Comments on: The New York Times: A New Cable for Your Maze, By Joe Hutsko

By: Joe Hutsko

Joe Hutsko — Fri, 08 Feb 2008 00:07:15 +0000

I stand corrected, Evan, you are absolutely right, I was looking at my last copy that went back to the paper, and sure enough, what you point out is that the wording then the example contradict one another. Because same-size sets from Vizio and others often show Vizio with the lower price and still more HDMI ports. Thank you for calling attention to this error. Joe

By: Joe Hutsko

Joe Hutsko — Thu, 07 Feb 2008 21:47:59 +0000

I make no assertion whatsoever that HDTVs with more ports cost more. In fact I originally quote Cnet’s Carnoy saying that the price is pretty minimal, and the makers will tell you it adds cost when in fact it isn’t much, but unfortunately that line didn’t make it into the final story on account of space. An analyst told me they’re about $2 a pop in quantity, and Vizio listened to advice a few years ago, to add more HDMI, and they’ve been doing so in many sets for years. I do see how the way the line reads in the story it could seem that that was my suggestion, but it isn’t. Thanks for taking the time to comment. Best, Joe

By: Evan Wilner

Evan Wilner — Thu, 07 Feb 2008 20:50:54 +0000

Mr. Hutsko:

Did you get the logic wrong–exactly backwards—in attempting to show that HD TV’s with MORE HDMI ports cost MORE?

You gave as examples of this comparison the 52-inch Vizio LCD with four HDMI ports (MORE) that “sells for about $2,500, equal to the price of a 47-inch JVC, a better-known brand, with only two ports (FEWER) “.

All other things being equal–which they obviously aren’t when screen size and brand value differ—the larger television with MORE HDMI ports should cost MORE.

Here, obviously, the JVC with smaller screen size and fewer HDMI ports (FEWER) should cost less but doesn’t.

Your example turns you logic on its head, doesn’t it?

I look forward to your response.

All the best,

Evan Wilner