Turkish said:
Mazty said:
Turkish said:
No I didn't, the graph is 4 years old. Bigger screens were just not mainstream back then.
Come back at me when you can backup your ridicilous claims first, you're just wasting my time, stop rambling about room sizes, you have got no clue what you're talking about, stop telling me European living rooms are small if you haven't got proof. This is from your link:
Britain's tiny houses
• In Ireland, new homes are 87.7 sq m (15% bigger)
• In the Netherlands, new homes are 115.5 sq m (53% bigger)
• In Denmark, new homes are 137 sq m (80% bigger)
Yep, UK is a good representation of Europe smh.
|
http://www.apartmenttherapy.com/average-home-sizes-around-the-151738
Do some damn research. Your graph showed that 50"+ TV's are an overwhelming minority. Factoring in the above, if you think large TV's will become common place you're completely wrong.
So, on two fronts you are completely wrong.
1)Your graph shows large TV's are a minority
2)Living room size is generally not large enough outside the US to accomodate large TVs
This is what pisses me off. You clearly have absolutely no idea about housing sizes and yet want to sit their and preach away as if you do. That attitude stinks.
|
You missed the point rather spectacularly. This whole time I was talking about 1 simple fact: tv screen sizes are growing, yet you kept on challenging this fact. My graph shows that bigger screens are indeed gaining marketshare while smaller ones lose. The 32-37" is for the sleeping room. Here's another article saying average tv sizes in the UK have risen by 15" in the past decade http://hdtvorg.co.uk/news/articles/2007112001.htm Note the article is 5 years old so the average is way higher by now. I don't need to know all the rambling about uk housing sizes. Its pointless as sources show the average has increased even in the UK, the country that is supposed to have the smallest houses. You act like people have hit a limit for the size of tvs, they didn't. I asked for sources to backup your claim, you came up with home sizes, this is not what I wanted, I asked you to prove why people didn't want a 60" sized tv. You based your whole argument on viewing distances, tried to make a connection with housing sizes somehow. Have you seen Gilgamesh's chart? Min viewing distance for +65" tv is 2,5m, this is my current viewing distance for my 50". Note the difference for 42" tvs and +65" on that chart, the difference of min. viewing distance is only 1m. Suddenly bringing up housing sizes seems silly. You're simply ill informed if you think there is no market for large tvs outside the US, European retail chains like MediaMarkt advertize nothing more than big tvs.
|
You notion is rediculous because you are ignoring all other factors. If we just go with what you are saying then in 2030 all TV's will be 200+".
Good one on completely ignoring the fact that I backed up my claim on finite living space.
If the article is 5 years old then you need to find a more uptodate source.
Yes because people always love sitting in the front seats at a cinema *facepalm* Working on the minimum distance is rediculous - average it out.
Look at the bloody link I gave you. There isn't a market for big TV's because there isn't the room for them in Europe. Go look at an estate agent for the UK before talking about something you know absolutely nothing about. I've lived in both the US and UK and know the difference in housing size is phenomenal - you are just taking a complete guess at size.
