In defense of Sony's HDMI.O.U. [update 1]

All of you fanboys need to stop the spin

Here's how it works:

Component (the HD analog cables) can THEORITICALLY accept a 1080p source, but only the capability exists right now. You have to ask whether the PS3 can output 1080p through the component port AND, most importantly, if your TV's own componenet port can ACCEPT a 1080p signal FROM the PS3.

Prior to only about a few months ago, they're were very few TV's that accepted a 1080p connection through HDMI (save the more expensive models), MUCH, and i mean MUCH less through the component port. There's a big push to make HDMI a household name, and eventually phase component out. Analog like composite and S-video the big companies know they can't, at least not anytime soon because there's WAY too many legacy video and audio systmes that use it. With component it's more of an issue of thinning the herd.

As fas as this slow adoption of HDTV goes, we need to look at what's going on in the market, and what people don't know.

Companies are STILL manufacturing NTSC standard definition TV sets, and selling them for $50-$250 in big box stores. The average consumer sees an HDTV for $450 (starting range for a CRT unit) and an SDTV for $75, and if he doesn't know that his SDTV will be sort of useless soon (or at least require an add-on adapter to be able to use it) he's going to buy that SDTV and hold off on HDTV. Why? He thinks you need to have cable (you don't) or satellite (you don't) and pay extra for high def channels (you don't). Nobody selling TVs seems smart enough to explain that HDTV is here NOW, and that over-the-air broadcasts of HDTV are BETTER than most cable or satellite images! So Joe Consumer keeps buying SDTVs, and big manufacturers keep making them because they're still selling them.

Now, if the companies would not give people the choice, then HDTV prices would drop and the adoption rate would skyrocket. The biggest problem is that the choice is still out there, and the uninformed just buy the SDTV because they don't know what they're missing, don't know how this high definition thing works, and nobody's going to great pains to inform them.

However, if you show Joe Consumer that he can watch LOST or Monday Night Football in 720p with just a plain old bowtie antenna, without having to shell out for cable, then he starts thinking. He starts to consider that he can do without the advanced super-expensive digital cable, because HDTV pulled in over-the-air looks AMAZING. He starts to realize the investment for an HDTV isn't that hefty, once he's paying a little less for all the networks. He starts to think about making a change to the way he watches TV.

THEN you show him that each channel actually has several multichannels that- ideally- have different programming. You show him The Tube music network that tunes in with an ATSC tuner, but doesn't even show up on NTSC televisions. You show him the four PBS channels- each with different programming. You show him that during the day his local NBC affiliate might have soap operas on the main channel, but movies on one of their subchannels. Now it's looking really attractive. With just an antenna, he'll be getting the equivalent of basic cable or better, in terms of programming choices. This will only get better with time, too.

Now the HDTV looks pretty good.

1080p isn't that important. FOX chose 720p for a reason, and most of us early adopters don't have the option of 1080p anyway. This demonstrates a problem with this "gotta have the best" mania that's going around. 720p and 1080i are perfectly acceptable and gorgeous-looking. 1080p doesn't look much better than a good 720p television. Programs will not broadcast at 1080p, and while movies (HD-DVD and Blu-Ray) might be 1080p capable, the difference isn't going to be worth the added expense. It's negligible, at best.

So what's up, then? Copy protection. You know it. I know it. This sudden 1080p mania is all about the studios panicking over piracy. They're worried that if you can record or copy a movie in true high definition, that it will seem like a factory-new copy of the movie and sales will decline. Copying in older formats always meant degradation of the image, but with the new technologies we're seeing, pirates (and consumers) can make a perfect copy every time.

This terrifies the studios. They're already losing money at the box office. They're already seeing profits drop thanks to rentals. They're already seeing less come back than what they put into a film. Now, they see the ability to duplicate one movie perfectly, and they are panic-stricken with the thought that they will see their media sales drop just as dramatically as box office numbers did in the 1990s.

So they want copy protection. How to sell copy protection to a consumer base that doesn't want it? Simple: Make them think they're *missing something* by not having the newest, greatest, best format and resolution. If they can get everyone to jump on the 1080p train, then it will be a real restriction once they start the copy protection scheme in full swing. 540p will seem like a regular DVD (it's pretty close) and they're betting that they can spoil you first with the great 1080p/720p/1080i image, and then cut you off with that 540p image and make you realize the error of your ways in not using the format with built-in copy protections.

Of course, the HDCP will be cracked before too long. Of course, the 540p image is still a little better than 480i/480p. Of course, a lot of people won't even bother to get movies and watch them in 1080p in the first place. This is a big gamble on the part of the studios.

And of course, cable manufacturers, copy protection developers, and hardware manufacturers have a stake in this too. A component cable is cheap and easy to get. You can even just use standard RCA and get a pretty good image. HDMI cable is cheap to make, but they can sell it in big box stores for $50-$150 and people won't know the difference. They can't substitute anything for it, as they could with component cables, and they MUST make this purchase. 99.5% of the people out there don't know they can find them cheaper online, and will buy the cables in Best Buy or Circuit City rather than hunting for a cheaper price on the Internet.

This is big money for a lot of people.

My situation is that I have an early model HDTV (missed the HDMI mark by about 3 months, actually) and so I have DVI, component, VGA/RGB, but no HDMI and no HDCP support. None. This means that my investment will be hampered by HDCP when they start utilizing it. My nice screen will be cut down to displaying 720p at best.

This doesn't bug me. I'm mainly using 720p now. As long as they don't drop me back down to 480p, I'm fine. As long as my 360 keeps letting me play games (and upscaled movies) over VGA at 1360x768 I'm fine. As long as the HD-DVD add-on lets me use the VGA cable to watch movies in at least 720p, I'm happy. 1080p is nothing to me. My HDTV doesn't even support it. But I've seen it, and it's not a huge gain. I'm certainly not willing to support the copy protection drive by rushing out and buying another HDTV. I'm still paying for this one!

My advice? Play and watch at 720p. Tell the studios to shove it with their 1080p and copy protection. The gain isn't worth the restrictions, and it's crapping on all the early adopters to boot.

I'm sure the PS3 will be just fine at 720p. You won't see much difference, anyway, between that and 1080p. Sony's full of hot air with their "true HD era" crap. Play at 720p. You'll be happy.

Sony has done some dumb stuff before, but this is not one of them. I do understand that any news about Sony is news, as this blog has demonstrated. Zerocorpse @#51, I agree with most of what you are saying. My @nd HD tv was a hitachi rpLCD, and it is a fixed pixel display at 720p. Looks great. But I also have a Samsung 1080p dlp and I must say that it looks better.I can see a difference between 720p and 1080p. I also have a Westinghouse 1080p lcd. I cannot see a difference between 1080i and 1080p. But 720p still looks damn good, and over the air does look better than cable or satellite. And as for those talking about not getting an HDMI cable in the box, its no big deal. Most items do not include them. My Denon upconverting DVD player did not come with one, nor did my Directv hd box. And HD sales are rising, just go to Circuit City or Best Buy. The SD tv's are pushed to the back! And with the success of the 360, it too is driving HD sales. Stores even have the demo 360's on HD displays. Joe six pack wants his 360 to look like that, which is why Samsung partnered with MS. For those of you who do not have or do not intend to buy a HD tv, it should not matter to you about HDMI. For those that have or intend to buy an HDTV, go online and buy a cable. Or just use component, since most of you are saying they will only use it for games anyway.
I am so glad Sony did not use some proprietary port on the PS3 like MS did. Why did MS not include HDMI port is beyond me. As for video quality, my Samsung looks better via HDMI, but not my Westy. It really depends on the tv you have. Visit avsforum or Ecoustics.com for info on that.

"http://www.projectorcentral.com/blu-ray_2.htm

"At this point we should address what can only be characterized as a hoax—the notion that Blu-ray must be technically superior to HD-DVD because the Samsung player outputs 1080p, whereas the Toshiba player is "only 1080i." One high-end home theater retailer told me last weekend that the reason you pay $1000 for the Blu-ray player is for the "higher resolution 1080p output." This is absolute baloney. If you encounter any retail sales rep feeding you this line, keep your wallet in your pocket and leave the store.

The truth is this: The Toshiba HD-DVD player outputs 1080i, and the Samsung Blu-ray player outputs both 1080i and 1080p. What they fail to mention is that it makes absolutely no difference which transmission format you use—feeding 1080i or 1080p into your projector or HDTV will give you the exact same picture. Why? Both disc formats encode film material in progressive scan 1080p at 24 frames per second. It does not matter whether you output this data in 1080i or 1080p since all 1080 lines of information on the disc are fed into your video display either way. The only difference is the order in which they are transmitted. If they are fed in progressive order (1080p), the video display will process them in that order. If they are fed in interlaced format (1080i), the video display simply reassembles them into their original progressive scan order. Either way all 1080 lines per frame that are on the disc make it into the projector or TV. The fact is, if you happen to have the Samsung Blu-ray player and a video display that takes both 1080i and 1080p, you can switch the player back and forth between 1080i and 1080p output and see absolutely no difference in the picture. So this notion that the Blu-ray player is worth more money due to 1080p output is nonsense."

Well the problem is you can't watch Blu-Ray movies without a HDMI cable.

"Historically, no game system has launched with the highest end cables -- PS2 didn't come with S-video, Xbox didn't come with component, 360 didn't come with VGA. Why, then, should we expect the PlayStation 3 to be any different?"

My Sega Saturn and Dreamcast came with a RGB scart cable. That was highest end at that time. So untrue, and what with Sony claiming "High Definition begins when we say it is". Maybe it only begins when I buy a HDMI cable to get the most out of my 1080p LCD tv and a PS3.

Sony is taking a very calculated gamble here, in many different ways. marketing, press statements, system design, blue ray trojan horse support, drm support... unless they're really, really savvy I suspect they'll be hurt badly by at least of these things, if not more. it's good business to take an educated gamble when you're pretty sure it'll pay off. it's even good business to risk the farm if you've got nothing to lose. it's bad business to gamble wildly, in every facet of your enterprise, all at once, if you don't need to. Sony's got eyes bigger than its stomach.

this is pretty much a big old "duh!"...

While HD gaming is essential, and I understand that a majortiy of people own HDTV sets, let alone 1080p HDTV sets, had Sony not touted the PS3's 1080p capabilites so much this wouldn't have been as much of a big deal.

I love how there's always pro-Sony spin in the media that doesn't exist for MS.

I remember when the two-SKU scheme, some website rushed to point out that the lower price PS3 sku wasn't a tard pack, but more of a "gamer pack" (vomit). I love how it's a gamer pack when it's Sony, but a tard pack when it's MS.

Aww, how nice of them to objectively rush to Sony's aid there.

Same thing here. If MS had left the cable out they'd be getting ripped apart. But Sony, we get articles EXPLAINING things. Explaining to us how it's really a good idea. Aww, how nice of Joystiq.

Sony sold the whole PS3 as a hi-def experience from day one. Then worse, they told us how incredibly important the Blu-Ray was, sold it as the centerpiece of the hi-tech PS3 experience.

Then they leave out a basic, crucial piece of equipment needed to connect the friggen thing to a HDTV. It would be okay if it was Nintendo doing this, or even to a lesser extent MS, but sure as hell NOT Sony. Not with how they've SOLD the PS3 since day one. All to save dollars for themselves.

That's the article Joystiq aint gonna write. But dont woory, Bill will tell it like it is.

no HDMI, no problem, just buy a decent cable for about £12 & that should do it. I have heard that if the cable is less than 2m long the performance difference is nil if its a £10 cable or a £100 cable. A cable, is a cable, is a cable as they say :)
I dont think the PS3's succes or failure will hinge on whether it will have a hdmi cable or not.

THIS IS ALL STUPID!!!
JUST PUT THE DAMN MACHINE ON SALE SO I CAN BUY IT!!!

Wait a sec scratch what I have just said - for HDMI isn't there like 3 standards of HDMI. 1.1, 1.2 & the new 1.3, & that 1.1 hdmi cables cant carry 1080p signals or something like that. If thats the case then its more of an issue as 1.2 hdmi cables cost more.

Unnecessary? Hey, if you're going to appeal to the bleeding edge adopters then you really should include all of the necessary accoutrements. For instance, my $400 hi-def TIVO unit came with an HDMI cable, and for $600 freakin' dollars the PS3 should come with one too. I've read the arguments about those who will actually use them being in the minority, and I understand and agree with them in part- but in order for us to shell out an amount of money that has no precedent in mainstream console gaming (yep, I'm talking about you, Neo Geo) not only should we get a damn cable but the comely sales lass at Game Spot should take me around the back of the building and show me her etchings. Yes, depending upon your television a component cable may suffice, but I'm going to be running the PS3, the Wii, the 360, a progressive scan DVD player and a hi-def tivo unit. That's five high bandwith inputs, and I'll challenge anyone to find me a t.v. under five grand that has more than three. Fortunately, I will be investing in a state of the art preamp that can switches between DVI/HDMI/component/composite video sources (the Outlaw Audio 990, check it out) but a fat lot of good it will do me because now I have to go out and buy an extra cable- and even at Radio Shack these things ain't cheap. While this exclusion will make absolutely no waves outside of me and like maybe 4700 of the millions who will buy one on the sale date, it is another example of how Sony isn't looking after their core consituency- which at this moment consists of idiots like me willing to shell out more than half a grand to see the new hotness.

This is complete crap. Take a look at bestbuy.com for HDMI cable. They bottom of the barrel HDMI cable or adapter is $60. For any decent length of cable you are going to pay at least $100-$150. Making the top of the line PS3 system $600+$150 for the proper cabling to make it true HD @ 1080p. To set the system up in a proper HD environment you are going to shell out $750. To buy a game $810, and to have a friend be able to play with you $850.

Is it just me or does almost $1000 reek of the kind of niche market that only the neogeo had in its day? Given that the Neogeo had the best of the best quality for what you paid for. Seeing as it has been said that the quality isn't going to be exceedingly better than our current gen offerings I don't see how they can justify this much of a cost to the consumer.