dslreports logo
site
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


Search Topic:
uniqs
8
share rss forum feed


ITALIAN926

join:2003-08-16
kudos:2
Reviews:
·Verizon FiOS
reply to Skippy25

Re: If people like

.... and you think the incumbents should spend a massive amount of money for others to innovate and profit? Makes perfect business sense. I guess they should do it for the sake of "progress".

Im not against fast networks, Google Gbps is complete overkill, at the moment. We'll see if they invent something to utilize the bandwidth. If I had a choice to pay $70 a month for 20/5 , or $80 for symmetrical 1Gbps, guess which one I choose. Guess which one MOST people would choose.


damacu

join:2012-07-18

The data above (and in the study) shows that the uptake rate counters your "guess which one MOST people would choose" argument. Last I checked, 60% is a majority (that's a synonym with the word most).

It's the same reason the iPhone penetrates the smartphone market so well. Under your logic, everyone would own a Nexus4 or less, and not a more expensive product, such as the iPhone.

It's why the median car price in America is $30,000, and not $17,000. Most people can see the value in a nicer car with more features. Do both drive down the same roads? Yep. So why pay more for something? Because the not everyone (or even most people) operates under a purely utilitarian rationale.

A cost-benefit analysis dictates that marginally better products and services can overwhelm a market, even at a higher price, because of features that are seldom used--yet potentially offer greater comfort, or peace of mind, etc.

The rest of the world is driving a $70,000 car, and only paying for the $15,000 model. The question is, "why are we so inefficient?" Not, "do we really need this?"



ITALIAN926

join:2003-08-16
kudos:2

60% "interested" doesnt mean a 60% adoption and penetration rate.


damacu

join:2012-07-18

Why do we have TVs of 120Hz, when movies max at 30fps? Let me guess, you don't have a home-built computer with high-end components, either?



ITALIAN926

join:2003-08-16
kudos:2

Well , since youre the expert, please explain how Hz applies to HDTV's. Because there is a huge obvious difference between 60 Hz and 120Hz, both of which would be higher than 30Hz.

Do cycles per sec equate to frames per sec? Hmm?


damacu

join:2012-07-18

I'd like to let this thread speak for me: »fps converted to hz. 120fps = 120hz?



ITALIAN926

join:2003-08-16
kudos:2

Not really a help, but 60Hz Vs 120Hz+ is totally noticeable, both of which are higher than 30fps


damacu

join:2012-07-18

Only in regards to Interlace vs. Progressive.

The point is that 120Hz Refresh exists where no product can yet fulfill. 60Hz would be fine for a 30fps 1080p video, which is what every BlueRay is. Why the overkill with 120Hz? Because new content is being created that can tap into it.

Infrastructure has to be there before the consumer can take advantage of emerging technologies. Anyone who has built their own computer knows this. Will a Core 2Duo work fine for most things? Absolutely. Is the Quad-Core i7 paired with a GTX690 overkill? Absolutely. Is one future-proofed, and therefore justify the build-costs? Only you can be the judge of that.



ITALIAN926

join:2003-08-16
kudos:2

This is off topic, but according to your info, 120Hz DOES accommodate 1080i, which is the best that stations broadcast at. 60Hz looks like crap compared to 120Hz.



Joey1973

@verizon.net
reply to damacu

Because 120 is evenly divisible by both 24 and 30--nothing dropped, nothing inserted. (You do know what makes the numbers '24' and '30' significant, right?)



Guspaz
Guspaz
Premium,MVM
join:2001-11-05
Montreal, QC
kudos:23

1 recommendation

reply to ITALIAN926

120 is the lowest common multiple of 60, 30 and 24, all of which are common framerates used to display content on HDTVs.

If you try to display 24 FPS content on a 60Hz display, it's not possible to display each frame for a consistent amount of time. Some frames will have to be shown twice, some will have to be shown three time, and as a result the movement will be less smooth (it will jitter a bit).

If you only ever displayed 30 and 60 FPS content (broadcast TV), it wouldn't matter, 24 FPS content (movies) is what throws the wrench in the works.
--
Developer: Tomato/MLPPP, Linux/MLPPP, etc »fixppp.org



ITALIAN926

join:2003-08-16
kudos:2

Wow Guspaz, thanks for explaining that, I actually learned something here today


Skippy25

join:2000-09-13
Hazelwood, MO
reply to ITALIAN926

said by ITALIAN926:

.... and you think the incumbents should spend a massive amount of money for others to innovate and profit?

Not at all. I think they should spend a massive amount of money to continually update their networks to fulfill the demands of their customers because they charge us a massive amount of money and are capable of doing so and they for the most part are a duopoly or monopoly in a vast majority of every market in the US.

Others will continue to innovate and profit on their own. It is the American way.

You can argue until you are blue in the face if you want, but one FACT will remain: Your stance on this would be considered wrong by virtually everyone in technology and would only be supported by those that have a direct financial interest in NOT innovating and upgrading.


firephoto
We the people
Premium
join:2003-03-18
Brewster, WA
reply to ITALIAN926

said by ITALIAN926:

.... and you think the incumbents should spend a massive amount of money for others to innovate and profit? Makes perfect business sense. I guess they should do it for the sake of "progress".

Im not against fast networks, Google Gbps is complete overkill, at the moment. We'll see if they invent something to utilize the bandwidth. If I had a choice to pay $70 a month for 20/5 , or $80 for symmetrical 1Gbps, guess which one I choose. Guess which one MOST people would choose.

The incumbents that spend billions of dollars to make sure that current non-incumbents don't build population backed networks that are faster than what incumbents offer? Or are there some other cheap, friendly, local, non-corporate.. incumbents that I've missed somewhere.

How about the non-incumbents get to do whatever the hell they want without interference like the interference in my state where PUBLIC network providers CANNOT sell internet to the PUBLIC!

A bunch of stupid pathetic industry shills and and the people that believe they're just concerned consumers is the downfall of broadband in the united states. Go freedom! (as long as it doesn't interfere with decades old corporate monopolies)
--
Say no to astroturfing. actions > Ignore Author


kamm

join:2001-02-14
Brooklyn, NY
reply to ITALIAN926

You could clearly learn a LOT MORE here today if you were willing to listen instead of buying into cablecorps' propaganda nonsense...