RSSAnalysts: US consumers like HDTVs better than HD programming
By Jacqueline Emigh | Published March 26, 2008, 8:52 AM
Fully 41 percent of TV owners in the US now possess a high definition TV, yet only 56 percent of those same consumers subscribe to an HD programming package, according to a new survey by ABI Research.
Together with other analysts' statistics, ABI's findings about HDTV ownership seems to indicate that interest in HD is finally on the rise in the United States. In research released last summer, for example, In-Stat discovered that interest in HD had actually fallen over the previous year among US consumers, while increasing in other countries, particularly France and South Korea.
But in a survey unveiled just before CES 2008 last January, the Consumer Electronics Association found a "big screen TV" took third place -- just after "computer" and "peace and happiness" -- among items that parents would like to receive as holiday items. The previous year, "big screen TV" landed in only the eleventh spot on the same question in the same survey.
While it's true that "big screen TV" is not synonymous with "HDTV," it appears that many consumers have since gotten their wishes granted with an HDTV set.
Why the change of heart? With the transition to all digital programming slated to take place on February 19 of next year, perhaps many consumers decided to go ahead and buy an HDTV, if they were going to need to get new equipment, anyway.
Falling prices of HDTVs, along with Blu-ray and HD DVD players over the past several months (particularly the latter), undoubtedly haven't hurt.
But with HD movies still costing much more than their non-HD counterparts, it might be surprising if consumers are choosing canned movies over broadcast content, unless they've determined the costs of HD programming packages to be similarly unpalatable.
Cesar Bachelet, an analyst at ABI, has suggested that HD programming providers need to do a better job of "highlighting what HDTV owners without an HD package are missing out on."
And that's why I bought a 480p 20" LCD TV last year: I don't have HDTV, I only have a XBOX (1), and the 480p TV was way cheaper than the HD equivalent.
I'm totally happy with my choice, but of course, if people have a HD service or device, I understand that the extra premium makes sense to them.
Score: 0
|Sorry, but ....
Am I the ONLY one who finds the phrase "a big screen TV took third place -- just after "computer" and "peace and happiness" -- among items that parents would like to receive as holiday items" quite worrying?
Oh well, Zeitgeist, I guess ...
Score: 0
|If I were to pay what the cable company deems as necessary for "HD" programming, I expect every or NEARLY every channel to be HD. I'm sorry, but that's just my expectation. 'nogh said.
Score: 0
|41%? I'm sorry, I'm not buying that. That number is way, way too high. While those under 40 have newer TVs, I know 4 of 10 TVs still out there are not high def. Many, as one poster said, are simply flat screens, but are NOT high def.
Score: 0
|I get my regular broadcast channels in HD with my basic cable package. I miss out on extra HD channels but I don't have the higher digital cable package anyway. It would cost me 6 times what I pay now to have digital cable with HD. I just don't see the need for that many channels.
I'm starting to watch some stuff on Internet sent to the TV and while the quality is a little lower, I can pick and choose what I want to watch. Too much is forced on you as a cable customer because you can only buy packages or tiers.
I think the whole problem is the channels themselves wanting to be in tiers, does that mean that they really don't think they could draw enough of an audience otherwise?
HD can be provided without a box, so give us more without a box and I bet more will be watching it (I'd even take a slight increase if they did that)
Score: 0
|The problem with the whole "High Definition" thing is that it's so confusing! For starters, 720p, 1080i, or 1080p, all three are defined as "high definition." In my book, anything less than 1080p isn't high def, and I'm not going to buy a TV with less than that. Then there's the cable and satellite providers arguing over who offers more high definition programming than the other, but they fail to tell you that you only get this programming with this package and this one with this package. UGH!, why bother with the headache? This is the reason why I don't have a HDTV. I'll stick to my standard definition TV and DVD player for now. Shopping for electronics is like shopping for a car nowadays.
Score: 0
|If you're looking for a low cost HDTV then 720p TV's are much better. Most budget 1080p monitors can't properly deinterlace 1080i material. They discard half the vertical resolution so you get a resolution of 1920x540. This creates the same flicker that's visible on an interlaced CRT monitor. If you're looking for a budget HDTV then why spend more on a defective 1080p HDTV when you can get a fully working 720p TV for a lot less?
Score: 0
|Pardon my saying this, but if you don't have a HDTV then how can you make the blanket statement that "anything less than 1080p isn't high def"???
I've had an HDTV since 2004, a 52" CRT-based rear projection unit that does 1080i on down, and I can honestly say that 720p doesn't look any different than a 1080i on it. And yes, I know what I need to look for, flicker, tearing, combing, interlacing artifacts, etc... And as long as the source is high in quality, there's no difference.
The HDTV broadcast standards define what High Def content is, not the marketing leeches of the corporate world. People don't "need" a 1080p television, they don't even broadcast in 1080p! The bandwidth that would be required is prohibitive compared to what you really need. IMHO 720p stations tend to work better for HTPC DVR software as well.
On a TV 50-52" or less at 10 feet, 720p looks no different than 1080p. 1080p only really comes into play with larger screens. It's really a matter of physics, at 10 feet on a 50 inch screen you are reaching the physical limitation of the human eye to percieve pixels as individual items, and 1080p at 10 feet on a 50" or lower is simply overkill. Do some research on pixel/dot spacing on HD televisions/monitors and you'll find that the argument of "1080p is the only HD resolution" is marketing hype, nothing more.
Score: 0
|"Falling prices of HDTVs, along with Blu-ray and HD DVD players over the past several months (particularly the latter), undoubtedly haven't hurt."
Half correct.
BluRay is more affordable? Really! Than what?
The fact is that for the vast majority, DVDs and upscaled DVDs are just fine. HD is NOT driving the industry - the forced migration to digital is forcing the purchase of new sets.
There was no mass outcry of discontent from the marketplace that existing reception or resolution was insufficient.
And while upscaled DVDs are fine for the few movies that are actually worthwhile, the prospect of watching Jerry Springer or Oprah or Tyra Banks or Maury Povich in HD just isn't quite sufficient to change that.
Score: 0
|I don't watch much tv in the first place, computer gaming and related comes in first. Theres no way I'd want to pay extra for HD subscriptions, it just isn't worth it for the shows they offer. I use the money I saved had I bought an HD subscription to keep buying the latest computer stuff instead, its so much better.
Score: 0
|I honestly don't mind subscribe to HDTV contents if they let me subscribe to 1 or two channel instead of the whole package. Why do I have to pay $50/month just to watch 1 or 2 channels?
Score: 0
|most people get a HDTV set because they want a big screen flat pannel tv. HDTV such cost it costs too much and there are not alot of channels offered yet in HD
Score: 0
|I'm sorry, but IMHO, this is the equivalent of putting pictures of naked women on the boxes of Cornflakes to make them seem more appealing to the consumer: Once you open the box and pour out the contents, you are still faced with having to eat a bowl of Cornflakes.
Until the producers and broadcasters are willing to make a real effort to improve the quality of their content, this endless debate about what is essentially the "packaging" (HDTV, Blu-Ray, HD-DVD, Plasma, LCD, etc.) is irrelevant.
Score: 0
|The article is misleading. I have an HDTV, and I do not subscribe to a HD package from my cable provider. Howerver, the cable provider does furnish HD for all the local broadcast stations that broadcst in HD (which turns out to be the six major broadcsat networks) as part of the basic package.
Additionally, I get HD content via the AppleTV I have, and also via the BluRay player (HD movies via Netflix, no extra cost).
But I have not purchased a HD package from my cable provider because the HD package contains nothing I want to see.
Score: 0
|Why they wasting time and money on garbage like this? Everyone like TV, but not everyone has cable.
Score: 0
|I had an HDTV for about 9 months and i did not "subscribe to an HD programming package". I guess it was because I was perfectly happy with the over the air free HDTV that I was able to receive with an antenna in my attic.
Score: 0
|Exactly, I'm guessing most people get HD OTA.
Score: 0
|Good point. There are other sources of HD signal, mine being my Xbox 360. That alone was reason for me to upgrade my old CR tube setup.
Score: 0
|No, most people don't use an OTA antenna for anything anymore. They subscribe to cable TV. Depending on the area you live in OTA HDTV may be better but most consumers don't know this or don't care.
Score: 0
|I use OTA,digital HD cable and HTPC.
The real issue I am noticing after a year or more is that so little programming at this point is really decent HD. Most broadcast channels only offer HD for some daytime soaps and some primetime programming, most cable HD channels offer a mixed bag at best, with much of the movie content being simply rehashed NTSC reformatted sources.
That is not to be complaining, I love my HD... but it is gonna be awhile before HD becomes the norm instead of the exception. Like back in the early 80's when TV went stereo, it may be awhile before all is golden.
Score: 0
|Most of the HD programming on Verizon's FiOS TV is indistinguishable from what you would see on a properly done HD-DVD or Blu-Ray disc. Most cable companies compress the video on HD programs so much that it's impossible to tell it apart from a stretched out 480p program.
Score: 0
|If you watch the HD versions of channels such as TBS, USA, etc, it is easy to see they are converted 4:3 NTSC images that are stretched in a fish-eye fashion to fill the screen (for many of the movies). My guess is that their archival 4:3 stock is being used while they re-negotiate to gain access to newer versions of films. CNN HD doesn't even stretch, they merely leave the image 4:3 formatted and merely add logo panels on either side to fill the unused real estate. Scifi HD just leaves black panels on the sides of the NTSC stock for just about everything they show, except Stargate Atlantis.
And, yes, my cable company also compresses the HD signal... reducing HD even further.
It will be a slow process, but it will get better.
Score: 0
|