"Nobody cares about picture quality."
Troll? Maybe. Unlike the rest of you, I can't read his mind. Could be he was serious, though exaggerating. Somebody look up "hyperbole" in the dictionary.
But remember that just because picture resolution is the most important aspect (har har, aspect, aspect ratio, geddit? har har) of TV for the two of you doesn't mean it is for everybody.
I'd rather see improvements in the programming. If there are 20,000 super-duper extreme high definition channels all running QVC and reruns of I Love Lucy, I'd say we haven't gained anything. How about reception quality for those not in range of a cable monopoly? I don't expect that high-definition static will make them happier either.
I was collecting laserdiscs before they were popular (they were, you know, for at least a week) and of course I own DVDs now. While it wouldn't be fair to claim that I don't care about picture quality, next time I watch Casablanca I won't be counting how many pixels it takes to resolve Bogie's face. His acting is just as good at NTSC resolution as HD.
There's better, and then there's "good enough." Your average consumer is satisfied with "good enough" and after that they're mostly interested in price and convenience. Why didn't DAT take over from Phillips cassettes? Because cassettes were "good enough", cheap, convenient, and established. Why did cassettes take over from reel-to-reel, quite obviously a superior format? Go on, you'll never guess. CDs took over from vinyl not because they were superior quality, but for convenience reasons. They killed the cassette too but you'll notice it took much longer. Why didn't SVHS take over from VHS? For that matter, why didn't laserdisc? Because VHS was "good enough" and nobody wanted to invest the money in a format that didn't give them anything except higher resolution, when what they had was "good enough." (And you couldn't record on laserdisc.)
OK, great. You've got digital, high-definition, wide-screen TV. Now what? What do you do with it? Great for videophiles and movie nights, but what difference does it really make to casual viewing? Will it bring us better TV shows, or just the same old drek with vertical bars on either end?
Oh, it's a great boondoggle for the hardware companies. Just when our economy is totally in the toilet, everybody in the US is forced to buy brand new hardware if they want to keep watching TV. I dunno, maybe it's a blessing in disguise. Those who can't afford it will just have to go outside and start living real life. You know, outdoors? You walk through a hole in the wall and experience an abrupt change of environment?
You call troll and BS. I call reality. Real reality, not the predigested pap you see on half your TV channels. I call somebody who is paying attention.
P.S. Don't forget the homework. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/hyperbole
P.P.S. In case you don't get my jokes, here's a bonus question. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/aspect%20ratio
Now let me slip on this flame-retardant underwear. (Due to the truth in advertising laws, it can no longer be called "flame-proof".)