Quantcast
sales of 3D-TV's in the US

Forums - Sony Discussion - sales of 3D-TV's in the US

Squilliam said:
.jayderyu said:

I think?  I think it's about right for early adopter tech. Let's consider how long it's taken to adopt HD TV. I bet anything that it's adoption rate will be slower. I also bet glasses based 3D TV will be dead at the point when it would make serious market penetration in favour of new glassless tech. Then REAL adoption of 3D will begin.

There was a medium before DVD. used similar tech, but the discs were the size of an old record style. these were Laserdiscs.  It was great tech and beat DVD to the market, but the size was inconvenient. Tape cassettes beat out records because of convenience. CD beat out Records because of convience. Technology MUST be convenient for it to be acceptably adopted as part of your living life style. 3D glasses work for movies because movies are not part of your normal living lifestyle.

I think finally. These TV producers are going to spend to much money in the wrong direction for 3D TV. Much like the other media format Laserdisc. Just remember even even early adopters bought laser disc. Early adopters buy any new technology just for the sake of the technology. It's the masses that buy tech for convenience.


Yay! Now I don't have to make a logical and well thought out post! Woooooot!

In any case in the short term I expect the passive glasses to win out over the active glasses because they are easier to wear, cheap and don't run out of batteries at the absolute wrong moment, especially in sizes above 40" because its easier to fit in the required pixel density if you do line by line polarisation.

active galsses and passive glasses?  ok i'm lost on this 3d tech apparantly.  I know of the red/blue glasses, and i know fo the glasses given at 3d movies in theatres.

there is more?  there are glasses i need to put BATTERIES in?  Wow I thought i was turned off 3D before, but screw batteries.



Around the Network
irstupid said:
aragod said:
Grimes said:
aragod said:
Grimes said:
aragod said:
Grimes said:
aragod said:
Grimes said:

To compare with another new technology, the iPad sold triple that amount in dollars first day.

So you can't really blame it on being new and expensive. People just aren't that interested.

This is one of the most retarded comparasions I've ever seen, with the launch of intel pentium processors military groups around the world made a purchase hundred times what IPad sold in dollars first day.

Also what is the number of households in USA that can afford even a regular HDTV, that's not 103 mio, maybe half? Maybe less?

And BTW 3DTV is already beeing broadcasted, WorldCup for example has 3D Recording equipment made by Sony at half of the stadiums.

The military bought $15 billion of intel processors in one day? O RLY?

Yeah that's a bit low tbh, multiply that couple of times than.


Interesting considering their total quarterly revenue is around $10 billion.

I'd suggest you to re-read my original post, I'm afraid you are negatively affected by the USA = world syndrome.

Intel global revenue is around $10 billion per quarter.

The year is 1993 darling


ok so lets get this all cleared up.  You are saying in 1993, military organizations around the world bought a shit ton of processors?

hopefully that is all cleared up and what you meant, but then next question again.  What does Militaries all buying intel chip in 1993 have to do with 3DTV's?  Did I miss the memo saying all militaries are planning on buying a shit ton of 3DTV's soon?

You've missed Grimes's retarded comparasin between 3D TV's and Ipad, which are as non related as those first Pentium processors back in 1993, i.e. it has nothing to do with the topic other that pointing out that you can't compare "apples" and oranges (see what I did there?)



MY HYPE LIST: 1) Gran Turismo 5; 2) Civilization V; 3) Starcraft II; 4) The Last Guardian; 5) Metal Gear Solid: Rising

aragod said:
Grimes said:

Intel global revenue is around $10 billion per quarter.

The year is 1993 darling


Nope, 2010. Revenue $10.3 billion first quarter.

http://www.intel.com/pressroom/archive/releases/20100413corp.htm

In 1993, the revenue was $6.75 billion.

http://www.intel.com/intel/finance/releases/20030415corp.htm



Anyone can guess. It takes no effort to throw out lots of predictions and have some of them be correct. You are not and wiser or better for having your guesses be right. Even a blind man can hit the bullseye.

irstupid said:
Squilliam said:
.jayderyu said:

I think?  I think it's about right for early adopter tech. Let's consider how long it's taken to adopt HD TV. I bet anything that it's adoption rate will be slower. I also bet glasses based 3D TV will be dead at the point when it would make serious market penetration in favour of new glassless tech. Then REAL adoption of 3D will begin.

There was a medium before DVD. used similar tech, but the discs were the size of an old record style. these were Laserdiscs.  It was great tech and beat DVD to the market, but the size was inconvenient. Tape cassettes beat out records because of convenience. CD beat out Records because of convience. Technology MUST be convenient for it to be acceptably adopted as part of your living life style. 3D glasses work for movies because movies are not part of your normal living lifestyle.

I think finally. These TV producers are going to spend to much money in the wrong direction for 3D TV. Much like the other media format Laserdisc. Just remember even even early adopters bought laser disc. Early adopters buy any new technology just for the sake of the technology. It's the masses that buy tech for convenience.


Yay! Now I don't have to make a logical and well thought out post! Woooooot!

In any case in the short term I expect the passive glasses to win out over the active glasses because they are easier to wear, cheap and don't run out of batteries at the absolute wrong moment, especially in sizes above 40" because its easier to fit in the required pixel density if you do line by line polarisation.

active galsses and passive glasses?  ok i'm lost on this 3d tech apparantly.  I know of the red/blue glasses, and i know fo the glasses given at 3d movies in theatres.

there is more?  there are glasses i need to put BATTERIES in?  Wow I thought i was turned off 3D before, but screw batteries.

The current tech for 3D is to have glasses that actively shutter to cover up one eye at a time very quickly as the left/right images are displayed. They must receive a signal from the source in order to sync this flashing, and yes, they require batteries. Passive glasses are used in theaters. They require the light coming to you to be polarized differently and each lens in the glasses is oriented so that only one type of light gets through. The glasses are cheap, but the projection technology is currently very expesive.



"You can never jump away from Conclusions. Getting back is not so easy. That's why we're so terribly crowded here."

Canby - The Phantom Tollbooth

aragod said:
irstupid said:


ok so lets get this all cleared up.  You are saying in 1993, military organizations around the world bought a shit ton of processors?

hopefully that is all cleared up and what you meant, but then next question again.  What does Militaries all buying intel chip in 1993 have to do with 3DTV's?  Did I miss the memo saying all militaries are planning on buying a shit ton of 3DTV's soon?

You've missed Grimes's retarded comparasin between 3D TV's and Ipad, which are as non related as those first Pentium processors back in 1993, i.e. it has nothing to do with the topic other that pointing out that you can't compare "apples" and oranges (see what I did there?)

The iPad and 3d tvs represent new products in the consumer electronics sector.

Military purchases of components is a separate category of goods. And even then you brought up fake statistics that you made up out of thin air.



Anyone can guess. It takes no effort to throw out lots of predictions and have some of them be correct. You are not and wiser or better for having your guesses be right. Even a blind man can hit the bullseye.

Around the Network
Grimes said:
aragod said:
irstupid said:


ok so lets get this all cleared up.  You are saying in 1993, military organizations around the world bought a shit ton of processors?

hopefully that is all cleared up and what you meant, but then next question again.  What does Militaries all buying intel chip in 1993 have to do with 3DTV's?  Did I miss the memo saying all militaries are planning on buying a shit ton of 3DTV's soon?

You've missed Grimes's retarded comparasin between 3D TV's and Ipad, which are as non related as those first Pentium processors back in 1993, i.e. it has nothing to do with the topic other that pointing out that you can't compare "apples" and oranges (see what I did there?)

The iPad and 3d tvs represent new products in the consumer electronics sector.

Military purchases of components is a separate category of goods. And even then you brought up fake statistics that you made up out of thin air.

I think the real point is you can't compare a device whos entry price is $500 (top end model being $830), to a technology that involves multiple device purchases and who's lowest entry price is in the thousands.  Plus, for iPad you are going to have the Apple supporters buy it no matter what.  To my knowledge there isn't a group of 3DTV "fanboys" out there that would purchase this, no matter the costs.  Most 3D supporters, like myself, are waiting for the tech to evolve a little more and for prices to drop before we take the plunge.



Given most new flat panel tv models are including 3D now, I expect the numbers to go up pretty quickly once these new models flow down the chain and become the entry level systems.



Never argue with idiots
They bring you down to their level and then beat you with experience

Imagine how much money will be lost by someone hosting a Super Bowl party with a 3DTV. lol.



In 2005 the adoption rate of HDTV in the US was 250k in 3 months. Thats with a bigger variation in models, price and no need for accessories and they only had to battle estetics.

20k 3DTVs this early dosent say much. Its not software, and 3D is still very strange in peoples minds. HDTV to this day isnt over 50% in the US, and much lower world wide, and thats in 6 years or the market. A meagre 5.8% of TV households were watching HD programming by the end of 2009, but that is expected to increase to 7.8% by the end of this year. Byt those numbers 20k is quite in line of what one would expect in adoption rate. 3D TV will never get the same jump as SDTV to HDTV.



Infamy79 said:

Given most new flat panel tv models are including 3D now, I expect the numbers to go up pretty quickly once these new models flow down the chain and become the entry level systems.


I think you will be surprised ...

I suspect that even as 3DTVs come down in price there will still be a premium associated with the 3DTV itself so people will be able to buy a larger HDTV for a similar price; and many people will see the price of the glasses and be turned off of the 3DTV on principle. Even if you're talking about glasses that only cost $50 and TVs which come with 4 pairs, many/most people would be forced to consider situations where they will have friends/family over to watch something (like sporting events) and see the cost of additional glasses as being a fairly major negative against these TVs.