Changes in quality mean sacrifice…

High Definition (HD) televisions or LCD panels as they are referred to now are not the only means of improving entertainment to end users. The Washington Post discusses the FCC ruling that allowed AM radio stations to broadcast HD programs to listeners 24 hours a day versus the previous restriction to daytime hours. http://blog.washingtonpost.com/fasterforward/2007/03/the_fcc_greenlights_hd_radio_n.html
This is an obvious benefit to listeners who have endured the sound of static and interference while enjoying their favorite baseball team live en route. All changes however, require some form of sacrifice and/or trade off from what was, to what will now be. Implementing HD digital technology through AM frequency means that listeners will no longer be able to pick up stations from afar as the digital output will become localized restricting it’s reach. Is this truly an improvement then? AM listeners seem to value the vast array of entertainment available to them through this medium and have grown accustomed to the poor quality. Better quality and less programming may ultimately reduce listener volume. Or perhaps not. They may in fact attract a new generation of younger people, who tune into FM quality stations, as AM stations align with their values.

The biggest obstacle for new technology is getting people addicted to the benefits it offers. iTV for instance was released to market with a 40G hard drive and we all know Apple had the capability of offering much more. Get people hooked to a new concept and way of entertainment, in this example, and then they can’t live without it. A year or two later you release a 100G hard drive because people need more and more and the cycle repeats. I myself am quite content remaining in the “Late Adopter” category of consumers as I believe I get more for my money. Certainly, I do not blame tech companies for gaining high ROI’s as that is the fundamental nature of business, I’m just happy to play my role and benefit as I may.