|
As this forum is rarely used anymore, we've locked it. Feel free to browse and read. Questions? Please reach out to us directly. Cheers! |
|
 |
|
|
| Author |
Message |
Curt Palme
CRT Tech
Joined: 08 Mar 2006
Posts: 24396
Location: Langley, BC
TV/Projector: All of them!
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 25, 2014 2:09 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| ecrabb wrote: | It's a big step up from entry-level, but the price is where I can buy it, own it for 3-5 years, and flip it, and not feel guilty or like I'm living beyond my means.
SC |
I think the above is the problem with the typical consumer of today. That's not the way thinking was 30 years ago. Things were bought to last and to be kept for 30 years. I'm talking the average consumer. Take computers for example. I had to buy a new one last year, as my Dell was 13 years old, and beyond slow. Really though, from the day I owned a computer for the internet, and started using it daily, my needs haven't changed one iota. I'd still be fine with Windows XP and a Pentium 1.. as long as it ran at the speed that it did when I bought it.
I personally think that mankind is using up natural resources at an alarming speed with the '3-5 year' mentality. That's why manufacturers are only making stuff to last that long. Hell, for stereo use, give me a vintage Pioneer receiver over any of the new crap, including 'audiofool' stuff any day of the week.
I know I'm in the minority here, and I'll never change anyone's mind, but that's the way I feel about electronics today.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
ecrabb
Forum Moderator
Joined: 13 Mar 2006
Posts: 15909
Location: Utah
TV/Projector: JVC RS40, Epson 5010
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 25, 2014 3:28 pm Post subject: |
|
|
That's not a "problem" with the consumer, Curt. Times have simply changed. It's a symptom, not the cause. It's not "throwaway" mentality or because manufacturers plan obsolescence (though those certainly are factors, too), but because we're simply developing technology much more quickly than we have in the past.
30 or 35 years ago, you could buy a receiver and expect to use it almost indefinitely because honestly, not much would change between when you bought something and several years later, if it all. Hell, manufacturers often sold the identical model for several years, and in actuality, the only reason to roll out a new model was primarily only for competitive advantage, not because technology got any better. I'm talking mass-market here, not boutique of course.
Today, it's an entirely different story. There are new technologies, capabilities, and standards rolling out literally every year. Audyssey gets better. Video processing gets better. My Integra 9.9 from 5 years ago only had four HDMI inputs (plus several legacy component inputs). When I first got it, that was fine. Five years later, the current models all have 8 HDMI inputs, and my 9.9 is totally inadequate because I don't have a single source I want to run component anymore, and I was way short on HDMI inputs. That's just one example. Never mind 3D, 4k, superior Audyssey, etc.
I'm glad you'd prefer a vintage Pioneer receiver over something new. That's great. But, for the other 90% of us, that vintage receiver is useless because it won't do what we want it to do. I don't want a system put together with a hodgepodge of bailing wire and duct tape so I can mix and match "vintage" legacy technology with new stuff. That's a great example, though.
Right now, I need a receiver for my new living room. Three sources: DirecTV, BD, and Apple TV. I thought about spending $60 or $70 on an HDMI switch with SPDIF audio out, and sending core audio to my wife's old (pre-HD) Yamaha AVR. Put an IR emitter on the HDMI switch, put one on the Yamaha, and have no feedback on the system. For $250-350 though (depending on new or refurb), I can get an Onkyo or Denon AVR from accessoriesforless, get advanced audio, room setup/correction, sub out, HDMI ARC so the TV audio will go back to the speakers, IP control with two-feedback, streaming, and a Zone 2 preamp-out so I can throw some speakers on the patio. To me, it's a no-brainer. The old Yamaha is going to the garage for garage tunes, and I'm getting a new receiver for the living room.
I'm don't see how there's necessarily anything "alarming" about our natural resource consumption. Compared to what? We're recycling at historic levels, and that's only increasing. There are huge recycling programs now that didn't exist 10 or even 5 years ago. Most trend estimates I've seen show population growth slowing significantly or even reversing in the next 2-3 decades.
I'm not suggesting we all buy cheap, Chinese junk. Quite the contrary, in fact. Buy better whenever possible. Buy from companies that manufacture more local to us whenever possible. I also get that you'd probably say on some levels, all electronics has become cheap Chinese junk, and on some level I'd agree. On the other hand, it's great to be able to buy a nice TV that doesn't have to cost several months' worth of pay. In a way, lots of technology has become accessible to much more of the world instead of so much of it being accessible to the wealthy.
Speaking of resources, prices, and TVs, I have another example: Last month, I bought two brand new TVs from Best Buy for our new living room and bedroom. They were both on sale for $200 off, so I got a 55 and a 50 - both Panasonic LEDs - for $700 and $500 respectively. $1200 for two TVs! I don't remember the exact price, but I'm pretty sure that's far less than what my old man spent for a single 27" XBR in the late-80's, and that doesn't even account for inflation! Oh, and the XBR weighed far more than both my two TVs put together! Can you imagine how many more resources were expended to manufacture and ship the old XBR's compared to a 25-pound LED flat panel today?
The bottom line is I think there's as just much good as there is bad to the "cheapening" of technology.
SC
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
macgyver655
Joined: 22 Aug 2007
Posts: 8508
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 25, 2014 4:35 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| ecrabb wrote: | On the other hand, it's great to be able to buy a nice TV that doesn't have to cost several months' worth of pay. In a way, lots of technology has become accessible to much
SC |
The problem I have with this is that these manufacturers could make them to last longer for very little money. The main problem in longevity is the caps. If they just used a better quality cap all these electronics would last substantially longer. And really, how much more would it cost. Even if they paid a nickle a piece more for a cap and there were 50 to install your looking at 2.50 a device. Who wouldn't pay and additional 2.50 for a device that would most likely last 5 to 10 times its life span.
They intentionally build them to fail in a very short period of time so as to make more sales. Has nothing to do with making them more affordable for everyone.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
macgyver655
Joined: 22 Aug 2007
Posts: 8508
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 25, 2014 4:40 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
How old is considered a "vintage Pioneer" lol?
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
km987654
Joined: 25 Jul 2007
Posts: 2874
Location: Australia
TV/Projector: Barco BG809s
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 25, 2014 4:41 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Technology certainly improves each year and its those improvements that are sold to us. How many of these improvements actually amount to anything real i wonder. How many colours can you actually see how high a resolution is actually required for a great picture experience how high a fidelity is necessary for great sound.
How much of what is available actually adds noticeable value to the experience. Are manufacturers on a merry go round they can't escape.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
km987654
Joined: 25 Jul 2007
Posts: 2874
Location: Australia
TV/Projector: Barco BG809s
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 25, 2014 4:42 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Technology certainly improves each year and its those improvements that are sold to us. How many of these improvements actually amount to anything real i wonder. How many colours can you actually see how high a resolution is actually required for a great picture experience how high a fidelity is necessary for great sound.
How much of what is available actually adds noticeable value to the experience. Are manufacturers on a merry go round they can't escape.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Spanky Ham
Joined: 22 Mar 2006
Posts: 5643
Location: Comedy Central
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 25, 2014 4:54 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Steve,
I can do you dad one better. I remember buying my Panasonic top of the line tv in Dec '95. It was a 30" and had temp adjust (crude, but it worked ok). I paid $1200 for it. Except for the Barcos, I haven't paid that much for any of my pjs.
On Pioneer, this story is kind of old. The new part of the equation is that the investment firm bowed out. I realize this is biased, but the Pioneer reps at Cedia believed this was a good thing. Their feeling was that they could be flipped again if the firm had stayed in. Right now, both sides say that Pioneer will stay an independent subsidiary.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ecrabb
Forum Moderator
Joined: 13 Mar 2006
Posts: 15909
Location: Utah
TV/Projector: JVC RS40, Epson 5010
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 25, 2014 5:57 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| macgyver655 wrote: | | ecrabb wrote: | On the other hand, it's great to be able to buy a nice TV that doesn't have to cost several months' worth of pay. In a way, lots of technology has become accessible to much
SC |
The problem I have with this is that these manufacturers could make them to last longer for very little money. The main problem in longevity is the caps. If they just used a better quality cap all these electronics would last substantially longer. And really, how much more would it cost. Even if they paid a nickle a piece more for a cap and there were 50 to install your looking at 2.50 a device. Who wouldn't pay and additional 2.50 for a device that would most likely last 5 to 10 times its life span.
They intentionally build them to fail in a very short period of time so as to make more sales. Has nothing to do with making them more affordable for everyone. |
I don't disagree with you that they could use better caps, and that it would be better if the stuff lasted longer. But, I wasn't claiming new technology was affordable because of cheap components. Consumer electronics are mostly cheaper than they used to be because the A) the materials are cheaper, B) there's less of those materials, and C) the production is FAR cheaper. Far less human hands touching this stuff now than there was 30 years ago, and the human hands that are touching them are for less costly than they used to be. One word: China.
All that said, I don't think it's as so much a conspiracy to design stuff to fail, i.e. planned obsolescence (though like I said, that certainly does happen). Rather, globalization and automation has simply made consumer electronics a hyper-competitive industry, with razor-thin margins. Everybody is looking for a way to make a few more points. There's a name for it: Value engineering. By reducing the cost, you increase value.
So, yes - maybe it would only cost $5/set to use better, longer-lasting parts throughout a TV. But, to a company like Samsung that sells nearly 100 million sets per year, that's half a billion dollars. Every year! Over a five year period, that's $2.5 billion dollars! Given that we've established that technology is marching on increasingly quickly, and for the most part that electronics are often obsolete (or at least very outmoded) in 7-10 years, why spend $2.5 billion dollars every five years to engineer stuff to last significantly longer than that? That's not my opinion as much as I think it's sort of a rhetorical question or even just a reality.
I know it seems counter-intuitive, but it costs real money - huge money in the aggregate - to make things last longer.
I'm not saying I don't agree that we should all be willing to pay a few more bucks to having higher-quality things that last longer - I actually do agree. But, that's not the way market forces work. What you and I want isn't the same as what the masses want. The masses value "cheaper" over "longer-lasting". Longer-lasting is totally nebulous and intangible (to a consumer), while price is immediately tangible. Unless there's some massive sea-change and consumers start valuing durability and longevity (and have some way to gauge it), they'll continue buying on value, and the products will continue to be engineered for the same.
SC
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ecrabb
Forum Moderator
Joined: 13 Mar 2006
Posts: 15909
Location: Utah
TV/Projector: JVC RS40, Epson 5010
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 25, 2014 6:09 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Spanky Ham wrote: | Steve,
I can do you dad one better. I remember buying my Panasonic top of the line tv in Dec '95. It was a 30" and had temp adjust (crude, but it worked ok). I paid $1200 for it. Except for the Barcos, I haven't paid that much for any of my pjs. |
Oh, yeah… Remember how much RPTV's cost? The big Pioneer Elite sets were like $7500! My buddy's 65-inch 1080i Mitsubishi he bought in probably 2002 or so was at least $2500, weighed 250 pounds, took 3-4 people to move it into a house and took up a quarter of most people's rooms. Now you can buy a 65-inch Samsung for like $1800 and two people can hang it on a wall in less time than it took just to unbox the big RPTVs.
My buddy's Mits set is still in use in his basement, though it's getting pretty worn at this point. Of course all the flat panels that my dad and I have bought are all still working, too. I bought my wife a 37-inch Olevia in 2006 to get the giant 32 Panny CRT out of our tiny living room, and it's been used daily now for going on 8 years, and hasn't missed a beat. Paid $1000 for that thing after rebates. A TV like that is now a third of that price and is of course, far superior in pretty much every way.
Crazy.
SC
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
macgyver655
Joined: 22 Aug 2007
Posts: 8508
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 25, 2014 7:26 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| ecrabb wrote: | | macgyver655 wrote: | | ecrabb wrote: | On the other hand, it's great to be able to buy a nice TV that doesn't have to cost several months' worth of pay. In a way, lots of technology has become accessible to much
SC |
The problem I have with this is that these manufacturers could make them to last longer for very little money. The main problem in longevity is the caps. If they just used a better quality cap all these electronics would last substantially longer. And really, how much more would it cost. Even if they paid a nickle a piece more for a cap and there were 50 to install your looking at 2.50 a device. Who wouldn't pay and additional 2.50 for a device that would most likely last 5 to 10 times its life span.
They intentionally build them to fail in a very short period of time so as to make more sales. Has nothing to do with making them more affordable for everyone. |
I don't disagree with you that they could use better caps, and that it would be better if the stuff lasted longer. But, I wasn't claiming new technology was affordable because of cheap components. Consumer electronics are mostly cheaper than they used to be because the A) the materials are cheaper, B) there's less of those materials, and C) the production is FAR cheaper. Far less human hands touching this stuff now than there was 30 years ago, and the human hands that are touching them are for less costly than they used to be. One word: China.
All that said, I don't think it's as so much a conspiracy to design stuff to fail, i.e. planned obsolescence (though like I said, that certainly does happen). Rather, globalization and automation has simply made consumer electronics a hyper-competitive industry, with razor-thin margins. Everybody is looking for a way to make a few more points. There's a name for it: Value engineering. By reducing the cost, you increase value.
So, yes - maybe it would only cost $5/set to use better, longer-lasting parts throughout a TV. But, to a company like Samsung that sells nearly 100 million sets per year, that's half a billion dollars. Every year! Over a five year period, that's $2.5 billion dollars! Given that we've established that technology is marching on increasingly quickly, and for the most part that electronics are often obsolete (or at least very outmoded) in 7-10 years, why spend $2.5 billion dollars every five years to engineer stuff to last significantly longer than that? That's not my opinion as much as I think it's sort of a rhetorical question or even just a reality.
I know it seems counter-intuitive, but it costs real money - huge money in the aggregate - to make things last longer.
I'm not saying I don't agree that we should all be willing to pay a few more bucks to having higher-quality things that last longer - I actually do agree. But, that's not the way market forces work. What you and I want isn't the same as what the masses want. The masses value "cheaper" over "longer-lasting". Longer-lasting is totally nebulous and intangible (to a consumer), while price is immediately tangible. Unless there's some massive sea-change and consumers start valuing durability and longevity (and have some way to gauge it), they'll continue buying on value, and the products will continue to be engineered for the same.
SC |
I call bull**** to the part in red.
I don't think 5 bucks to the consumer would tip the scales. The cost would just be passed onto the consumer. So zero affect to the manufacturers bottom line. Future sales is more important to a manufacturer and what better way to secure that then to make a product with a short life span.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ecrabb
Forum Moderator
Joined: 13 Mar 2006
Posts: 15909
Location: Utah
TV/Projector: JVC RS40, Epson 5010
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 25, 2014 8:52 pm Post subject: |
|
|
You can call bull**** all you want; you're completely missing my point. Of course nobody would care about $5 or even $10. But, the manufacturers sure as hell care about billions or even hundreds of millions. Yes, one manufacturer could pass the costs on, but then their products would be higher-priced than their competitors. Market forces are macro effects; you're thinking on the micro- scale, i.e. what a consumer (like you or me) would accept. With margins as razor-thin as they are in CE, and with the volume that the large manufacturers do, a $5 increase in unit cost is huge. Why would one manufacturer voluntarily increase their costs and decrease their profits to add years of life to their products? Answer: They wouldn't.
Now, yes - future sales are important, but profitability in the immediate is even more so. Let's turn it around and take your supposition to its logical conclusion: If the manufactures are just designing their stuff to fail, then why haven't they moved to double their future sales by designing their products to fail in only 2-3 years instead of 5-6?
SC
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
macgyver655
Joined: 22 Aug 2007
Posts: 8508
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 25, 2014 9:20 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
Where are you seeing prices that close in the store?
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
macgyver655
Joined: 22 Aug 2007
Posts: 8508
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 25, 2014 9:24 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| ecrabb wrote: | If the manufactures are just designing their stuff to fail, then why haven't they moved to double their future sales by designing their products to fail in only 2-3 years instead of 5-6?
SC |
They are! Call some ASC's and ask them of their volume of failures. Find a local liquidator and look at there stock.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
nettwerkjohn
Joined: 08 Mar 2006
Posts: 921
Location: Blenheim, Marlborough, New Zealand
|
| Posted: Thu Oct 23, 2014 3:03 pm Post subject: |
|
|
what about TAD? still a (consumer) division of pioneer. just making squillions by actually charging for their product... id love an all TAD system... just don't wanna pay for it.
I have pioneer elite receiver, have friend with elite Blu-ray (that just died) and im considering moving to nu-force. just doesn't quite solve the issues.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Spanky Ham
Joined: 22 Mar 2006
Posts: 5643
Location: Comedy Central
|
| Posted: Fri Oct 24, 2014 3:18 am Post subject: |
|
|
|
I honestly don't remember what the Pioneer guy said about TAD
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum
|
Forum powered by phpBB © phpBB Group
|
|
