Flappo wrote:

My Avant was twice the price of an equivalent Sony Wega , the new ones are more like ten times the price of an equivalent Samsung.

No wonder they're not selling many.

I too have preached this many many times here. 

Most people even if they have the money won't put 20K on a TV. They just won't. I won't. 

How many Avants were B&O selling in 1998? How many BV12, are they going to sell in 2012? Or BV9's in 2009? (was it still in production?)

I actually regret buying my BV10 in 2010. It's not worth the price. The TV itself is nothing but a monitor, the smart part of my BV10 is the Humax WBOX (400 euro) and Mac Mini (550 euro) it is connected to. B&O can't even justify the price to have their own Digital reciever certified in Finland, so you can't use it with coded or pay-channels. According to my dealer when I bought the BV10 the price of this certification is roughly 10.000 euro. Dammit, I could pay it for them. 😂 

I'm very interested to see what will happen with Apple on the TV market. It will for sure be something different from the TV we are used to.

I can't understand your point 10% in that Apple would be limiting and somehow keep us from diversity? Apple has indeed been the one, telling the music and movie industry things need to change. And I applaude them for it. Sadly they are still fighting the movie and TV industry.

Think about it this way, the reason to modern "piracy" is much less in the US for example, hit TV shows, and new movies are available right away. In Europe, and Finland especially we are waiting for new movies for about 6-12months. TV shows for years! Now this problem might not only be the TV networks fault in the US, but also the fact that local TV stations simply won't pay the prices asked. 

Here we are given a choice. 

1. Piracy, it's all available online within minutes

2. iTunes, it's all available within minutes, but it's legal, and you pay as you use. 

Sadly, probably due to the extremely complex legislations and royalty-collecting networks on local levels troughout the world, the iTunes content is still very limited here in Finland for example. But I'm sure as the world is getting changed slowly with Apple at the wheel, because they have the influence and the power to change things.

Sofar the change they have done to the Music industry has benefitted me, and I'm sure it has benefitted the average consumer too. DRM was used by Apple in the beginning, not because Apple wanted it, but because the industry demanded it. It was a smart move by Apple and a carrot given to get the music industry to get them aboard.

I'm not sure why so many on this site are so negative towards Apple, but I guess, since there's "fanboys", there has to be "haters".

Apple will change the movie/TV industry just as they changed the Music industry. 

Flappo wrote:

My Avant was twice the price of an equivalent Sony Wega , the new ones are more like ten times the price of an equivalent Samsung.

No wonder they're not selling many.

I too have preached this many many times here. 

Most people even if they have the money won't put 20K on a TV. They just won't. I won't. 

How many Avants were B&O selling in 1998? How many BV12, are they going to sell in 2012? Or BV9's in 2009? (was it still in production?)

I actually regret buying my BV10 in 2010. It's not worth the price. The TV itself is nothing but a monitor, the smart part of my BV10 is the Humax WBOX (400 euro) and Mac Mini (550 euro) it is connected to. B&O can't even justify the price to have their own Digital reciever certified in Finland, so you can't use it with coded or pay-channels. According to my dealer when I bought the BV10 the price of this certification is roughly 10.000 euro. Dammit, I could pay it for them. 😂 

I'm very interested to see what will happen with Apple on the TV market. It will for sure be something different from the TV we are used to.

I can't understand your point 10% in that Apple would be limiting and somehow keep us from diversity? Apple has indeed been the one, telling the music and movie industry things need to change. And I applaude them for it. Sadly they are still fighting the movie and TV industry.

Think about it this way, the reason to modern "piracy" is much less in the US for example, hit TV shows, and new movies are available right away. In Europe, and Finland especially we are waiting for new movies for about 6-12months. TV shows for years! Now this problem might not only be the TV networks fault in the US, but also the fact that local TV stations simply won't pay the prices asked. 

Here we are given a choice. 

1. Piracy, it's all available online within minutes

2. iTunes, it's all available within minutes, but it's legal, and you pay as you use. 

Sadly, probably due to the extremely complex legislations and royalty-collecting networks on local levels troughout the world, the iTunes content is still very limited here in Finland for example. But I'm sure as the world is getting changed slowly with Apple at the wheel, because they have the influence and the power to change things.

Sofar the change they have done to the Music industry has benefitted me, and I'm sure it has benefitted the average consumer too. DRM was used by Apple in the beginning, not because Apple wanted it, but because the industry demanded it. It was a smart move by Apple and a carrot given to get the music industry to get them aboard.

I'm not sure why so many on this site are so negative towards Apple, but I guess, since there's "fanboys", there has to be "haters".

Apple will change the movie/TV industry just as they changed the Music and computer industry. 

Flappo wrote:

My Avant was twice the price of an equivalent Sony Wega , the new ones are more like ten times the price of an equivalent Samsung.

No wonder they're not selling many.

Every time the discussion of price occurs in this forum, someone brings up this same argument. "My Avant was only twice the price of another TV". When I see this argument I frequently respond with a post asking what TV cost 1/2 the price of the Avant. I did so several pages ago in this thread. Nobody ever answers. So, when I read the post about the Sony Wega I thought I finally had found the answer. 

However, a couple minutes is all it took to find this thread from 2000 where people were discussing the Sony Wega. It says the price for a 32 inch Wega was $1,400-$1,500 but they were selling for $1,100. A 27 inch was $899. My Avant was $8,500 in 2000. That makes the Avant 6 to 9 times the price, not double.

I am still waiting for someone to name the TV that sold for $4,250 in 2000 and thus prove the Avant was only double the price of another TV.

[quote user="Razlaw"]

Every time the discussion of price occurs in this forum, someone brings up this same argument. "My Avant was only twice the price of another TV". When I see this argument I frequently respond with a post asking what TV cost 1/2 the price of the Avant. I did so several pages ago in this thread. Nobody ever answers. So, when I read the post about the Sony Wega I thought I finally had found the answer.

However, a couple minutes is all it took to find this thread from 2000 where people were discussing the Sony Wega. It says the price for a 32 inch Wega was $1,400-$1,500 but they were selling for $1,100. A 27 inch was $899. My Avant was $8,500 in 2000. That makes the Avant 6 to 9 times the price, not double.

I am still waiting for someone to name the TV that sold for $4,250 in 2000 and thus prove the Avant was only double the price of another TV.

Razlaw wrote:

Flappo wrote:

My Avant was twice the price of an equivalent Sony Wega , the new ones are more like ten times the price of an equivalent Samsung.

No wonder they're not selling many.

Every time the discussion of price occurs in this forum, someone brings up this same argument. "My Avant was only twice the price of another TV". When I see this argument I frequently respond with a post asking what TV cost 1/2 the price of the Avant. I did so several pages ago in this thread. Nobody ever answers. So, when I read the post about the Sony Wega I thought I finally had found the answer. 

However, a couple minutes is all it took to find this thread from 2000 where people were discussing the Sony Wega. It says the price for a 32 inch Wega was $1,400-$1,500 but they were selling for $1,100. A 27 inch was $899. My Avant was $8,500 in 2000. That makes the Avant 6 to 9 times the price, not double.

I am still waiting for someone to name the TV that sold for $4,250 in 2000 and thus prove the Avant was only double the price of another TV.

link

 

 

My parents payed 13.000 FIM or 2166 euro for their Avant 28" CTV in 1999. I'm sure a Sony would have been a lot cheaper in the US than Europe anyway.

I don't think you can compare a top of the line Avant with DVD? or VCR, surround sound etc to the Sony. Throw in Sonys top of the line Dolby digital amp, top of the line VCR and top of the line 32", and I'm not sure 8500 euro would have been enough. This is how the comparison should be done.

Flappo wrote:

My Avant was twice the price of an equivalent Sony Wega , the new ones are more like ten times the price of an equivalent Samsung.

No wonder they're not selling many.

 Rather like comparing apples to pears.

With their constant reduction in prices the mainstream manufacturers have reduced the quality of their TVs,and the QC on their production lines.

The top of the range TVs,be they LED,or Plasma,have been beset with both picture,and QC,issues.

In 2007 my Pioneer Plasma TV cost £5000,and given the reported issues with current TVs,including even Loewe,I thought long,and hard,about not only buying a new TV,but also paying the large premium for a B & O.

Well the B & O TV was delivered,and set up,on Friday,and having lived with it for 48 hours,I can honestly say it has been money well spent.

Puncher wrote:

Top end Panasonics and Sonys were retailing for over £1000 at the time.

I bought the top end Sony 32" CRT in 2000 and it was £1800. In fact, that was with a staggering 5% discount. As a result, the Sony dealer delivered, but left it in my hall and it must have been 60Kg. I didn't buy a B&O TV until 2004 (a BV7-32).

It was one of those designer Sony's and I managed to flog it for £1000 a couple of years later!

I can't remember the cost of my BV7-32, although it was brand new, but I do remember feeling like I'd got reasonable value. I can't remember thinking "crikey, that was 4x the price of the Sony".

Now, of course, it's a different matter. Buy a BV7-40 with Blu-ray now, with stand, and it's over £10,000. That would take a lot more consideration. I'm not doing badly, but I doubt I'd buy a BV7-40 brand new in 2012. I could only justify the BV10-46 from trading in my old BV7-40.

Of course, there are a few people who have so much spare cash, £10K for a TV is almost irrelevant. However, these customers will diminish over time and the younger people coming in below will be even more fussy and price-sensitive....which is the primary reason for this multi-page discussion (B&O outsourcing to improve their margin).

TerryM wrote:

In 2007 my Pioneer Plasma TV cost £5000

Interestingly, with regard to the subject of this thread, Pioneer closed it's Kuro division in 2009 because it was losing money - not enough people were prepared to pay their prices! If people aren't willing to pay what you're asking it renders "being the best" pretty much redundant. Something, I would imagine, that is in B&O's thoughts.

The Pioneer Kuro TV is probably the best example that has been mentioned on this thread - far better than silly handbags, cars or camera analogies. It was universally recognised as the best TV in the market - I don't think it had any detractors. It was expensive, too expensive as it turned out, not enough people were willing to pay the price. The end result ........ Pioneer had to cease making TV's because of extensive losses.

Puncher wrote:

TerryM wrote:

In 2007 my Pioneer Plasma TV cost £5000

 

Interestingly, with regard to the subject of this thread, Pioneer closed it's Kuro division in 2009 because it was losing money - not enough people were prepared to pay their prices!

True.

As was the case with Fujitsu.

But the point is quality costs.

I did flirt with the idea of buying a Panasonic VX300 Monitor,but having factored in it's £8-9000 cost,and the costs of an AV amplifier,a move to B & O made sense.

TerryM wrote:

But the point is quality costs.

True again, but (and here we are back to the crux of the thread) when it costs more than enough people are willing to pay then there are only two options - either find a way to reduce costs or go out of business (please note I did not say sacrifice quality).