I was talking to a friend last night at a Christmas party about how he had been approached by a start-up doing high-definition television but turned them down because he couldn't buy into their business prospects. In today's New York Times, there a short piece on why HD hasn't seen anywhere near the kind of pick up as large-screen TVs that have become all the rage as prices tumble. For all its benefits, HD continues to be a difficult sales proposition. For one, it is seen as a premium service by consumers, who still don't grasp the reason to have it other than being able to see a blade of grass in glorious detail while watching football or golf. That hardly seems worth the $10 or $15 that ARPU-hungry cablecos are trying squeeze from consumers. If the HD industry isn't careful, it may see itself in the same boat as the Bluetooth folks, who were crowing a few years but have disappeared. I'm not suggesting HD isn't cool technology or that Mark Cuban's HD dreams are misplaced, it's just doesn't seen cool enough right now.
|
||||||
Comments
Re: Is HD the New Bluetooth?
by
Anonymous
on Sun 10 Dec 2006 03:54 PM EST | Permanent Link
I think you just need to give it a little time. The infrastructure to support regular HD needs to expand so that the price comes down and then people still staring at their old non-HD devices, who are looking for a change, will start seeing HD on par with what they had before.
I consider myself an early adopter of technology, but I also know that prices come down as technology is developed which makes me wait till I see the value for what it is. The problem with bluetooth is that the value it was trying to peddle was not quite as good as it wanted everyone to think it was. When it was first introduced I knew it wasn't going to do much because the idea, while a neat experiment, was just not quite where it should have been. I am not surprised that bluetooth is where it is today, but I am quite sure HD is not going to be another bluetooth. You can bank on that. Re: Is HD the New Bluetooth?
by
Anonymous
on Mon 11 Dec 2006 03:09 AM EST | Permanent Link
One the biggest reasons viewers have been slow to adopt to HD is that the networks have focused most of their programming to their female audience (who really arent turned on by big screen TV and HD) while guys are the ones who are attracted to HD. Who needs to watch Oprah, The View, 2 1/2 Men or How I Met Your Mother in High Def.
Outside of sports and some news most guys arent interested in the kind of stuff on TV right now. Re: Is HD the New Bluetooth?
by
Wayne
on Mon 11 Dec 2006 10:40 AM EST | Profile | Permanent Link
One thing that you missed is that you don't have to pay money to anyone to receive HD - just put up an antenna. I live in T.O. and I can receive all of the Buffalo stations and CBC-Toronto in HD with a small antenna (and Rochester stations when I face my antenna to the southeast. By the way, in two years the US is turning off all analog transmitters which should facilitate the switch to HD as all OTA transmissions will have to be digital, although that doesn't necessarily mean HD.
And while Bluetooth was overhyped I see more people using Bluetooth headsets and my car has a Bluetooth handsfree system as part of the GPS-NAV screen that works great with my Blackberry. Re: Is HD the New Bluetooth?
by
Tom Purves
on Mon 11 Dec 2006 02:57 PM EST | Permanent Link
Perhaps Bittorrents and eventually the itunes movie store will eventually fix this HDTV consumption problem for consumers?
whether the cableco's like it or not. |
My blog has moved.
Check out the new Mark Evans. It's part of my mini-blog empire that also includes All About Nortel and Twitterrati. You can subscribe to Mark Evans Tech by clicking on the RSS symbol above.
Check Out These Blogs
Search
Login
|
|||||
|
||||||