Re: No HDMI a deal-breaker?

In article <dfd09n1lgj@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, <phil-news-nospam@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
>On Sat, 03 Sep 2005 14:02:55 GMT numeric <numeric@xxxxxxx> wrote:
>|
>| Why not? A five or even fifty year working expectancy is not at all
>| unreasonable. There are technical solutions to provide HD content from
>| an HD DVD device to a five year old HD TV, namely HD component video.
>| The only threat is Hollywood's copy protection issue. They demand a copy
>| protection infrastructure and demand that the consumer pay the costs. It
>| is Hollywood's copy protection demand that I find far more unreasonable
>| then a five or more year life expectancy from an HD TV.

The thing is, an HD-TV is just that, a TV capabale of displaying HD.
That's what it was advertised as doing when it was sold, that's what in
can do and will continue to be able to do for as long as it's broadcast
OTA or on cable that supports component out.

Blu-ray and HD-DVD are being clearly marketed as requiring HDMI or
DVI/HDCP. That fact has been clearly announced for over a year now, and
the technology is still at least another 6 months away. As the old
saying goes, caveat emptor.

I do agree that this entire situation is brought about because of
Hollywood's insistence on copy protection. And whilst I agree with you
that it's an unreasonable demand on legitimate consumers and likely to
result in them loosing business, possibly from the early aopters they
most need, at the end of the day, it's their copyright and they can
choose to licence it to you in any way they see fit.

At least in the UK, where HDTV is just being introduced to the market,
we are in the situation where some people have HDMI displays but most of
the TVs sold as HDTV ready only have component. Now, the first TV boxes
being released here will come with HDMI, and it is widely publicised that
HDMI will be required in the future. Here, though, they have made an
acknowledgement that early adopters may not have HDMI, component outputs
will also be provided and the broadcaster can decided on a per-programme
basis whether HDCP is required or not. But that is *their* choice as the
distributor.

>At the very least I would insist that Hollywood pay all the costs of the
>replacements so that those who bought in to HD early, will have HDCP since
>they were "late to the table" on this. Short of that, I would urge the
>government pursue an anti-trust case against the Hollywood cartel if they
>carry out their threats without ensuring they cover the costs to others of
>their instance on changing the rules of the game after the play has started.

Again, why should they? Watching any kind of TV, is a priviledge not a right.
Did you expect the government to replace all the Betamax recorders
people bought with VHS ones because they'd bought into videos early? Did
you expect everyone who invested in lots of 5 1/4" floppies and drives
should have government provided 3 1/2" floppies instead? What about
people who bought black and white TV sets just before colour was
introduced? Or what about people who bought into laserdisks?

Of course not, it's patently ridiculous. Anything bought which
represents the forefront of consumer technology is a risk. You buy it
because it meets your needs at the time.

>If you bought a pre-HDCP XX inch big screen HDTV set using a particular
>type of technology, then you should be able to trade it in for an HDCP-able
>XX inch big screen HDTV set using the same particular technology, with
>Hollywood covering all the differential, installation, and shipping costs,
>and doing it through the vendors (e.g. no "pay up front and get a rebate"
>crap, either). Your local store would have an installer bring out the new
>model, do the installation, and take away your old one, with nothing more
>that you have to do but sign an acknowledgement that he did bring it out.

My car doesn't have ABS brakes. Maybe my local garage could come out to
my house and swap it for a new one with ABS brakes. Free of charge. Oh,
and how about some A/C or electric windows whilst they're there. After
all, the car cost me far more than my TV, and it's so unfair.

Or maybe they should convert my car to run on LPG for me; after all the
oil is all going to run out in 10 years time, so they say, and then my
car will be obsolete. It's just not fair.

Ralf.
--
Ranulf Doswell | Please note this e-mail address
www.ranulf.net | expires one month after posting.
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Hugely OT: sound pressure
    ... seem to have remarkably grey blood running in your veins. ... FWIW, I started on a moped I bought off a teacher at school, ... car' then a Morris Minor van I bought for 25 quid. ... The fastest and most powerful bike I've ever owned and currently have ...
    (uk.comp.sys.mac)
  • Re: Cleaning well area on 67 Mustang
    ... The only one bought outside was a 71 with a CJ FMX combo. ... where the water from pooled water on the roads washed up and ... Sold that car to a couple ... Remove the heater box from below and attack the problem from inside ...
    (rec.autos.makers.ford.mustang)
  • Re: So this is my life...OT, and On Topic too...
    ... so we bought a new "vehicle". ... My first new car ever. ... spinal fracture in a year). ... Don Manning ...
    (rec.autos.makers.ford.mustang)
  • Re: H.L. Mencken Debunked
    ... My brother had a Jensen.. ... his dad bought him a new Jag XK150. ... I loved that car, but it was completely unreliable in every aspect possible. ... It was followed by a Lotus Cortina, which was an English Ford with an engine "worked on" by Lotus. ...
    (rec.boats)
  • Re: I Figured It Out
    ... Carol J wrote: ... I bought my first BF the car because he really was poor and his car ... with Jimmy who still tries to do the same and Jimmy is in FLA ...
    (alt.med.fibromyalgia)