On Fri, 21 Nov 2003 08:06:03 -0600, Do What?
wrote:

Because it would be redundant. Many people already have as many as
three tuners, one in the cable/satellite box, one in the TV and one in
the VCR.

I disagree. Obviously it woulda been redundant for some, maybe even
most, but not for all. As the hub of the entertainment center it
takes 1 button press to switch between all the a/v inputs (dvd, vcr,
game system, etc) that are output to the tv. But switching back to
tv also requires changing the input on the tv. Obviously, many used
the vcr as the tuner, but running the signal through 2 devices instead
of 1 never helped the output.

But those systems are still there. So now, you've got the consumer
paying for a *third* tuner.

Also, many receivers for a decent time weren't programmable. Meaning
if you used the receiver for audio, you had to use two remotes... 1
for channels, one for volume.
Redundant, maybe... but woulda made things just a lil bit more
simplistic.

I think they were looking at the fact that you couldn't buy a VCR *or*
a TV without a built-in tuner and so, there wasn't a huge need to
provide a third one.

Also, with as many as 1000 channels now available, the best
thing is simply to use the tuner in the cable/sat box,

Agreed... like I stated originally. Obviously it's not even an
option to consider now. But was just curious as to why it was never
at least tried in the past.

I think it was a cost/vs redundancy issue (especially at the price
point that you mention). By the time that receivers became "AV"
receivers, cable and satellite had already made huge inroads. Before
that, people didn't think so much about integrating their video
systems, with the exception of the audio portion of audio/video.

There would have
to be a reason for the receiver manufacturers to want to displace the
cable box and there isn't any.

Sure there was. Coulda had one more option than the competitor, for a
minimal cost.

But it's doubtful that even that "minimum cost" would have been able
to be integrated in the type of cheap receivers that you are talking
about without bumping it into a new price niche. If the chip (or card)
cost the manufacturer $10 (for example), now you're talking about
probably another $30 tacked on to the price of the receiver. Now, a
$199 receiver is a $230 and it's not an advantage with its former
direct competitors. It's now compteting with a different class
entirely.

Just my thoughts on the matter.
Before programmable remotes were standard, it coulda
replaced another remote. Ableit not by a geat deal, would made
day-to-day use just a lil bit easier for those that used it.