IEEE 1394 vs. DVI—Where Are Your Ethics?
Dear Gary: For the first time since I subscribed to Widescreen Review I have to say that I am very disappointed in your ethics. Why would a magazine which caters to the “early adopters” and “technophiles” lower themselves to one-sided (obviously advertisement funding backed), opinionated journalism? When I saw the “IEEE 1394 vs. DVI” article online I eagerly read it. This is such a hotly debated issue and most people do not understand the technology. I read the article with great interest until it became apparent that the author has a political motivation for disliking DVI, and therefore the entire article is biased. To add insult to injury, the last two paragraphs are a marketing pitch for Mits. As I am sure you are aware, Mits is the ONLY manufacturer that is not backing DVI, so it is in their financial interest (or more directly, if DVI is accepted Mits stands to lose everything, not to mention that Bob Perry stands to gain financially from his involvement not only with Mits, but also the HAVi group) for everyone to band together and hate DVI. So was it your intention to try and mislead your reader base into believing that this was an accurate comparison of these competing technologies? I truly hope not! I think you owe it to your reader base to respond to why you allowed Bob Perry to write this article for your otherwise great magazine. I would hate to think that the magazine I have come to trust to help make my home theatre buying decisions, has not become so unethical that they would allow financial incentives to mislead their readers.
Sean Sharpe
Editor-In-Chief Gary Reber Comments:
I published Mr. Sharpe’s letter and my response in Issue 63, August, but I felt compelled to publish Bob Perry’s response in this issue. As previously stated, I believe our readers are intellient enough to sort through such articles and determine the biases, if any. I intend to publish other articles by technologists representing each digital interface in future issues, and it can be expected that their points of view will be biased toward their support of a particular digital interface. I commend Bob Perry for presenting such a reasonably balanced effort to explain the technical differences between two digital interfaces. Mitsubishi’s Bob Perry Comments: Mr. Sharpe, in his search for unbiased analysis probably should disclose his affiliations. Mr. Sharpe works for Thomson Multimedia, the owner of the RCA brand, as well as a Hollywood studio. He is employed in the retail support department, which interfaces with the dealers that Thomson sells its products to, and competes directly with Mitsubishi. I have many friends at Thomson, whom I respect greatly. Thomson is on the record both in Washington and in the media regarding the inability of DVI to record, and need for IEEE 1394 for recording and networking. And my understanding is that Thomson is a supporter of HAVi for expanded control capability on the IEEE 1394 interface. With regard to the placement of my article as “advertisement funding backed,” a cursory review of the magazine by loyal readers will show minimal if any advertising placements by Mitsubishi. Lastly, it’s important to note that I do not stand to gain financially from the success of IEEE 1394 or HAVi. My compensation plan has no factor for the success of IEEE 1394, and my board seat on the HAVi corporation is totally uncompensated and unreimbursed. As for DVI having any impact on the success of Mitsubishi, our company is not founded on the jack pack. Instead, we are committed to high-performance, high-value products and full disclosure of information to consumers regarding the limitations of interfaces. It’s simple to put a DVI jack on a TV, which is why so many have done it. The real loser from the simultaneous proliferation of DVI and selectable output control is the consumer.
You can E-mail Widescreen Review @ mailto:editorgary@widescreenreview.com