Bert wrote: >And I could almost accept that from a retail outlet, >which likely gets some sort of compensation for pushing >different services from the service providers, but the >CE manufacturers? What's their excuse? They are in business to make a profit; they do this by meeting customer needs. They have no obligation to help one of the most profitable industries in the Untied States - Television Broadcasters - to promote a new standard that the broadcasters will not promote themselves, despite the fact that they have one of the most powerful promotional engines in the world, which they can use at virtually NO COST. Several decades ago the CE industry realized that the traditional approach to developing and selling electronics products for the mass market was seriously flawed. They would create the platform, work together to develop cheap components, then eat each other alive to drive down the cost of the product. Meanwhile the profits were being made by the folks who controlled the content that is consumed with these products - the media conglomerates, record industry, etc. So they started looking for ways to create after the sale revenues when they sold a cheap box. The first home run was video games. The old razor blade trick worked to perfection - sell the console at cost and keep people coming back to buy the games at $40-60 a pop. This has been the one bright spot for Sony over the last decade. They did it again with DVD, making cheap players, and filling the stores with "software." And they did it again with DBS, pushing the receivers in return for royalties paid out for 1-2 years. And then there were the efforts by the Japanese to buy their way into the content business. Sony Matsushita et al. These attempts have largely failed, because producing content is not something that you can build assembly lines for. It is a "let's do lunch" business, and Sushi is definitely not on the menu. There are a few product categories where volumes are low and profits are reasonable. This was the case for home theater, until the DTV transition took what was a profitable niche market and started turning it into another mass market with eroding margins. But selling big screens is still far more profitable than selling $200 27" NTSC receivers. That the CE industry has changed should come as no surprise. It is the nature of a highly competitive business. What is remarkable is that the TV broadcast business HAS NOT changed in response to competition. Why? Simple - broadcasters live in a protected world where profitability is guaranteed because of political gerrymandering. There is NO MARKET at work here, only minor squabbles over how to divide up a pie that is now worth about $40 billion annually ( and this does not include any back end profits from the content that runs first on the broadcast networks. >But on a much happier note, my wife, commissioned by the >jolly guy in the red suit, managed to unearth an >Accurian ATSC receiver from a Radio Shack not too far >from where we live. So we rushed our sleigh out there >last night before it was too late. Now of course it has >to wait until the appointed time before it can be tried. Congratulations Bert. It looks like we will all be getting a Christmas present this year! Finally, related to the previous topic, this column from EE Times, about Peter Drucker, seems quite appropriate. An excerpt here, then the whole column: > The corporation is an element of society, he said, not > just an abstract economic construct or legal entity. > Its purpose is to serve customers, not to make a > profit. Drucker's observation that the purpose of > profit was merely to fund the necessary risks > undertaken in the service of customers was so > revolutionary that it is today rejected outright even > by many who will pay him tribute. Drucker was wrong about the profit motive. He was correct about the need to serve customers. In an open competitive marketplace, if you don't serve the customer you probably won't make a profit. Modern management techniques are very important to the success of any corporation. Some companies have done incredible things by focusing management attention on product quality and customer service. I don't think that this is revolutionary; I think it has always been the case in competitive businesses. But all management rules are off when an industry is protected from competition. You do not need to look far to see the companies and organizations that do a lousy job with customer service, while forcing people to accept an inferior product. In virtually every case you will find a government bureaucracy, or an industry that is regulated by the government. Just look at what is happening now with Wal-Mart. They are arguably one of the most successful retailers in the world, but they have been villainized, because they are "ruthless competitors without a social conscious." > Even more troubling, today we see corporations not as > organizations to serve their customers, but as > - ironically - the fiefdoms of the managers who should > be serving them, and ultimately as the personal property, > in some abstract and carefully unexamined sense, of their > shareholders. Corporations ARE the personal property of their shareholders. management is there to serve the interests of the shareholders. To make a profit. What is deeply troubling is that corporations now spend a small fortune lobbying the politicians for "competitive" advantage. Bill Gates had no time for the politicians, until he had created a virtual monopoly that needed to be protected. Perhaps it would be more informative to look at how much the world has changed during Drucker's lifetime, and why, rather than ascribing these changes to a style of management that he advocated. Regards Craig ---------------------------------------------------------------------- You can UNSUBSCRIBE from the OpenDTV list in two ways: - Using the UNSUBSCRIBE command in your user configuration settings at FreeLists.org - By sending a message to: opendtv-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with the word unsubscribe in the subject line.