD in about 8 months and increasingly infrequently watch the streaming stuff. It feels as though we've reached saturation with that sort of thing; now we go outside and interact with people. And that is remarkably satisfying, even though I've been an introvert and borderline misanthrope my whole life.
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 3, Funny) by isostatic on Monday March 31 2014, @01:08PM
Til;dr: http://www.theonion.com/articles/area-man-constant ly-mentioning-he-doesnt-own-a-tel,429/ [theonion.com]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 04 2014, @03:43PM
Admit it, you are getting old :-)
After some years of watching tv you'll find that you are "full" and need to find something else to enjoy. the process is different fast for each person, and can be significantly delayed by watching tv and movies made in other countries than those you had before.
In the end (depending of how long you will live) you will find no joy in tv (but some people continue anyway, old habits is hard to break and all that).
You will probably not use the freed time for something more usefull though....
(Score: 2) by Appalbarry on Monday March 31 2014, @03:28AM
We're just waiting until 3D TVs are available, and all of the programming is in that format.
(Score: 2) by bradley13 on Monday March 31 2014, @06:04AM
Serious question? We watch news and a few other programs off of basic cable, but we haven't owned a "television" in years.
Use a beamer and project onto a blank, white wall, or put in a pull-down screen that disappears when you don't need it. You get a bigger picture, and you don't have an ugly black rectangle on permanent display. The beamer itself can be mounted high up, out of the way, and is hardly noticeable.
Everyone is somebody else's weirdo.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 31 2014, @07:21AM
I've had mine a bit over ten years.
I'm waiting for something that has the response time of a CRT (Playstation 2), with good black level (LCD can go kiss my ass) which is expected to last as long as a good CRT did (people trying to sell me a new TV claim that I'd be a fool to expect more than three years from a new TV, unless I pay 10x as much as I did for my current TV), at a reasonable price (the current price of the Panasonic "as good as Kuro" is way above what my current TV cost).
I guess that means I'm waiting for OLED prices to finally drop.
That, or my current TV giving up.
(Score: 1) by Rousay on Monday March 31 2014, @08:20AM
I don't get why so many people are saying they don't have TVs.
I have several. I live in China - they literally do "buy a 60" and we'll throw in a 42" free" type deals, and I equip all TVs in my house with computers. Mac minis for the general purpose browsing/movies/tv streaming etc, and a powerful desktop workhorse to power the largest TV in my gaming room.
After consuming any sort of media from the comfort of a nice big chair or couch, I don't know why people sit and grind thru tv series on a puny 22" or laptop, why not get a TV and stream to it?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 04 2014, @03:45PM
why grind thru tv series ?
(Score: 2, Interesting) by Aiwendil on Monday March 31 2014, @09:26AM
In no particular order
*) Drop the power consumption to below 30W (for 40in) for everything excepting the speakers
*) Remove the receiver
*') Start selling receivers as agnostic add-ons (powered via usb or MHL)
*'') Allow this receiver to be controlled by the TV via a standard interface (to allow seemless use after setup)
*) Remove anything "smart" excepting playback from over FTP/HTTP and possibly USB-drives
*) If you have usb-support then make sure it supports hubs
*) If it has media-support allow it to be upgradable (seriously, just integrate a RPi in it - the extra flexibility would easily be worth 30$)
*) Allow one to set priority of devices comming online PER PORT (ie, I might want to have the thing in HDMI1 to take focus when it starts, but I only want to see HDMI2 when I tell the TV to)
*) Improve the blackness
*) Improve the sharpness
*) Fix the backlight issues
*) Have accurate colours (main issue of why my smaller monitor has taken over as my main movie-viewer-display - even for DVDs)
In short - stop making TVs and start making big monitors with possibly an integrated RPi, and also start selling receivers separatly in a form that can be hooked up to the computer-monitor and controlled from the computer via an open standard.
When I bought a new TV about two years ago (went from CRT to LED) I realized it most likely would be the last TV I would ever buy, mainly since by the time I want to replace this one I expect LED-projectors to be good enough at decent pricepoint.
(Score: 2) by Taibhsear on Monday March 31 2014, @01:46PM
They've actually had these [wikipedia.org] for quite some time.
(I'm assuming by "receiver" you mean the tv's tuner.)
(Score: 1) by Aiwendil on Monday March 31 2014, @02:06PM
They tend to fail quite harshly on the part of "open standard" (this also is what makes set-top-boxes fail the requirement) and "hooked up to the monitor", but yes a TV-card is most of the way there (all of the technical hurdles solved - just packaging, standards and integration missing)
I prefer the word "receiver" simply because it also implies reception of things you don't tune for (such at tv-over-internet)