Gizmodo 
Enter your username and password.
Tip your editors:
Editorial Director:
Brian Lam | | Twitter
Editor:
Jason Chen
| AIM | Twitter
Features Editor:
Wilson Rothman
| Twitter
Senior Contributing Editors:
Jesus Diaz
| AIM | Twitter
Mark Wilson, Reviews
| AIM | Twitter
Contributing Editors:
Matt Buchanan
| AIM | Twitter
Adam Frucci
| Twitter
Sean Fallon
| Twitter
Jack Loftus
| Twitter
John Herrman
| Twitter
Dan Nosowitz
Chris Mascari
Kat Hannaford
| Twitter
Rosa Golijan
| Twitter
Chris Jacob
Columnist:
Brendan I. Koerner
Interns:
Don Nguyen
Kyle VanHemert
Comment Account Questions:
Original material is licensed under a Creative Commons License permitting non-commercial sharing with attribution.
12/15/09
12/15/09
....You mean make it a marginal standard that only high-end enthusiasts will truly care about for a small percentage of their collection? A standard that will never actually replace the previous model that it intended to displace? A standard that may, admittedly, live on for a long time but only at a percentage of the grandeur it had hoped to achieve?
Awesome. That's exactly what I want from 3DTV.
12/15/09
On one hand, it's a complete gimmick that they're really pushing on the consumer. It's OLD technology put into your living room for a Premium price. You still have to wear glasses, plus, you need to completely upgrade your media collection to get the 3D effect. It doesn't enhance the experience enough to justify the use; in fact, I think it would be harder to get into a movie when you're conscious of the screen.
On the other hand. This gimmicky bullsh*t is the stuff that drives cost down for basic models. You look at a lot of these high-end TVs, now, they all share the same panels as the lower/cheaper models, but they have all this stupid stuff built in that doesn't justify the extra cost. For example, Widgets, streaming media, ethernet connectivity, maybe different case styling, now it's going to be 3D.
When I buy a TV, I'm only looking for a 50" Monitor, I have a Mediacenter with all that stuff and tuners, etc. So I end up getting a great panel at a cheap price by opting not to go with all that BS.
12/15/09
02:29 AM
12/15/09
12/15/09
12/18/09
The problem with tvs with 11 dimensions is they have a significant chance of causing your brain to explode :3.
Do you want to understand it that badly?
12/19/09
12/15/09
12/15/09
As the technology becomes ubiquitous. A lot of people that buy these sets probably won't be seeking the feature out, but rather it will feature that happened to came with the higher-end HDTV set they purchased.
12/15/09
This info might be a little stale though, since I gathered it when idly pricing out potential 3D displays a few months back for PC gaming.
12/15/09
Not all 240Hz TVs can accept 3D signals, but in the future it most likely will.
A 3D standard is actually built into HDMI 1.4 specifications.
So in the future all displays that have HDMI will accept 3D, and I'm assuming several years down the line that all displays will have some level of 3D functionality built into them.
Whether people use it or not is an entirely different issue.
[www.hdmi.org]
12/12/09
12/12/09
12/12/09
I prefer blurriness and fuzz, because that's what real life looks like. Maybe it's because I have terrible vision and have to wear glasses- but it's all I know!
12/12/09
12/12/09
12/12/09
Not sure if that makes sense to you.
12/12/09
12/12/09
12/12/09
Accurate / true black level is more important too.
I was trying to say that 120Hz over 60Hz is hard to swallow at first because there is a lot of difference and it looks too real, but at least for me I found that I got used to it and rather like it now. I don't dislike TVs that don't have it, but it just a nice thing to have now that I am used to it.
12/12/09
12/12/09
12/12/09
12/12/09
12/12/09
12/12/09
12/11/09
12/10/09
Ultimately those screens were Chi Mei Optoelectronics property and they have the right to ask any price they want for them. If the market can't bear that then they'll be out done by the competition or have to lower prices. Fundamentally they are working with those providing similar services to strengthen their position... not any different from labor unions.
The answer to such "problems" is *less* not more economic intervention. Freedom in the market place gives the consumer the upper hand... not the producer. Intervention reverses that.
And obviously paying a fine paid to the government doesn't get any money back to the customers anyway. Name an instance when a government lowered taxes after receiving such a fine?
12/10/09
12/10/09
I agree totally in principal, however it only works within a local economy governed by the same people. When we open up the market to international vendors, run by different goverments, some restrictions must be placed to protect our interests globally. I veiw it as a necessesary evil.
Also consider patents on TFT-LCDs, there are fewer than a dozen manufacturers world-wide who are licensed to make them. If we barred half the worlds manufactures from selling in the US, demand would inflate the price above the fixed rate and consumers lose out anyway. Domestic production (which I favor anyway) costs significantly more than importing, so we still lose. If we do nothing, the price will not come down, but the demand for such devices won't be lowered either. Price fixing is tampering with the free market, it's just done from within conspiring businesses, rather than from within the government.
You are right, the market will eventually correct it's self as demand drives innovation and manufacture, promoting ethical businesses and so on. But where technology is concerned, the market itself likely won't survive long enough to self-correct. LCD technology is already on the way out. Other companies holding patents on newer technologies will displace the current offenders anyway. I suspect these companies know this, and it's a contributing factor in their decision to fix their prices. They can strong-arm the market and get as much as they can in the short term, to fund infrastructure and licensing on new ventures.
In the end, you are correct, government is incompetent to regulate such matters, and has the same self-serving agenda as the conspirators. It's just throwing more corruption atop another layer of corruption. Something needs to be done about such practices, but it's not the government's place. Still, in many cases, the consumer is powerless to stop it. I don't have an answer for it, but it's worth thinking about.
12/10/09
I'd sentence the CEO's and board of directors from every guilty company to 500 hours of community service, cleaning toilets at truck stops, and bar the sales of their products in the US until every employee sentenced has completed their term of service. They can pay the legal fees. The fine, while not excessive given the scope of their crimes are too great to serve the function of the law.
12/10/09
12/10/09
I'm a conservative libertarian (yes, I'm on of those nut-jobs). Maybe I'm crazy, but wouldn't the money be better spent in reparations to those specific consumers offended? If I purchased a monitor and payed 30% more due to price fixing, why should that money go to the system? What moral claim do they have to it that supercedes mine? If the government has a war to fund, debts to pay or roads to repair, I think they should budget their resources according to those needs, not grab money from judicial rulings after the fact. That practice calls into question the validity of such cases, the government's motive for pursuing them and the admittedly arbitrary monetary damages the offender have to pay.
You speak of conservatism, yet I don't think you grasp the fundamental concepts behind it. You're telling me to appreciate a system whereby the government seizes money from a company on the grounds of it being essentially stolen, then re-appropriates it to the needs of the masses when only a select few of citizenry are unwittingly floating the bill. That idea in practice becomes nothing more than a selective tax on those defrauded, but subverts the oversights of the tax code.
Put it another way: If a thief steals $100 from you, then I steal the $100 from the thief and use the money to fix a pothole in the road, am I morally justified just because I'm not the first one to steal that money? Is it okay to use your stolen money for the "public good"? I think you'd want your money back. What you speak of is socialism. It's why libertarians buy guns.
12/10/09
Because it would probably cost more to have people research/prove the purchasers than the effort would even be worth. All of the false claims would be retarded. Class Action Lawsuits where individuals get a cut never get enough to make it worth it. Once the lawyers get their cut, chump change is leftover. Honestly, that argument is no different that people having a problem with cops pulling us over for speeding and ticketing us. What gives them the right? I mean, if the consumer had a gripe about the price fixing, they would have sued. The government did the leg work, they spent the time and money, they should get a cut at least. It goes with the same reason why the courts get their cut for you speeding and so does the police force (indirectly). About the motive thing, I agree, as with almost anything our government does, there is a motive. It is either a special interest group, or a corporate tie, or insider trading scheme, or or or... I mean, there will always be some hidden agenda along the way. It is the reason I want America to wake the hell up and get rid of this stupid ass, archaic, party system. I is a breeding ground for personal agendas. It is way too easy to hide behind party lines when everyone is dirty!
I am not affiliated with any classification. I understand why people are conservative libertarians. I don't think you are crazy; not at all.
I don't necessarily think the Government should be able to go and take money away from anyone. More than anything, I am just trying to address that there is more than one side to this story. I don't know enough about the backstory, and neither does anyone reading this, to really know enough to say that their opinion is the correct one. I am not sure what the following is trying to get at though
"only a select few of citizenry are unwittingly floating the bill. That idea in practice becomes nothing more than a selective tax on those defrauded, but subverts the oversights of the tax code"
Well, if you mean that they money that was robbed schemed (not really a scam) is what is paying for all of the legal/research/etc, then, well, yes. I don't know it is necessarily selective. Those people chose to pay high prices for a service they agreed to pay for. It's not like there was hidden agendas in contractual statements that only a lawyer could decipher. We are talking about a situation where the government is getting back at the power players for taking advantage of the system. I mean, these companies are probably breaking/bending so many laws out there that are designed to help people (not make the millionaires - billionaires). I mean, seriously, the money, in a perfect world, should go to the people that lost it. I don't know, I mean, in this case, I don't think it really matters. I would normally distrust the decision. In this case, the only doubt I have is, why did they go after them? Was it a competitive company tipping them off, was it because a congressman got in bed with the competition, or something else along those lines.
Nice closing statement :) I feel you. The thing isn't so plain and simple. It would be more like, if a thief talked you into buying a rock for 10 dollars, they told you it was a rock, you were just too stupid to realize the rock wasn't worth it. Then I went in and took all of the money away from the thief and put the money into programs that made people not need to steal anymore LOL..
Sure... the analogy was Massengill, but it beats your Summers Eve.
12/09/09
12/09/09
I have a powerful 5.1 system with a nice big screen. The computer I use has Dual TV tuners built in, DVR, and technically my only limitation to apps is anything that is supported under Windows. Since the TV only functions as a monitor, my only interest is in the quality of the panel.
I've seen several TVs on the market, including Samsung, Sony, and Panasonic, where they put the same panel in 3 different TV lines and the difference in pricing is based on silly things, like widgets, speakers and the styling of the case.
12/08/09