But it had better be at an affordable price as well, not to mention avoiding headaches.

It doesn't matter if it costs a million dollars and your first born child. Once consumers realize that there is the possibility of a future affordable device that would make their potential glasses-required 3DTV 2000 dollar purchase obsolete in a very real and final way, they will wait to upgrade, for years if necessary.

I mean really, would anyone buy a 3DTV that required glasses if Sony announced a new model that didn't require glasses and would launch next year at around 5000 dollars?

no, but they wouldn't buy the 5000 dollar TV either

They would wait. That's the point. They SHOULD wait. Early adoption in this instance is a terrible idea, considering that not only is this glasses-requiring 3D technology already obsolete, and unacceptably priced for said technology....it is obsolete in a way that causes it to potentially not function with the future content for which it was intended.

This is already a failed tech, and I guarntee you that even Sony are spending vast amounts of money on research to develop its precedessor as soon as humanly possible. They already have the tech for glassesless 3DTVs, they just need to refine it to a point where it can be acceptable in price and quality to the general public. The TVs sold today are not going to be the TVs of tomorrow. Glasses enabled 3D is not what we will be upgrading to as a mass market. If nothing else, the 3DS makes that abundantly clear.

Most people will be totally unaware of the 3DS' existence.  Plus, I don't think people are as dull as you think they are.  They don't see two completely different, unrelated objects, and wonder why one can't do what the other can.

do you even know how 3D without glasses is made and how hard is to do for multiple viewers at the same screen? 3DS is easy because there will be only one viewer at the same time and the screen manufacturer could look the 3D effect for a limited view distance and angle of the viewer is always in front of the screen (imagine the screen has a 180º view angle, in a handheld you are always in the 90º position, get it?)... in a living room that is not possible to do, TV would need a 3D camera (like kinect) to do, in real time, head tracking and adjust the screen setup for your point of view... if that ain't easy for one person... imagine for multiple viewers... PC gaming have only one viewer per screen and even nVidia didn't go that path and would be expecting to much and is a HUGE stretch for anyone to believe that glasses free would be the path for home 3D now...

 As it currently stands I think 3d TV's aren't even aimed at anyone like us, they're priced and positioned in such a way as to just cater for an 'elite' group of early adopters with more money then they know what to do with. Sure enough it's  not the mass market but there is a significient nishe who will simply pay whatever the hell Sony, Samsung, Panasonic et all choose and it wouldn't make sense for the TV companies not to take as much from these people. 

 Once that's done prices will be come reasonable and I'd imagine we'll see greater adoption. For me I see 3d being a success, simply because HD was, and joe average doesn't really even understand what 720p or 1080i or what HD actually was, not to mention really see a clearer imagine. On the other hand 3D is tech you can tell is 3D, that imo is a much easier sell then HD was.

 As for these survey results, I'd say they're extremely good results. Baring in mind 3DTV's went on the market only months ago to have a 20%-30% interested userbase on something that will be rolled out over the next 8 years isn't something to be snuffed at.

People don't need to be dull. Most people are just not interested in technical stuff.

After Wii being nearly 4 years on the market, a lot of Wii owners still don't know there's two different sensor technics in the remote.

About the glasses: Are there currently any 3D TVs with polarisation glasses, or is it only shutter tech? Is there a big difference in comfort? I only saw one 3D movie, which was with polarisation glasses, and I don't think they were that bad. I was positively surprised.

ROFL, everyone will know the 3DS, if not through kids and grandkids, then through the people they meet on a daily basis.

Never said people are dull, I said thy aren;t tech savvy, what they will see is 3DS able to pull it off for a few hundred dollars, they will then go into a store and see the glasses one for thousands and ask why can't the big TV's do what Nitnendo does for a fraction of the cost

Hooray for contacts!