Posted by David Levy on 01/10/92 11:34

Jeff Rife wrote:

> > Integrated analog tuners and speakers of average quality
> > are dirt cheap, so it doesn't make sense to exclude them.

> Oh, so now you get to change the rules.

What rules? Companies are permitted to offer television monitors
without analog tuners or speakers, but have decided that such products
are not commercially viable. I agree.

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.

From the retailers' standpoint, the increased costs associated with
stocking and marketing these additional models (combined with the
likelihood of consumer confusion far exceeding that resulting from the
HD situation) render such units undesirable.

From the consumers' standpoint, any price difference would be
negligible, if not nonexistent. I'm never going to use the NTSC tuner
or speakers included with my new television monitor, but I wouldn't
have saved any significant monetary sum by purchasing an otherwise
identical model lacking these components.


> > Digital tuners will be similarly inexpensive in the
> > not-too-distant future, but they aren't today.

> Sure they are.

Are you claiming that ATSC tuners cost the same amount to manufacture
as NTSC tuners?


> There are RCA TVs with ATSC tuners with MSRPs *less* than
> the sets they replaced which did not have ATSC tuners.

You know darn well that the prices of all HD displays (with or without
ATSC tuners) have continually dropped, as is typical in the consumer
electronics industry. The overall reduction in HDTV prices (from the
previous generation to the current generation) is greater than the
current cost of an ATSC tuner, but that doesn't mean that ATSC tuners
are "dirt cheap" (by my definition of the term).


> > As mentioned above, however, there will be a point
> > (possibly very soon) at which ATSC tuners will become
> > cheap enough that it no longer pays to omit them.

> That point is already here. Many manufacturers try to
> charge a premium because the HDTV contains an ATSC tuner,
> but it adds less than $50 to the street price, and they
> still can make a profit.

In my experience, the figure is closer to $100, but let's assume that
it's dropped to $50. Why should I have been forced to pay an
additional $50 for something entirely undesired?

Everyone has different standards of what constitutes a substantial
amount of money. I, for example, wouldn't worry about a $5 or $10
premium, but $50 is a different story. For someone spending $3000 on
a high-end display, $50 is a drop in the bucket. For someone spending
$400 on an entry-level HD unit (as I did), $50 is 1/8 of the purchase
price. And what about someone spending $100 on a low-end SD model?
Not everyone is made of money, you know.

[Back to original message]