HDTV Almanac - CES 2010: The Big Story

Bruce Berkoff used to be a senior officer at LG-Philips LCD (now LG Display), and has since moved on to Applied Materials. In his presentations he always referred to the WAF - the Wife Acceptance Factor. His point was always that it didn't matter how good the technical specs were, if the display didn't look good it wasn't going to find its way to your living room.

This column reminded me of his talks...

Bruce and I are friends, and I often remind him that his WAF term is sexist. The politically-correct term (that I coined) is the Significant Other Factor of Approval, also known as the SOFA (which is more appropriate for the living room in any case). <g>

By the way Bruce wrote a book about buying HDTV, if you're interested: http://www.amazon.com/HDTV-Buying-Guide ... 0965197530. (Disclosure: I edited and published the book for Bruce.)

Alfred

Given the rate of progress in this field, the book is probably already outdated.

Larry

It's not about models; it's about principle features and how to make a choice. It's probably a little dated, but not badly.

Alfred

I wasn't thinking about models, of course. I was thinking about

1080i vs 1080p
CCFL backlight vs LED backlight
60 Hz refresh vs 120 Hz refresh or psuedo-240 Hz refresh with black strobe etc.

This field is tremendously dynamic. There are more breakthroughs in this field than any other I know. LCD fabs have gone through 5 generations since 2003. In that time, semiconductor fabs have only gone through one--from 200 mm to 300 mm.

It's not about the models, it's about the features and specifications.

Larry

You might be surprised at how current the book is.

1080i vs. 1080p: I don't know of any 1080i flat panels. The last native 1080i HDTVs that I know of were CRTs, which was years ago. Not an issue for this book.

CCFL vs. LED backlight (on LCD HDTVs): it's in the book.

60 Hz vs. 120 Hz refresh: it's in the book.

pseudo-240 Hz refresh with black strobe: it's not covered as "240 Hz", but scanning backlights are covered.

Bruce Berkoff knows his stuff, and even though the book was published a bit more than a year ago, it still covers the basics well and would help non-expert users get up to speed on the basic issues that make a difference. Granted, I have an interest in the project, but I'd say the same even if I didn't.

Alfred

Alfred,

Skype in televisions... It’s a big deal.

A very astute observation, from someone who's been around long enough to recognize it. And yet it seems to have slipped under many people's radars. If marketed properly, this will not only sell a lot of new sets, but be a vastly better discriminating feature than 120/240/480 Hz refresh rates. It has the potential to be a very big deal.

I like to say that men care what their HDTVs look like when they’re turned on

Hmmm. The TV or the men?

So look at what Skype on your TV does; it brings family and friends into your living room through a video phone call. And it’s a free service. And it does not require that you haul in an ugly desktop computer and hook it up to your television in some weird and awkward way. The Skype feature is built in, and making a call is not much harder than changing channels. The Skype on TV feature is one that women are going to love, once they know it’s there and understand what it can do for them.

This is all true, and the family and friends angle is a strong one. Built-in and easy to use will be key factors. But that's not the only demographic. In today's connected society, with all the on-line social interactions, forget Facebook... you can have real-time face-to-face chats. One thing that will be quick to follow will be conference calls, with multiple friends all in on the same chat.

And that also opens things up to video teleconferencing on the cheap for small businesses. And multi-player gaming, where PIP windows have talking heads from each player, arrayed in a row along the bottom or side of the main playing area. This is an opportunity that's wide open, and with the ability to talk Face-to-Face(tm) to people worldwide will have huge ramifications.

If they were smart about it, they’ll be running full page ads in Better Homes and Gardens showing grandparents talking to their children and grandchildren on their television, with the grandmother holding the remote control.

Yes. Or small business mags. Or mags for teens (or promos on Facebook). Or gamers magazines. Or Playboy, for that matter (referring back to my initial question).

One thing that's been "big-hyped" in the past was "convergence", where computer-based capabilities were being brought into the living room. To make that work though, you need a compelling application (e.g., video Skype), coupled with ease of use. We've been seeing lots of functions moving from PCs into set-top boxes, and now moving right into the TV set itself (DVRs, media players, etc.) This time, they're jumping right past the box and moving directly into the set with Skype.

This feature alone easily could sell more sets in the next two years than 3D. It’s a big deal.

Absolutely.

- Tim

Thanks for the long reply, and I'm encouraged that you agree with my analysis. Now we can wait and see if we're right!

Alfred

Personally I think this is great idea, but we should ask ourselves why don't we already have it? Many cell phones these days already have video. Quite a few businesses today use video conferencing. Why, in some form, is it not already in the home?

And what has become really popular? Texting! Not only is there no video, there's not even audio! I suspect that rather than a cry for better communication, the attractive feature here is anonymity.

I think the real answer has to do with vanity. I dare say many, if not most, women would prefer audio for the simple reason they don't want to have to put on makeup, wear presentable clothes etc. for a video call. Sure, it's a great idea for that special call on Xmas to relatives, but as an everyday way to communicate? I know what my wife's reaction to this idea was: horror.

Personally I think this is great idea, but we should ask ourselves why don't we already have it? Many cell phones these days already have video. Quite a few businesses today use video conferencing. Why, in some form, is it not already in the home?

The reason we don't have something like the business "telepresence" systems in the home is that they are priced in the tens of thousands of dollars. Also, it requires an IT department and separate hardware. Skype on your TV requires nothing more than a wireless network in your home. Think back to when the personal computer arrived; up until then, computing required on-staff wizards and investments of $100,000 or more. Of course, nobody expected computing in the home at that point, except maybe through a terminal to a mainframe somewhere. Then the personal computer arrived, and now we think nothing of carrying the equivalent of a supercomputer in our pockets.

I would buy your wife's reaction if the question was "would you like to make all your phone calls on the television?" I expect the answer would be different if you asked "Would you like to be able to see and interact with your toddler grandchild when you want?" It's like DVRs; people -- and often women -- don't get what they can do for you until they use one, and then they wonder why they waited so long to get it. It happened with TiVo, and I believe it will happen with Skype on your TV.

Alfred

Have you seen Microsoft's demo on this subject? Their answer to this question seems to be to leap ahead with a more sophisticated idea, more like telepresence than just 2-way video. Reading between the lines, I suspect that offering services that are a hybrid between voice communication and advanced concepts like speech recognition, AI-driven virtual helpers etc. is a way to extend their video game technology into the arena of communication. Their demo is really jaw-dropping. In one scenario, a real person hands a piece of paper to a virtual animated character on the screen who is able to read it. (!) (One of those things you have to see to believe.)

This, of course, was just a demo, not a product. But with the popularity of video games these days, something like this might just succeed. It might be a good thing for what you're talking about since it would get people used to thinking about their TV as a communication device, shifting the paradigm so to speak.

I have not seen Microsoft's demo, and I've no doubt that it is more sophisticated and powerful than Skype. But that's the point. Skype is free. And it is not great, but it works well enough most of the time. And it's easy to use.

There is time enough for "better" down the road, but right now, Skype has the right feature set at the right price. It will be like the original slow, heavy desktop PC that created the demand that has led to netbooks that slip into your coat pocket. It's a very important first step that will change people's expectations of what you do with a "television". (Which, by the way, means "see at a long distance", which covers Skype video calls pretty well, I'd say.)

Alfred

Does anybody remember Zenith TV's providing phone service 2-3 decades ago on their top of the line models? Had a phone jack on the back you plug the line into, the phone would ring and an incoming phone call message appeared on screen. Pushed a button and viola, you were having a phone conversation via your TV. Few owners actually used it.

I thought one of the satellite companies had a service that told you the phone was ringing but don't recall if it allowed actual communication.

I don't see the video phone and this Skype feature being a big deal but it might be a viable product to produce provided enough want it. A video phone tied to a display may very well be perceived like a phone with a cord - loss of mobility.

One thing is clear with each passing decade; the choices available for spending money just keep increasing exponentially.