<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
	<channel>
		<title>Digital Signage Users Prefer Commercial-Grade Equipment: Survey</title>
		<description>Discuss Digital Signage Users Prefer Commercial-Grade Equipment: Survey</description>
		<link>https://www.wirespring.com/30-legacy-blog-digital-signage-insider/779-digital-signage-users-prefer-commercial-grade-equipment-survey</link>
		<lastBuildDate>Fri, 03 Apr 2026 23:15:38 +0000</lastBuildDate>
		<generator>JComments</generator>
		<atom:link href="https://www.wirespring.com/component/jcomments/feed/com_content/779" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
		<item>
			<title>Bill Gerba says:</title>
			<link>https://www.wirespring.com/30-legacy-blog-digital-signage-insider/779-digital-signage-users-prefer-commercial-grade-equipment-survey#comment-1340</link>
			<description><![CDATA[Hi Dmitry,
I wondered at the time whether to add another category for "prosumer" models, but since those are almost always marketed at consumers, I figured the distinction wasn't really necessary. To your point, though, the fact that so many pro and high-end consumer models (of screens in particular) share the majority of their parts seems to be forcing the manufacturers to turn to service (repair, warranty) as a way to differentiate the offerings.
Jason,
100% agreed! The fact that cable retention isn't a standard issue item on many "pro" screens is so ridiculous. However, I have noticed recently that most major manufacturers will at least sell you a locking cable cover now. And I know some higher end pole and wall mounts specifically aimed at digital-signage do have better features for addressing these kinds of problems. So maybe we'll see that kind of thing trickle down into the market soon?
With regard to your argument about the low-cost back end, I guess it's all about how much you value your working screens. If you feel that broken screens in your store are going to be a determent to your brand, you might be willing to spend more to keep them online, than if you don't.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Bill Gerba</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Thu, 16 Dec 2010 16:33:15 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>https://www.wirespring.com/30-legacy-blog-digital-signage-insider/779-digital-signage-users-prefer-commercial-grade-equipment-survey#comment-1340</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Jason Goldberg says:</title>
			<link>https://www.wirespring.com/30-legacy-blog-digital-signage-insider/779-digital-signage-users-prefer-commercial-grade-equipment-survey#comment-1339</link>
			<description><![CDATA[Intuitively I want to agree with the premise that we are far better off with "industrial grade" equipment but my own experiences in the space have made me more cynical.
Often the "industrial" features of commercial equipment such as displays don't seem to cover the most common points of failure. I.E. They will have a longer MTBF backlight but will still allow cables to be easily unplugged. Etc... I've never seen Planar/LG/Etc... publish real word data on service. You'd think by now they would have real data (instead of test specs) if the displays truly did better in the field. If I had a commercial product that actually performed better in the field, I'd have funded a field survey by now.
I listened to a top e-commerce manager recently give the advise that he buys the cheapest servers he can possible find, and buy more redundancy. His feeling was the failure rate of the rock bottom product was not much worse than the best, and he'd rather use the cost savings to get good redundancy.
Now, we don't often have the luxury of redundancy for customer facing elements of our solutions, but it's a good argument for our own back-ends.
Cheers,
Jason aka Retailgeek]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Jason Goldberg</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Fri, 10 Dec 2010 17:51:08 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>https://www.wirespring.com/30-legacy-blog-digital-signage-insider/779-digital-signage-users-prefer-commercial-grade-equipment-survey#comment-1339</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Dmitry Sokolov says:</title>
			<link>https://www.wirespring.com/30-legacy-blog-digital-signage-insider/779-digital-signage-users-prefer-commercial-grade-equipment-survey#comment-1338</link>
			<description><![CDATA[Bill, thanks for openly tackling the elephant emerging in our industry. You bring up some valid points.
As part of an organisation that provides both commercial and consumer products (both sometimes used for digital signage) we have a unique perspective on the dilemma of CE vs Commercial hardware.
While reserving my judgement on the issue, I'd like to point to emergence of 'PROsumer' ranges of products as another contributing factor to blurring distinction between the two product segments.
"PROsumer" displays (such as NEC's E-Series) are marketed as commercial, but by all specs and physical features resemble CE TV's. For many applications (such as boardroom signage) these may be sufficient by all intensive purposes, while I wouldn't deploy them in an airport.
Similar "PROsumer" is taken by ViewSonic with VOT132 - sporting a consumer form factor and spec (loaded w/ Win7 Home OS), but listing kiosks and digital signage as a suitable application.
Whatever you use, make sure you have properly weighed the pros and cons of your decision and factored the service and downtime costs. Remember that even if the hardware is easy to service, the hourly costs of technicians being called out on-site will eat in the overall profitability of your project. A nominal fee for a vendor-supported on-site warranty on the Commercial equipment may be worth it to keep your technicians installing new projects and not doing out of pocket break-fix.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Dmitry Sokolov</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Thu, 09 Dec 2010 18:11:32 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>https://www.wirespring.com/30-legacy-blog-digital-signage-insider/779-digital-signage-users-prefer-commercial-grade-equipment-survey#comment-1338</guid>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
