Home Theater Magazine is manufacturing consent

Bouy... I am going to have to start a new blog called "Manufacturing Consent". After witnessing all the techniques of propaganda the NFL Network used to try to sell me on Devaney's plan to draft Sam Bradford, I have been sensitized this subject. For most people, it was Fox news trying to sell the public on Iraq II.

Often times, when confronted with a tough-sell situation, the powers that be (both economic and political) may seek the aid of major media outlets to help promoting the difficult agenda. The goal is to whip people up into a frenzy of excitement where there would naturally be none. Indeed, there might even be considerable concern, doubt and opposition to the program if the public is left unalloyed by shills.

So it is with the 3d "revolution" in home theater. Uptake is slow. Sales are slow. This is not just a function of a W shaped recession either. When purchasing new HDTVs, the buying public seems to show no preference for units that allegedly have 3d functionality. Whatever the reason may be, the public seems unwilling to spend money for the feature.

The marketing forces simply conclude that they are not doing a good enough job in pushing the technology. Enter Home Theater magazine. Witness the cover of the July 2010 issue (Volume 17 No. 7.) The cover headline says in massive letters:

3D NOW!

Not so subtile? Yep, uh-hun. I guess they want me to buy 3d now, eh? Yes... that's it. Not to leave any stone unturned, hyper-shill... errrr... Editor Shane Beuttner delivers the big message of the magazine right up front.

Back to the Future

The 3D Era is now.

He scribes a nice shill argument effectively saying "This is not a gimmick to sell B movies anymore" and "3d his here to stay." He couches this language a bit more carefully, but I am giving it to you straight, with no chaser.

He immediately shifts to the salesman soft-pedal. To help us all get ready for the 3d era, his testers and writers have worked hard to present a series of reviews, particularly one on the Samsung 8000. This is of course, the major-model from the heaviest advertiser... er... most successful 3d HDTV maker.

Turn a couple of pages to letters to the editor and you will see the following bit of text. Steve Smith in St. Paul Minnesota basically says that he is never going to jump 3d wagon because of 3d. "I would rather see a 3d movie in the theater, but even then I am not crazy about the format." Steve is pissed that Home Theater magazine is pressing this agenda so hard when it has no benefits. Why make us unhappy with the equipment we just bought when the new stuff just doesn't add value?

I am highly sympathetic to Steve's case. However, I do look forward to my next upgrade, he doesn't. I am concerned that my next HDTV--a 4K HDTV--is being delayed because of meaningless technological masturbation with 3d.

Evidently, Shane sets aside his shill tactics and says the following in response to Steve Smith. "I'm of something of a mixed mind on this. On the one hand, I wonder too if the industry is running before it's learned to walk with 3D, and whether it's losing TV sales right now as poeple wait for more 3d HDTVs to become available from more manufacturers..."

No, no, no Steve! Say that properly. They are loosing sales right now because people are waiting to see if the industry can introduce an 3D HDTV that will actually work... errr... impress.

Note the U-Turn in Shane's rhetoric. On the shilling page, he's all in favor of it. On the heart-to-heart with a reader, he too seems concerned by the fact that the film makers don't do much with the technology. Although he would never say it, the current crop of HDTVs don't present 3d material very well either.

Nevertheless, nearly the entire July issue contains one sales-push after another. The entire issue is a substantial effort to whup you up into a state of excitement about 3d.

Home Theater is representing powerful economic interests that want to sell this technology. Home Theater magazine is trying to manufacture consent where there would naturally be none.

From whence comes this rubbish about Blu-ray failing?

One of the most persistently irritating aspects of CNET.com is their twice a week habit of publishing prophesies of doom upon Blu-ray. From whence comes all this rubbish?

Does it come from sour grapes? Is Blu-Ray just too expensive for these pee-ons to afford?

Does it come from a long-standing alliance with Microsoft? Let's remember that Microsoft backed the looser in the highdef war: HD-DVD.

Does it come from mis-predicting the outcome of the war? Let's remember CNET told us HD-DVD would win because of price advantages. This multi-component false prophecy yielded multiple black eyes. The entire basis was false. HD-DVD was never really cheaper than Blu-Ray... At least not during the war.

Does it come from the vast amount of traffic they get every time they publish one of these rants? It seems that each time one of these hit-pieces gets published, the item rises to the top of news.google.com. Remember this means page views and click-throughs. That adds up to dollars and cents.

Is it because John C. Dvorak no longer yields this sort of controversy and traffic with anti-Mac hit-pieces, and the revenues he once generated have to be replaced? Let's remember John C Dvorak now uses a Mac. {According to rumor he was offered a Dell or a Mac at his new place of work. The company John hates more than Apple is Dell, so he took the Mac.}

Could it be that they own stock in download firms?

Could it be that it is difficult to rip Blu-Rays and trade them on the Internet (although this is done on Bittorrent).

So just what is the substance of their argument and does it have any merit?

1. A year after HD-DVD died Blu-ray still isn't doing more volume than DVD.
2. Blu-ray players are not selling. (At least the ones that aren't PS3s aren't selling)
3. Blu-ray players are more expensive than upscaling DVD players.
4. Blu-Ray discs are more expensive than DVD disks.
5. Downloads will replace DVD. Blu-Ray will not replace DVD.
6. Apple isn't supporting Blu-Ray as they once said they would.
7. I can't rip my Blu-rays, and watch them on 2.5 inch portable LCD screen, as I can with DVD.

This, in short, is the full case they make against Blu-ray. Each time they post these 7 points, and they do so about twice a week, posters knock each other over to make the usual ripostes.

1. Two years into the format's life span Blu-Ray is way ahead of where DVD was in terms of acceptance.
2. PS3 constitutes 70% to 75% of the total installed base of all Blu-Ray players because it is the finest value in the land. It is the best damn media player in the world... for all types of media. Critics are foolish to expect inferior media players (which are often more expensive) to sell in the face of such tough competition. You cannot simply disregard the PS3 because it is not “A true Blu-Ray player” such an argument is utterly false, fallacious and preposterous.
3. Since Blu-Ray players offer 622% better resolution and quantum improvement in audio, we would expect them to be more expensive than upscaling DVD players. Surely you do not believe that much quality comes for free? Do you really expect a 0.0% difference in marginal price and profits?
4. Diddo for the disk. The disks are too expensive on average, but they are remarkably better.
5. Now we reach the absolute balderdash, poppycock and rubbish. How are we to disinfect the ignorant of their ignorance? It is clear to anyone who understands binary bandwidth issues that HDTV and broadband are a mismatch made in hell. The typical broadband connection carries approximately 2.5Mbits to your computer. The typical video image stream on Blu-Ray is approximately 24-35 Mbits. Let's call it 10x higher. That's just the video. Then you have the audio stream. For uncompressed PCM, that is another 4.6Mbits. For compressed, but lossless, DTS-HD MA, we're talking about 1.5 to 2.5Mbits. Remember, we're talking about 7.1 surround sound sample at 24 bits and 96Khz in a best case scenario. A typical Blu-ray movie occupies something like 17GB of space. You try downloading 17GB of anything and just see how long it takes. Now you can compress the hell out of the stream, but then you decimate the quality. You can reduce the resolution, but then you aren't offering HDTV. Some people protest that they are downloading their movies right now. I do solemnly assure you that if you are downloading it now, it certainly is not HD. Even the crap Apple is downloading to you is just 720p. What you see on Netflix is standard def 480p. No crap-hounds, I am sorry to inform you that the Blu-Ray spec was designed from scratch to be almost untouchable. Until the mode, mean and median bandwidth in this country hits a brick solid 40Mbits, you are not going to be able to offer a service that streams Blu-Ray quality video through the net. The consumer market just can't handle it. The business model is not workable. Some fools may try, but they will lose lots and lots of money. Certainly FIOS has the potential to yield Blu-Ray bandwidth. How soon will FIOS become ubiquitous? With the current recession, project 10 years. That is a nice, long happy life span for Blu-Ray to prosper and become the institutionalized standard. If media tech writers understood anything about binary bandwidth, they would not embarrass themselves by stating that downloads will supersede Blu-Ray.
6. So Apple is not supporting Blu-Ray as they said they would...? And...? Let us remember that Apple is a very little company after all. A lot of their Macs are being used to run Windows. That's how much market influence they have. Apple wants to sell you 720p movies through Apple TV, a product which is the biggest market failure they have offered in quite some time. Everybody who owns Apple stock knows that AppleTV is not doing well at all on the open market.
7. Point 7 utterly defies logic. Do you really think you can display 1920x1080 pixels on a 320x240 screen? What made you think that HDTV was made for 2.5inch LCD? Truly, some people do not understand the entire concept of HDTV.