|
|
Posted by David Levy on 10/05/40 11:34
Jeff Rife wrote:
> Before, you were only talking about "useless things".
I was referring to a useless (for some people) thing that
substantially adds to the price of the appliance. I never claimed
that it would be practical for electronics manufacturers and retailers
to offer every custom configuration under the sun.
> Now, they have to be "useless but not dirt cheap".
They don't *have* to be anything. If someone wants to sell television
monitors without analog tuners or speakers, they can go right ahead.
If they want to offer versions of the same unit with varying
numbers/types of inputs, or different remote controls, or with/without
certain cables in the box, that's fine too.
It's my subjective opinion that most (if not all) of these ideas are
bad, but it's a free country (so to speak).
You've stated your opinion that it's a bad idea to offer models
lacking ATSC tuners, and I respectfully disagree.
> Also, if you had checked out the price of plastics lately,
> you'd know that although speakers in a TV might be cheap,
> in any large stereo TV, the additional plastic to keep them
> inside the set can add $50-100 to the price of the set.
If that's so, perhaps it _wouldn't_ be such a bad idea to offer models
without speakers. Again, I have no objection.
> > From the manufactures' standpoint, the increased costs
> > associated with producing and distributing these additional
> > models likely would negate much of the already modest
> > savings in raw component expenses.
> OK, but since it's the same with ATSC tuners, where does your
> argument go?
My argument is that it *isn't* the same (because the cost of an ATSC
tuner is greater).
And as you pointed out, manufactures seldom (if ever) offer otherwise
identical models with only this one difference; typically, other
additional features accompany the ATSC tuner (rendering price
comparisons somewhat difficult). In other words, there are going to
be several different models in any given line, and it isn't as though
the model(s) lacking an ATSC tuner exist solely for this reason.
> Those $800 30" 16:9 HDTVs aren't $800 because the ATSC tuner
> costs a lot... they are $800 because the display costs a lot
> to be able to handle HD.
I certainly haven't suggested that an ATSC tuner adds as much to a
television set's expense as the HD display capabilities do.
> The 27" RCA SD
I assume that you meant "HD."
> 4:3 sets with ATSC tuners have MSRPs of $549, which should
> result in street prices of $500 at most (to compare apples to
> apples).
That's $50 more than the street price of my Samsung 27" 4:3 HDTV
monitor (without an ATSC tuner), assuming that no discounts have been
taken.
A better comparison, however, would be between two otherwise identical
models from the same line (which, as you noted, usually isn't
possible). Samsung offers a 27" 4:3 HDTV (with an ATSC tuner), but it
also includes other additional features (which contribute to the $150
street price difference).
> > Are you claiming that ATSC tuners cost the same amount to
> > manufacture as NTSC tuners?
> Not enough extra compared to the cost of an HDTV monitor to
> be significant.
You stated that an ATSC tuner "needs to be in every TV." Do you wish
to amend this to include only HDTVs?
> Prices for HDTVs have dropped in the sense that entry level
> is lower, but equivalent sets haven't dropped as much as
> people believe, since most current "equivalent" sets have
> more features than older sets.
I thought that you wanted "to compare apples to apples." Paying
approximately the same amount for a product with "more features" is
tantamount to paying a lower price (especially when one factors the 8%
inflation experienced between 2001 and now).
> So, we're back to talking about speakers, NTSC tuners, PIP
> circuitry, etc. Many people find much of that "entirely
> undesired", but have to pay for it because they want a 50"
> display.
By all means, contact the electronics manufactures and retailers to
request that they offer the exact product that you desire.
> BTW, try to find a cable-ready NTSC tuner for "dirt cheap"
> sometime...I think you'll find that $25 is easily the least
> you'll pay.
Are you seriously comparing the cost of an internal component to the
cost of a standalone device? So much for "apples to apples."
> Since you can get a similar set from RCA
I happen to be a big fan of Samsung's CRT displays.
> but *with* ATSC tuner for MSRP $549, compare that to the
> MSRP of the unit you bought,
I ignore MSRPs entirely. The fairest cost comparison is that of a
particular retailer's regular prices.
> and you'll see that when those RCA units hit the same
> "closeout deal" you got,
Who said anything about a "closeout deal"? The regular price is
$449.99, the special sale price was $427.49, I had a coupon redeemable
for a 10% discount on any TV or TV monitor costing $399 or more, and
I'm receiving $12.69 in rebates from FatWallet.com.
That brings my cost (before sales tax) down to $372.05, but I could
have applied the same 10% discount and FatWallet rebates to the
aforementioned RCA model (which would have been just as likely to have
been on sale), if not for the fact that Circuit City doesn't appear to
carry it.
> it'll be the same price. Heck, they might street at $400.
Who knows what the model that I purchased will cost by then?
And again, I specifically wanted this particular Samsung model. I
don't know how the aforementioned RCA model compares, because I've
been unable to locate it on any website (including RCA.com).
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|