High definition tv has been around a while now but seems slower on the uptake than other entertainment technologies. Its admittedly expensive still, but there hasn't been a huge demand for low end HDTV either. If there were, smaller screens and receivers could clearly be built.

I suggest that it may not be entirely price holding back consumers. Sure, its nice to look at. The picture is crisp and its fans claim its nothing at all like watching tv is now. I think this misses the point. There's a place where technology gets "good enough" for most people and advances aren't going to be worth spending as much to all but the biggest enthusiasts. The human brain is very very good at filling in missing information. The very poor quality images we see on television are a great example of this. I suspect that for most of us although we'd clearly see the better pictures, it wouldn't really add all that much actual joy to the viewing. The story doesn't change, and a lot of what we perceive is already being filled in by our own brains. If anything, the higher resolution requires less of our internal personalization and may even detract a little bit in a subtle way.

Think I'm wrong? Consider the lowest resolution story imaging technology. Books. Most of us still like them. The parts of the image left out allow us to self-customize the characters based on those we know.

I'm not saying we won't all at some point have HDTV -- but I don't think the general demand is going to drive a dramatic increase in people willing to spend > $500 for a television. The budget for a "nice new tv" will remain pretty much the same. HDTV will get widely adopted when it falls into that budget for enough people. Until then, it will remain a luxury item for those with spare cash or those for whom tv is excessively important. Like the guy living in the beat up trailer where we can see through the open curtain a 6' wide flatscreen tv going 7 days a week.

-- Andrew