"dave weil" wrote in message
On Fri, 21 Nov 2003 09:46:06 -0500, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:
"dave weil" wrote in message
news
On Fri, 21 Nov 2003 06:29:10 -0500, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:
Speaking of your avg, run of the mill Sony, Pioneer, etc. home
theater receiver...
Why have built-in cable tv tuners never been introduced to these?
(or have they & Im just unaware?)
Again, obviously Im not talking about some ultra-high-end setup,
just your typical receivers that someone walks out of Best Buy
with.
They are pretty much designed to be the hub of the entertainment
system.. with just about all A/V sources being able to be plugged
into the receiver, and have 1 output to the tv. So why not
include a cable-TV tuner?
Good question, given that entire cable-ready tuner systems are
being slapped onto PC video cards by ATI, Asus, and a number of
smaller manufacturers.
ATI is offering such a "cable-ready" chip that will be part of
future TV and receiver sets, but, because of the cost and the fact
that it would be a value-added upgrade for more sophisticated
receivers, I doubt you will see it in the type of receivers that
the poster was asking about.
Given that we didn't see the 125 channel cable-ready TV tuners in
receivers ever, that seems like a safe bet. I think that Mr. What's
question is a good one - why not put a TV tuner in an AV receiver?
It would at worst differentiate itself from the other 100 or more
look-alikes that it competes with on the shelves of the big-box
stores and web sites.
I addressed that in my earlier post. It's a matter of margins.
And of course, Dave Weil is always 100% right about *everything*
Your theories are bogus. The world isn't that much of a rigidly-defined
place.
For such a tuner feature to really be useful these days, it would
need to be cable-ready and the 125 channel sound cards that you're
talking about wouldn't be very useful for a growing number of
consumers.
Actually, 125 channel video cards are growing trend in mainstream
PCs. Microsoft has even come out with a special version of XP that
among other things, supports them.
This doesn't mean that the card will displace their cable/satellite
box though.
Of course Weil, I never said any such thing. So this becomes another one of
your straw man "debating trade" arguments.
It's useful for those who want to watch TV on their PC at
work, or on their computer at home. It's *not* as useful as a
replacement for the cable pox at the point of someone's HT system.
It seems to me that avoiding a "cable pox" is at least as desirable as
avoiding the chicken pox.
You need to get out more, Weil.
Isn't it funny how you can't stay civil in *any* conversation with me?
Just like you Weil to pretend that an anticipatory strike is actually an act
of aggression. You and Al Quida should compare notes especially given that
they are at least marginally successful while you're a total failure.
http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/m...on/default.asp
And they will never address the interactive aspect of modern cable
and satellite boxes.
Never is a big word. That vision thing has long eluded you, Weil. I
still remember the rant you went on when I first suggested that
people replace CD changers with hard drives. It was such a stupid
idea that 100,000's of people now walk around with them in their
pocket.
Once again, you can't stop with the personal attacks. That's fine.
It's also a very factual comment, Weil. If you would admit that you're not
Mr. Perfect 100% of the time, things could be different. It's too bad that
this lack of vision thing doesn't infect virtually everything that you say
around here. Prefer vinyl much?
However, considering the different formats for interactivity (which
has already been addressed by someone else), I can't see how it would
*ever* be accomplished, especially since it's going to be rare thing
just to have the decoder chip in a very few receivers in the first
place.
As I said in another post, its an open question whether the nexus of modern
HT systems will be receivers or a HTPC. There's already a sort of
reverse-osmosis creeping in, taking the form of time-shifting satellite
receivers. Those are just limited-function HTPCs with a hidden OS interface.
Ditto for any of the game boxes.
For a receiver to address the interactivity of *my* satellite box, for
instance, it would also have to add a phone jack.
Again we see the well-known Weil lack of vision. Why would a person bother
putting a phone jack on a receiver in the 21st century? Wouldn't a LAN
interface (wired, wireless) be more to the point? Of course it would.
Doesn't Weil already use a LAN interface to surf the web? Why can't he put 2
and 2 together?
Hence my former comments about HTPC versus receiver. About 20 years ago some
people scoffed when I predicted that in time nobody would bother building
something as mechanically complex as a typewriter without putting a CPU in
the box. A lot of people nodded. Today, its already true that nobody builds
something as technically complex as a receiver without putting a CPU in the
box. It's only a matter of time until that CPU grows, and grows, and...
You might as well ask why receivers don't include integrated DVD
players.
You obviously don't get out enough, Weil. Time to stop listening to
those ancient Klipsch Cornwalls and speakers from your
classic-but-broken collection, and stick your nose out of the door
while the sun still shines.
More personal attacks.
Weil, they are just more factual comments about the absolute hilarity of
your comments about receivers that don't include integrated DVD players or
phone jacks.
I think that history bears out *my* take on things.
Weil, history bears out the fact that sensing the future or even grasping
the present is way over your head. We've got your past embarrassing comments
about hard drives for music storage, and your ludicrous current comments
about receivers with phone jacks and integrated DVD players. One nice thing
about waiting tables in a bar is that the technology doesn't change THAT
fast, or at least management can keep you isolated from it, eh Weil?