The gap between households owning HD sets (46.3%) and actually receiving HD programming (35.9%) isn't new, and it has shrunk a bit since 2008, but it still is somewhat surprising to me.
Do that many people buy HD sets well in advance of getting HD programming, or are that many people just unaware of whether they are actually receiving HD programming?
From TVB.com:
 |
TV Basics:
HD TV Stats
While 46.3% of television households have HD capable sets, only 35.9% are receiving HD programming.
|
|
 |
|
High Definition TV (HDTV) HD Status
|
HD
|
HD
|
HD Display
|
|
Total U.S.
|
Receivable (1)
|
Capable (2)
|
Capable (3)
|
|
Jul-07 |
10.1%
|
12.2%
|
18.9%
|
|
Aug-07 |
10.6%
|
13.0%
|
19.9%
|
|
Sep-07 |
11.4%
|
13.8%
|
21.0%
|
|
Oct-07 |
12.2%
|
14.8%
|
22.5%
|
|
Nov-07 |
12.9%
|
15.7%
|
23.6%
|
|
Dec-07 |
13.6%
|
16.8%
|
24.9%
|
|
Jan-08 |
14.5%
|
18.3%
|
26.6%
|
|
Feb-08 |
15.4%
|
19.5%
|
28.1%
|
|
Mar-08 |
16.3%
|
20.6%
|
29.3%
|
|
Apr-08 |
17.2%
|
21.8%
|
30.6%
|
|
May-08 |
18.3%
|
22.9%
|
31.9%
|
|
Jun-08 |
18.8%
|
23.6%
|
32.8%
|
|
Jul-08 |
19.8%
|
24.8%
|
34.0%
|
|
Aug-08 |
20.5%
|
25.9%
|
34.9%
|
|
Sep-08 |
21.2%
|
26.9%
|
35.9%
|
|
Oct-08 |
22.4%
|
28.3%
|
37.2%
|
|
Nov-08 |
23.3%
|
29.3%
|
38.2%
|
|
Dec-08 |
24.5%
|
30.4%
|
39.3%
|
|
Jan-09 |
27.3%
|
32.2%
|
40.9%
|
|
Feb-09 |
29.2%
|
33.8%
|
42.1%
|
|
Mar-09 |
31.5%
|
35.0%
|
43.3%
|
|
Apr-09 |
32.7%
|
36.2%
|
44.3%
|
|
May-09 |
34.1%
|
37.5%
|
45.4%
|
|
Jun-09 |
35.9%
|
38.4%
|
46.3%
|
 |
| (1) HD Receivable: A home that is equipped with an HD television and HD Tuner and receives at least one HD network or station.
(2) HD Capable: A home that is equipped with an HD television and HD Tuner capable of receiving signals in HD.
(3) HD Display Capable: A home that is equipped with an HD television that is capable of displaying HD content.
Source: The Nielsen Company June ’09 HD Television Household Estimates |
|
|
|
Actually I’m surprised it’s that low. I know a large number of people with HDTVs who use them largely to watch DVDs, and don’t bother subscribing to the HD channels on their cable or satellite because they cost extra. (And they don’t want to put up a TV antenna)
Still, Comcast sent a flyer today implying HD is now free with them, so I assume many HDTV owners will be getting HD channels finally.
Some people bought the HDTV’s because they are light and flat. I bought a 42 inch Panasonic plasma HDTV because I injured myself moving my 35″ inch Sony CRT. Oh that Sony must have weighed 200 pounds and in nearly killed me. I do have HD access but i would have switched to a flat panel regardless. I cannot wait until those OLED tv come out that are thin as a credit card. I just wanted a tv that would not kill me if i tried to move it.
I’ve owned a nice 40-something inch HDTV for over a year now. I’ve never had HD programming. I use it as a monitor, video games, DVDs, bluray, and Hulu. I don’t have any plans to add HD programming.
I am looking at your site right now on a 40″ LCD HDTV. I use it as my computer monitor as much or more than as a TV. I get networks over the air, and they look magnificent.
My cable is third-rate, barely-any-channels cable provided by the people who own this apartment complex, and many more complexes in this town.
If I want better programming, I have to get DISH or DirecTV. It’s a little more each month to get the plan that has more HD channels, but I probably will spring for it.
squiggleslash, if your friends are watching dvds on their hdtv, they aren’t watching anything on their hdtvs in hd.
sold out activist, the only thing you’re watching in hd is blu rays. You might be seeing the videogames and hulu ONLY if you’re using an hdmi cable too. If you’re hooked up to the tv without the right cable, you don’t get hd either.
Right now it seems like there’s too much that needs to be right (between the tv itself, the box, receiving the actual channels, and the cable) for a lot of people to handle. Over time, like 10 to 15 years, the cables and boxes that aren’t capable won’t be available anymore, so eventually this problem will fix itself. It’ll just take a while.
Jeff – sure, but in all honesty 90% of people can’t tell the difference (or can but see it as minor) between HD and DVD quality when shown on a medium sized (32-40″) LCD screen anyway.
As David says, the appeal of HDTVs isn’t that they’re HD, it’s that they’re large, flat, and, FWIW, they do an excellent job of displaying DVDs.
That was me for a while because DirecTV wouldn’t do the drilling necessary in my old apartment for me to get HD.
craigward, if you get over the air HDTV broadcasts you’re not one of the 10.4%.
Wow, that’s extra pathetic for those who don’t have any HD channels because the TV can usually pick up a channel or two even without rabbit ears plugged in.
I had my HDTV for about 6 months before I got an HD box from Brighthouse. I got the TV mostly for the big screen and for DVD’s and whatnot, which are really great to watch on the HDTV (I don’t give a damn about Blu-ray…DVD looks just fine and it looks better on HDTV than on a normal one). And I love the HD programming because it is widescreen as opposed to the standard definition channels that cut off the sides. The picture is nice, but not anything to get excited over.
Im part of that 10.4%.
Went to Best Buy, bought a new TV and it just happened to be HD, I didnt buy because of that, I bought it because it’s size, price and it was also purty.
I have no desire at all to get HD programming. I just don’t find it necessary. The quality of the programming is just fine, I find it kinda ridiculous people pay extra money to see clearer as if the normal image is not good enough or unwatchable in some way.
Stubborn people like the two above me who refuse to believe how much better blu-ray looks over dvds and HD programming over standard. I mean it’s one thing for people who barely watch TV but you’re on a website about TV ratings so I would think you watch a lot of TV.
Its night and day. I’m right with you anthony. DVD’s only look good til you watch a blu-ray. and SD programming is nigh unwatchable on an HDTV. And there are no excuses. HD programming is free over the air. Cancel your cable and buy rabbit ears.
How could you possibly value the extra programming offered by analog cable at the expense of picture quality. Is the real housewives of new jersey really that important to people?
But then again i’m a bit snobbish when it comes to that.
I imagine if you go back in history you’d find quite a few people who stuck to their B&W TVs when color came in. Some people just don’t care to upgrade their viewing experience when “good enough” is good enough.
My guess is that ten percent difference is quite reasonable for the reasons people have cited here.
>>> And there are no excuses. HD programming is free over the air. Cancel your cable and buy rabbit ears.
For a variety of reasons, it isn’t always that simple, depending on where you live (both far-flung rural regions and middle-of-the-city areas can have their OTA gotchas).
Thats exactly it, enough is enough. Why would you go and call that stubborness? Some people just don’t need that excess.
Anthony, I never denied the quality of the image is better on HD. I believe Anthony! Dont worry about that buddy. I just don’t want it or frankly need it. I watch lots of television and believe me, I enjoy my time starring at a screen just as much as you.
Dave, it ain’t free and I don’t know if you’ve heard but those rabbit ears are not that great of an idea anymore. I value alot of things, The Real Housewives of NJ ain’t one of them.
Stephen’s analogy seems to be right. As per the stats on TVB’s site, color TV adoption seems to have been pretty slow- color TV set sales didn’t overtake B&W set sales until 1972, 18 years after the color sets were introduced into the market.
Sorry, I meant Richard Steven’s analogy…
well I have an HD t.v, but I have really no clue how to use it
DVD/Blu-ray, Xbox 360, and Netflix. Who needs TV?