Vizio SLAPPED with multiple lawsuits

[Duds]

Vizio sells a lot of TVs to the inbreds who shop at Wally World and have no friggin idea how bad they really are.

INTERLACE pixtures(1080i, 489i) lose res when theres movement, like your antique dinosaurs that you like to watch.
Progressive doesnt have that problem.
The PQ on my set is quite good, you think they would sell so many if the picture sucked?
Its no bargain to get a cheap set and a bad picture.
YOU'RE just taking point for your masters at Sony, who, while they make good sets,
have a hard time justifying their premium prices just because their name is on the front.
So the lawsuit.
Truth is that inexpensive Vizios are depressing market prices, grredheads like your sony masters cant charge what they would like, and the cant compete.
HENCE the lawsuit.
Its got about as much to do with "picture quality" as your hobbled together crappola

[Rich-n-Texas]

Vizio sells a lot of TVs to the inbreds who shop at Wally World and have no friggin idea how bad they really are.

You pack so much good stuff into one sentence! Gawd I wish I could do that!

[Duds]

If you had combined your two earlier posts into one post, you'd almost be there.

You pack so much good stuff into one sentence! Gawd I wish I could do that!

[Rich-n-Texas]

Yeah but it would seem fragmented compared to yours. Your remark had a nice, even flow to it.

[Duds]

Yeah I've been told i should write for an AV magazine or website...

Yeah but it would seem fragmented compared to yours. Your remark had a nice, even flow to it.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

INTERLACE pixtures(1080i, 489i) lose res when theres movement, like your antique dinosaurs that you like to watch.
Progressive doesnt have that problem.

You are lying pixie. All television whether they are progressive or interlaced lose resolution when objects move. ALL televsions. The question becomes how much. According to Panasonic digital testing lab, the Pioneer Kuros finished at the top of the heap, and the vizio at the bottom in every catagory and at all screen sizes. My dinosaur is a 1080p projector, not a 1080i. My television is a 1080p set, not 1080i. This is what I mean when I tell you that your information is lacking. Not all CRT's are 1080i, once you go high end, their resolution goes progressive OR interlaced. Remember, its not the television, its the processing. Any television can be made progressive CRT or digital. Its all in the processing. My projector loses 10% of its resolution during movement in its 1080p setting, and slightly(and I mean slightly) when handling interlaced images. My processor can knock that down to 5% with forward adapting motion compensation which my processor does very well(it uses four Cell processors) The visio 37" loses 75% percent of its resolution with moving objects. These are non debateable facts, tests bare this out.

The PQ on my set is quite good, you think they would sell so many if the picture sucked?

Yes. They sold alot of Apex and Cyberhome DVD players because they were cheap. It didn't make any difference that not one of these DVD players could pass basic tests such as 3:2 pull down without a bunch of jaggies.

Its no bargain to get a cheap set and a bad picture.

It is when you do not really care about PQ

YOU'RE just taking point for your masters at Sony, who, while they make good sets,
have a hard time justifying their premium prices just because their name is on the front.

I don't work for Sony. I am not sure why you don't seem to be able to grasp this, but this is not about you. Sony can justify its prices because they score well on PQ and video tests, and they pay their liscenses. So its pretty clear where the R&D money is spent, and fully justifies their price tags. The fact that Sony is the most reliable name in consumer electronics doesn't hurt.

So the lawsuit.
Truth is that inexpensive Vizios are depressing market prices, grredheads like your sony masters cant charge what they would like, and the cant compete.
HENCE the lawsuit.
Its got about as much to do with "picture quality" as your hobbled together crappola

The Vizio are depressing the market because they are not paying their liscensing fee's, and passing those costs. They are depressing the market because they use cheap parts, and have basically no support infrastructure. They have no steady vendors, so you do not know when parts will change during manufacture Vizio doesn't even have a customer service department, it all falls on the retailer. What Vizio does is exactly the same thing that Apex and Cyberhome did, and that got them busted, and put out of business. Its cool if you come to the defense of the maker of your television, but doesn't mean a damn thing in the courts. Vizio is using the EXACT same defense as Cyberhome and Apex(our vendors paid the liscenses for us), and that is going to kill them in the courts.

[bobsticks]

Sure they would. By suing they are creating FUD (Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt) in the minds of potential Vizio buyers. These companies claims may be baseless, and they may in fact just be gambling that the FUD will cause potential Vizio customers to buy their products instead. These additional sales could likely pay for the lawsuit, and in the meantime they will have gained marketshare, and potentially even put a competitor out of business.
I am not saying that Vizio is blameless here, there is no way I could know. However, the decision to sue can have other motivations beyond simple justice.

This post actually makes alot of sense, though I see your point and suspect that it may be the catalyst or the proverbial foot in the door. In any case, the big boys don't have much to lose other than the time for some lawdogs who are probably house clowns anyway.

What interests me is that this story is being reported out of Japan. "Based in California" is not really too informative...is Vizio a Japanese entity?

[Woochifer]

This post actually makes alot of sense, though I see your point and suspect that it may be the catalyst or the proverbial foot in the door. In any case, the big boys don't have much to lose other than the time for some lawdogs who are probably house clowns anyway.

What interests me is that this story is being reported out of Japan. "Based in California" is not really too informative...is Vizio a Japanese entity?

Technically, Vizio's an American company, but none of their product is actually made in the U.S. Like Terrence said, they operate as a virtual company with no independent R&D, manufacturing, or customer service capacity -- it's all outsourced. They're a billion dollar company and for a while last year they were the #1 LCD TV brand, yet they have less than 100 employees. What does that tell you?

A lot of these fly-by-night companies came and went when the DVD format was in its growth phase, and the Chinese outsource manufacturers supplying them with DVD players were known for bypassing or shortchanging the license and patent holders. With flat panel TVs, it should be no surprise that this same kind of cheating could be going on with the off-brand models.

The "big boys" actually have a lot to lose by doing nothing, given that they developed and hold most of the rights to the MPEG-2 technologies that underpin HDTV broadcasting. If they're getting shortchanged, and someone's gaining market share by undercutting their costs through illegal practices, then it's almost their obligation to enforce these patents in court.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mpeg_2#Patent_holders

[bobsticks]

stuff

Gracias

[pixelthis]

Yeah I've been told i should write for an AV magazine or website...

If you can find one that hires JR high school students.
I can see why rich admires you, you're even more clueless than HE is

[pixelthis]

[QUOTE]

You are lying pixie. All television whether they are progressive or interlaced lose resolution when objects move. ALL televsions. The question becomes how much. According to Panasonic digital testing lab, the Pioneer Kuros finished at the top of the heap, and the vizio at the bottom in every catagory and at all screen sizes. My dinosaur is a 1080p projector, not a 1080i. My television is a 1080p set, not 1080i. This is what I mean when I tell you that your information is lacking. Not all CRT's are 1080i, once you go high end, their resolution goes progressive OR interlaced. Remember, its not the television, its the processing. Any television can be made progressive CRT or digital. Its all in the processing. My projector loses 10% of its resolution during movement in its 1080p setting, and slightly(and I mean slightly) when handling interlaced images. My processor can knock that down to 5% with forward adapting motion compensation which my processor does very well(it uses four Cell processors) The visio 37" loses 75% percent of its resolution with moving objects. These are non debateable facts, tests bare this out.

I know that not all CRT tubes are interlaced.
I also know that CRT progressive requires such a fine pitch on the phosper that teh light output is quite dim, pretty much like yourself.
I have been arguing with you for six months that a interlaced pic loses up to half its resolution when movement occures, and you have been denying it.
Now you say ALL sets lose res during movement, which isnt the case for progressive scan.
THATS progress of a sort.
The real hoot is that you are comparing your (probably imaginary) multibuck pile of obsolete CRT CRAP to my 1,000 LCD SET

Yes. They sold alot of Apex and Cyberhome DVD players because they were cheap. It didn't make any difference that not one of these DVD players could pass basic tests such as 3:2 pull down without a bunch of jaggies.

If you have an argument against MY set then make it, you keep bringing up these two defunct makers , even tho they have ABSOLUTELY nothing to do with Vizio because that is all you can think of.
Why dont I bring up Muntz front projector tv when talking about your crap?
EVERYTIME I get into a shouting match with a ninnie such as yourself you mention Apex and cyberhome, even tho I have NEVER bought either.
Vizio is backed by several Tawainese companies , most of which make parts and components for much more expensive sets.
They have ABSOLUTELY nothing to do with Apex or Cyberhome, and if you cant
connect the two you need to SHUT UP about them, as they have NOTHING to do with
ANY of this

It is when you do not really care about PQ

I care a great deal about PQ, and I dont nurse a massive, fragil ego like you do.
And I have a life

I don't work for Sony. I am not sure why you don't seem to be able to grasp this, but this is not about you. Sony can justify its prices because they score well on PQ and video tests, and they pay their liscenses. So its pretty clear where the R&D money is spent, and fully justifies their price tags. The fact that Sony is the most reliable name in consumer electronics doesn't hurt.

I have had FIVE sonys, my next set will probably be Sony.
But Sony was twice the price of my Vizio when I bought it, and the pq wasnt twice as good.
The REAL reason for this lawsuit? Sony selling next to Vizio at walmart at a similar price,
which I saw during a recent trip there, and they HATE IT.
The free market sux for them I guess.
So hire a bunch of lawyers and do in the courts what we cant do in the market.
Lawyer em to death, wont be the first time.
As for you working for Sony, you have always denied this, and you have your nose
so far up sonys butt you can see tonsils.
YOU ARENT FOOLING ANYBODY

The Vizio are depressing the market because they are not paying their liscensing fee's, and passing those costs. They are depressing the market because they use cheap parts, and have basically no support infrastructure. They have no steady vendors, so you do not know when parts will change during manufacture Vizio doesn't even have a customer service department, it all falls on the retailer. What Vizio does is exactly the same thing that Apex and Cyberhome did, and that got them busted, and put out of business. Its cool if you come to the defense of the maker of your television, but doesn't mean a damn thing in the courts. Vizio is using the EXACT same defense as Cyberhome and Apex(our vendors paid the liscenses for us), and that is going to kill them in the courts.

No "steady vendors"? They have been selling at SAMS, Walmart, for three years, and now sell at Circuit city and others, they are a new company, and are very stable for one.
Three years, how "stable" do you want?
Rich just bought an AMP that has NO vendors, that is their sales strategy, as a matter of fact.
As for "cheap" parts you call ME a liar?
hOW DO YOU KNOW? Ever break one open?
the "parts" are first rate, the scaler is DVDO, the panel came from one of the two panel makers that were around when it was made. ITS TWO YEARS OLD ALMOST
with nary a hiccup, and the pic is the most stable I have EVER had on a set.
That is why it constantly gets good reviews.
And that is why slandering liars such as yourself bring up a few fly by night makers of tv
sets, because its all you have, and you know good and well that neither one has ANYTHING ot do with this company.
We have other Vizio owners on this site, ask THEM how they like theirs..
You wanna spend a small fortune on a science project that is obsolete, fine, do that
and sit in your darkened cave and enjoy you half a picture, you will never know that
you paid thousands for what modern tech can deliver for a LOT less

[pixelthis]

Vizio sells a lot of TVs to the inbreds who shop at Wally World and have no friggin idea how bad they really are.

Sony SELLS AT "WALLYWORLD" nimrod, how about them?
Or phillips, or magnavox, etc.
You're probably envious, you probably cant afford to shop at wally world.
Or maybe the bus that runs by your trailer park doesnt go by there

[pixelthis]

SO , just what IS this Company that the likes of sirtalky and other snobs like to slander?
Just what IS behind this huge sucess story?
Every since I GOT INTO THIS HOBBY I have heard the same thing about a company like VIZIO, their product is cheap so it cant be any good.
Also names like apex, and cyberhome are brought up, two chinese comapnies that
WERE cheap, this is called slander by association, even tho VIZIO has NEVER had ANYTHING to do with either company.
Vizio is a TWO BILLION DOLLAR COMPANY, comparing it to trash like apex is
like comparing Gwynth Paltrol to carmen electra.
Its a lean business model they adhere to, sure, but they do design their own products,
Back them up, and arent going anywhere
I am probably going to buy Sony the next time I buy, Samsung if I LIKE THEIR dlp,
but Vizio was a great product at a great price when I couldnt afford fancy.
And I have enjoyed my set immensely, it would be a shame if they were driven out of the market by a bunch of greedheads.
HERES the story of the one who runs things.
He used to run mag innovision, he is NOT a shyster.
read FOR YOURSELF

http://www.sbnonline.com/Local/Artic...g_picture.aspx

[Smokey]

The fact that Sony is the most reliable name in consumer electronics doesn't hurt.

Hey Sir TT

If you look at history of Sony’s reliability track record, that statement might not hold true. They were one of biggest selling CRT TV company on market, but refused to give their (non XBR) television sets more than 3 month warranty. While Panasonic and Sharp always provided one year warranty on their TV.

Panasonic is probably better qualified as most reliable brand

[kexodusc]

I think Sir T meant to say they are "known" as the most reliable name in consumer electronics, actual reliability notwithstanding - to the average joe. I'd believe that statement - I know a ton of people who aren't a/v enthusiasts like the people here, and for them it's Sony and Bose. Brand name power.

As for Vizio - if they're breaking the rules they will pay dearly. If they're not they probably won't. I don't care either way. Every Vizio I've seen has looked horrible, even for the money, but a zillion people buy them and don't care about PQ. Personally, I'd like to a see a few low-ball companies keep the other companies' prices in check a bit.

In the computer/software industry a lot of frivolous lawsuits are tossed around to paralyze competitors, you don't see it as much in the consumer electronics industry, and when you do it's usually patents or copyright/trademark disputes. This is a licensing issue so it's probably pretty black and white, and likely to be a quick case unless there's more to it than we're reading.

Dunno why Pixie is taking it so personally and responding with negative attacks on the people here instead of sticking to the topic?

[Rich-n-Texas]

Looks like pix has learned how to attach pictures.

All, don't worry, he's not far away from menopause so he shouldn't be having too many more *episodes* like these. We just have to be patient.

[bobsticks]

SO , just what IS this Company that the likes of sirtalky and other snobs like to slander?
Just what IS behind this huge sucess story?
Every since I GOT INTO THIS HOBBY I have heard the same thing about a company like VIZIO, their product is cheap so it cant be any good.
Also names like apex, and cyberhome are brought up, two chinese comapnies that
WERE cheap, this is called slander by association, even tho VIZIO has NEVER had ANYTHING to do with either company.
Vizio is a TWO BILLION DOLLAR COMPANY, comparing it to trash like apex is
like comparing Gwynth Paltrol to carmen electra.
Its a lean business model they adhere to, sure, but they do design their own products,
Back them up, and arent going anywhere
I am probably going to buy Sony the next time I buy, Samsung if I LIKE THEIR dlp,
but Vizio was a great product at a great price when I couldnt afford fancy.
And I have enjoyed my set immensely, it would be a shame if they were driven out of the market by a bunch of greedheads.
HERES the story of the one who runs things.
He used to run mag innovision, he is NOT a shyster.
read FOR YOURSELF

http://www.sbnonline.com/Local/Artic...g_picture.aspx

I'd rather be with Carmen Elektra.

[bobsticks]

As for Vizio - if they're breaking the rules they will pay dearly. If they're not they probably won't. I don't care either way. Every Vizio I've seen has looked horrible, even for the money, but a zillion people buy them and don't care about PQ. Personally, I'd like to a see a few low-ball companies keep the other companies' prices in check a bit.

I too like to see a few companies lowballin' it out there, provided they observe the applicable laws. The idea of trickledown technology clearly works and, I would gather, is what funds the level of innovation that keeps the tide rollin'...and it doesn't negatively impact me if Joe6P is happy, so why not?

[Auricauricle]

Shoot Straight, You Bastards!!

[Woochifer]

I too like to see a few companies lowballin' it out there, provided they observe the applicable laws. The idea of trickledown technology clearly works and, I would gather, is what funds the level of innovation that keeps the tide rollin'...and it doesn't negatively impact me if Joe6P is happy, so why not?

There will always be off-brand bottomfeeders like Vizio out on the market. Their business model is always the short-term cash grab for a high margin product. That's why they don't develop R&D, manufacturing, and customer support infrastructure -- because they're not investing in the long haul. Off-brand virtual companies that achieve any measure of market rank strictly by undercutting the established mass market CE companies on price inevitably crash and burn.

As price points decline and their only market advantage erodes, they don't have an established reputation for product quality or customer support to fall back on. This is exactly what happened to Apex Digital, which became a billion dollar company and (briefly) the #1 seller of DVD players by selling boatloads of cheap (and cheaply made) products. Once the price points for name brand DVD players fell below $200, Apex no longer had any market advantage. Operating with a ridiculously small staff and minimal facility investments simply makes it easier for the company to close up shop and walk away when sales begin to decline.

In the LCD TV market, a similar scenario is playing out. Vizio was the #1 LCD TV brand for one quarter last year. But, Sony and Samsung passed Vizio late last year as they lowered their price points. As the price difference between Vizio and the rest of the market continues to narrow, then consumers will inevitably drift back to those companies that offer something more than just a cheap TV. They might survive simply because big screen TVs will probably never plunge down to the commodity price levels of DVD players. But, their days as a market player are numbered, unless they actually invest for the long haul by building a company rather than simply serving as a middleman for outsourcers.

How fraud impacts Joe6p is that companies that actually invest in new technologies wind up cutting back because their margins get eroded by the company that cheats. Vizio has nothing in the patent pools, while companies like JVC, Toshiba, Sony, Philips, Mitsubishi, Panasonic, et al invested in development of HDTV technologies. If Vizio uses that technology without paying for it, then that reduces the resources available for innovation and product improvements.

[bobsticks]

Wooch,I'd agree if Sony et al were only invested in the production of LCD televisions. As most are involved with the software industry that fuels the overall machine it may be a little more complex. Just guessing but if the big boys are smart they have stock in the accessories market as well...again, adding to the complexity as this is where the margin is.

Fortunately for us there are many that will save for the quality product. There are those too that will buy for name recognition. In any case none of the bigguns seem to be hurtin' too bad.

I think it's better to have a smaller share of a bigger pie if you own a prospering bakery.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

[QUOTE=pixelthis]

I know that not all CRT tubes are interlaced.
I also know that CRT progressive requires such a fine pitch on the phosper that teh light output is quite dim, pretty much like yourself.
I have been arguing with you for six months that a interlaced pic loses up to half its resolution when movement occures, and you have been denying it.
Now you say ALL sets lose res during movement, which isnt the case for progressive scan.
THATS progress of a sort.
The real hoot is that you are comparing your (probably imaginary) multibuck pile of obsolete CRT CRAP to my 1,000 LCD SET

Pix, your television can't even sit in the same room as either of mine, so there really is nothing to compare. There is one thing you do not seem to be able to get through your head(and damn its thick). With 9" CRT light is not an issue, they put out far more light than what is needed for proper calibration even at 1080p. Since you by your own confession do not own(and have confessed to never owning) a display device with 9" CRT's, how can you possibly make the light output claims you do? If what you say it true, then not a single 9" CRT based would be capable of producing neither a 1080i or 1080p image. It would be too dim to watch, which is not the case at all. That would be counter to Joe Kanes claims that 9" CRT are the only way to get 1080p properly done.

Here is where you so called "knowledge" is failing you. Progressive scanning does not elimate motion blur or loss of resolution(both of which are major problems with digital television). Digital television utilize sample and hold as the basis for their projection of images. They hold the image for exactly 1/60 of a second with absolutely no break for the next image. They are continous light, unlike plasma and CRT which has breaks between images. Sample and hold is why motion blur and loss of resolution occurs in LCD panels. To combat that problem, some manufacturers have upped the refresh rate to 120hz, but then you lose the precious light that you use as a basis of your arguement. Every 16.67ms you get a single sample which leaves the panel no time to adjust to images with alot of movement. Thats a fact, the science, and the bottom line. Doesn't matter if the LCD panel is progressive or not, it loses resolution during moving images, far more so than either CRT or plasma.

As far as loss of resolution during movement, your "HALF" the resolution is what we are arguing over, not the fact that it loses resolution. In the interlace mode, my displays lose a measured 25% of its resolution during movement, not 50% as you state. That is considerably less than the 75% loss during movement of your vizio 37" panel caused by both sample and hold, and panel response combined together.

If you have an argument against MY set then make it, you keep bringing up these two defunct makers , even tho they have ABSOLUTELY nothing to do with Vizio because that is all you can think of.

I do not give a rats azz about your set. Those two defunct companies are setup just like Vizio is. You need to read what Wooch has posted, his information is spot on.

Why dont I bring up Muntz front projector tv when talking about your crap?

I do care if you do. But you would be talking apples and oranges because muntz front projector looks nor functions the same as mine.

EVERYTIME I get into a shouting match with a ninnie such as yourself you mention Apex and cyberhome, even tho I have NEVER bought either.
Vizio is backed by several Tawainese companies , most of which make parts and components for much more expensive sets.
They have ABSOLUTELY nothing to do with Apex or Cyberhome, and if you cant
connect the two you need to SHUT UP about them, as they have NOTHING to do with
ANY of this

You have this habit of making things about you. This is about a manufacturer of cheap low performing televisions cheating on liscensing just like Apex and Cyberhome. Apex and Cyberhome were set up just like Vizio currently is. Vizio outsources EVERYTHING just like Apex and Cyberhome did. You should read Wooch's post, how you missed it I will never know. Vizio is follow the same lead that Apex and Cyberhome blazed with DVD. That's the connection.

I care a great deal about PQ, and I dont nurse a massive, fragil ego like you do.
And I have a life

Pixie, you do not know what good quality is. Your television is not calibrated, and your choice of television was based on price, not performance. You said that yourself. If you cared a great deal about PQ, you wouldn't be advancing peak light levels as a arguement for flat panel over CRT. You would already know a properly calibrated television doesn't need to burn your eyes out with high light output levels. If you do not worry about my ego, I won't worry about your ignorance being passed off as knowledge.

I have had FIVE sonys, my next set will probably be Sony.
But Sony was twice the price of my Vizio when I bought it, and the pq wasnt twice as good.
The REAL reason for this lawsuit? Sony selling next to Vizio at walmart at a similar price,
which I saw during a recent trip there, and they HATE IT.
The free market sux for them I guess.
So hire a bunch of lawyers and do in the courts what we cant do in the market.
Lawyer em to death, wont be the first time.
As for you working for Sony, you have always denied this, and you have your nose
so far up sonys butt you can see tonsils.
YOU ARENT FOOLING ANYBODY

You go on believing I work for Sony, you have trouble dealing with reality anyway. If this was nothing more than giants going after the little guy, the case would not have gone this far. There would be no merit to it. However Vizio has admitted they have not paid liscensing fee's for the use of the MPEG-2 decoders in their television. And yes, those suing own the patents, and they have a right to be paid. Now you can make this about something else in your head, but really, its that clear, they didn't pay for the liscenses, and thought they could get away with it.

No "steady vendors"? They have been selling at SAMS, Walmart, for three years, and now sell at Circuit city and others, they are a new company, and are very stable for one.

Don't you understand the difference between a part vendor, and sales outlets?

Three years, how "stable" do you want?
Rich just bought an AMP that has NO vendors, that is their sales strategy, as a matter of fact.

Outlaw does have part vendors. Richie Rich's company is now one of them. They have no brick and mortar sales outlets. Its a little different.

As for "cheap" parts you call ME a liar?
hOW DO YOU KNOW? Ever break one open?

You are a liar. I did not have to break it open, The Panasonic Digital Testing did, and spread the parts out for everyone to see, and priced each individual part, much like they have done with the PS3 and XBOX. They also took the time to explain why the use of these particular parts in combination caused the panel(and all of their panels) to perform so poorly. They also pulled apart a Samsung, and a Sony SXRD LCD panel, and did the same thing. It was pretty damn clear why both cost more, and performed far better. The Samsung and Sony were designed from the ground up to perform with its internal parts designed specifically for its panels. The Vizio was not. What Vizio essentially did was "Muntz" the television together with a bunch of parts that was NOT designed specifically for that panel. I was also told that an earlier model of the same television had some different parts than the sample I saw, which means they had changed part vendors at some point.

the "parts" are first rate, the scaler is DVDO, the panel came from one of the two panel makers that were around when it was made. ITS TWO YEARS OLD ALMOST
with nary a hiccup, and the pic is the most stable I have EVER had on a set.
That is why it constantly gets good reviews.

I took the time to look up each one of the 37" LCD television they offer, and there is no mention of DVDO scaling chips, which is something that any marketing department in the world would trump up(lie, or did you misspeak?). Also considering that DVDO makes scaling chips of different quality to meet different price points, the mention of DVDO as the scaling chip is irrelevant. HQV makes three kinds of scaling and processing chips. The Reon, Realta, and a lower cost integrated design for lower cost televisions. They do not use first rate parts, that is another lie. Have you ever seen one pulled apart? I have, and seen it compared to a panel with good parts, and that performed better. Huge difference, and if Vizio used quality parts, they would not have performed so poorly on tests.

And that is why slandering liars such as yourself bring up a few fly by night makers of tv
sets, because its all you have, and you know good and well that neither one has ANYTHING ot do with this company.

You are becoming more mouth, and far less brains. Read what we said carefully(like that is going to help). We(wooch and I) didn't say that Vizio was apart of Apex or Cyberhome. We DID say they are set up like them both, which is a fact that you cannot mouth your way out of. Vizio isn't pay their liscenses, and neither did Apex or Cyberhome.

Your understanding of the english language is as poor as your ability to critically think. Nothing I have said is a lie, its all fact. Vizio has admitted they have not paid liscensing fees for the MPEG-2 decoders in their television. That's a fact. Vizio is set up just like Apex and Cyberhome. That is a fact. So where is the slander brightness?

We have other Vizio owners on this site, ask THEM how they like theirs..
You wanna spend a small fortune on a science project that is obsolete, fine, do that
and sit in your darkened cave and enjoy you half a picture, you will never know that
you paid thousands for what modern tech can deliver for a LOT less

Subjective opinions are not helpful, and are too personal to be meanful to everyone. For instance, when you say PQ is good, that does not mean anything to me because you do not calibrate your sets, you watch in poor light conditions, and you choose underperforming products when one looks at the specs. If Joe Kane gives an opinion, I am going to listen VERY carefully, because he chooses top notch products(based on his readings he would never recommend ANY vizio), watches in optimum light conditions(darkness) and he knows far more about televisions that both you and I.

In California and New York we call hometheaters rooms, hometheater rooms. You hicks may call them caves, but that is not what we east and west coasters call it. I have been to about 10 caves in my lifetime, and they do not look like any room I have ever seen. But then I have never been to your house, so you may surprise me.

Your panel cannot do 1080p or 1440p and does not have the ability to do different resolutions. It can barely do 720p. Your panel does not have a measured 50:000:1 contrast ratio, it's 1000:1(which is not even good by LCD standards). The bottom line is you get what you pay for. So if you think your little beer budget is going to get you Dom Perrion performance, you really are living in an alternate reality. (I give Panasonic Testing Lab $100 for the price versus performance lesson).

[Woochifer]

Wooch,I'd agree if Sony et al were only invested in the production of LCD televisions. As most are involved with the software industry that fuels the overall machine it may be a little more complex. Just guessing but if the big boys are smart they have stock in the accessories market as well...again, adding to the complexity as this is where the margin is.

Fortunately for us there are many that will save for the quality product. There are those too that will buy for name recognition. In any case none of the bigguns seem to be hurtin' too bad.

I think it's better to have a smaller share of a bigger pie if you own a prospering bakery.

Aside from maybe Sony (which can occasionally generate more revenue from their movie studio operations than their consumer electronics division), most of the other companies in the MPEG patent pool rely primarily on revenues from the electronics side. What they have in common is that they reinvest their profits into developing new technologies and improving existing ones -- that's why they hold patents on digital video technologies, and virtual companies like Vizio don't.

Also, with the accessories market -- the margins are higher for the retailers, but the revenues for accessories still pale in comparison to what the TVs themselves will pull in. Accessories are more important to retailers because TVs have a lower margin for the retailers. But, for a name brand manufacturer, they probably maintain higher margins on TVs because they make many of the big ticket components themselves. This is somewhat offset by the huge capital investments required to make high margin components like LCD panels. But, that's just their way of doing business -- invest in technology, maintain control over the manufacturing process. That's all high value added activity that also requires higher levels of capital investment and risk.

The virtual company model is all about minimizing costs by minimizing investment. It can generate profits, but all of the high value added, high margin activity gets created elsewhere, which doesn't bode well for a virtual company's long-term prospects, since all they really do is slap a badge on a product developed and built by someone else.

[bobsticks]

It can generate profits, but all of the high value added, high margin activity gets created elsewhere, which doesn't bode well for a virtual company's long-term prospects, since all they really do is slap a badge on a product developed and built by someone else.

Kinda like Korea? I think I get it

[pixelthis]

I think Sir T meant to say they are "known" as the most reliable name in consumer electronics, actual reliability notwithstanding - to the average joe. I'd believe that statement - I know a ton of people who aren't a/v enthusiasts like the people here, and for them it's Sony and Bose. Brand name power.

As for Vizio - if they're breaking the rules they will pay dearly. If they're not they probably won't. I don't care either way. Every Vizio I've seen has looked horrible, even for the money, but a zillion people buy them and don't care about PQ. Personally, I'd like to a see a few low-ball companies keep the other companies' prices in check a bit.

In the computer/software industry a lot of frivolous lawsuits are tossed around to paralyze competitors, you don't see it as much in the consumer electronics industry, and when you do it's usually patents or copyright/trademark disputes. This is a licensing issue so it's probably pretty black and white, and likely to be a quick case unless there's more to it than we're reading.

Dunno why Pixie is taking it so personally and responding with negative attacks on the people here instead of sticking to the topic?

I am the one receiving "negative" attacks and am only defending myself.
there are a lot on this site who work in the industry, and they all want companies like Vizio GONE.
If you think the picture on a Vizio is "horrible" you are entitled to your opinion.
Everyone who looks at mine loves it, and they arent just saying so, several have bought one.
ONE reason I am pissed mightily is senile old farts like sir talky comparing a
TWO BILLION dollar company that is in most stores to fly by nights like Apex
and cyperhome crap, stuff that was mostly sold in grocery , drug, and dollar stores
.
This is slander of the worst sort and he insists on doing so, so I WILL IGNORE HIM
until he gets his act together and stops slandering people.
But the main problem I am having is that people seem to think that buying Vizio is some sort of "compromise".
I HAVE BEEN PUTTING UP WITH THIS CRAP EVER SINCE I GOT INTO THIS
"hobby".
Snobs and elitists who judge your gear not by how well it performs but by how much it costs.
My first set was a sony trinitron XBR ( 20") back in the early eighties, I
have had five sonys, two XBRS.
I have always had quality gear
VIZIO AND A FEW OTHER "LOSS LEADERS" are an exelent way for those with
meager funds to get a decent display.
The reason Apex and Cyberhome "lost" their lawsuit was they didnt bother
fighting it, but with Vizio the bullies in this industry who hate the fact that
they have to compete and work for a living are going to have a fight on their hands.
Vizio has a few million to throw into a lawsuit, unlike those two other brands.
But I guess my main gripe is that a lot of companies today are run like Vizio ,
and how does that compute when delivering a quality product?
I had a Samsung 19" widescreen computer monitor, it developed a "bright" pixel
shortly after the warrenty ran out.
What a quality brand!
I have had my Vizio for going on two years, with nary a peep.
Where I work they had a Samsung plasma in the lobby (42in), lasted A YEAR
before the gas escaped.
Truth is VIZIO has the same parts and panels as other brands, they all come from the same places, Vizio has just come up with an efficent business model for delivering it to the customer.
The real reason for this lawsuit?
Go to Walfart, there are Sony TV sets sitting next to vizio and others, a few hundred bucks more instead of the grand premium they used to charge.
THATS the free market in action.
IF UPSTARTS like Vizio are going to be "lawyered" out of exsistence by giant conglomerates with deep pockets we will all suffer, and pay higher prices.
HEY, hiring a bunch of "suits" is better than providing a quality product at a decent price aint it?