no it was not in japan alone it had 70% or higher of the HD market for disc based format's ever since 2007 on..

there was only one freakin manuf. you get that none of the other manuf. could produce it cheaper than Toshiba. when Toshiba went to $99.00 none of the other manf. would touch that because suprise ..there was no money in it.!

yes it does when 22

that's 22 of the largest Consumer Manuf. all chose Blu-Ray over HD DVD not only that they chose it before HD DVD was even released. why because it was already proven it worked ..hello 3 year's before HD DVD first rolled off it's first HD DVD player.

Hell HD DVD did not even have it's HD DVD recordable's ready and still did not have them ready while DAY ONE BACK IN 2003 Blu-Ray was already on the market and rolled out recordable Blu-Ray devices .

if it was not for Microsoft and their Push for IHD control software in trying their best to split the market Toshiba may not even went forward with HD DVD.

It was HD DVD that had to prove itself not Blu-Ray.

So no HD DVD was not looking like it would ever win at all there was just only one manuf. when it never stood a chance even with Microsoft's help..it was there just to try to slow the adoption of Blu-Ray.

because the other manuf. chose Java over IHD that was the real reason this was even an issue.

Saying "No one will even consider a 3D tv until things like tv shows and sports are in 3D" is as wrong as saying "No one will even consider a HD TV until things like tv shows and sports are in HD". In my country, the point when more HD-capable TVs were sold than non HD-capable TVs was already four years ago, but even today less than 10% of owners of HD-capable TVs in my country actually enjoy HD television. Some wanted HD to fully enjoy the graphics from their PS3 or Xbox 360. Others wanted HD because of the excellent quality of Blu-Ray movies. But the majority simply bought their HD-capable TV because they wanted a flatscreen and wanted it to be prepared for the HD future too.

In the early days of flatscreen TV, there were actually a lot of flatscreen TVs with HD display panels that were in fact not capable of displaying HD graphics because they had no DVI or HDMI port. Such devices completely disappeared from the market within a very short time, for one reason: The additional cost for making such devices HD ready was very low for the manufacturers. The display panel was capable of showing HD graphics anyway, pretty much all they had to do was add a HDMI port. Very soon people did not buy non-HD-ready TVs anymore even if they did not have any HDMI devices at that time. And that's because people liked the idea of HD graphics even if they could not enjoy them yet, and since there was hardly any difference in price why should they take a model that isn't HD ready?

It will be very similar with 3D TVs. If the display panel supports at least 120Hz, the additional cost for being "3D-ready" will be extremely low. The shutter glasses are probably what's most expensive, and even those are actually very cheap to manufacture. They try to sell them for $100 and more, but I guess the costs for producing them is around $5. And with more and more video games being 3D, more and more hollywood blockbusters being sold on 3D Blu-Ray discs and since some channels have already begun to broadcast sports events in 3D, there is definitely a demand.

And as for "TVs that don't need glasses": 3D TVs that only need polarized glasses or no glasses at all are way more expensive to manufacture because you cannot use the same display panels that are built into standard HDTVs. And models without glasses already exist, but

a) they are extremely expensive, far beyond $10000 at the moment and chances are they will stay very expensive for quite a few years

b) their 3D effect is in fact worse than those of models with shutter or polarizied glasses

-> The only reason 3D TVs will not become mainstream soon is that most people have just bought a new TV. But just as it was with "HD-ready" TVs, in a very short time the majority of TV sets will be "3D-ready" just because very soon the difference in price will be next to zero.

I love all of this hate towards Sony for pushing 3D technology. Give it time. In a year, 3D TV sets will come down in price. Look at the movies, 3D movies in the theatre are exploading right now and are becoming more and more popular.

Google stereoscopic 3d and read up on where the technology comes from, how long its been available and what Sony is offering with howmuch they are charging and you may understand some of the slack they are getting.

The idea of stereoscopy is over 100 years old and its been actively used in gaming since mid 90s on the PC. There are tens of millions of 3D capable displays and projectors in consumers hands all of which are locked out by Sony's new strategy. They may be hyping HDMI 1.4 displays...but HDMI 1.4 is basically same as HDMI 1.3 but with a lock out mechanism for anyone that already has 3D equipment. Take Direct TV 3d broadcast of world cup for example. It uses side to side 3D, which is the oldest stereoscopic 3D in the book. However they are locking out their signal to anyone that doesn't have HDMI 1.4 TV.

Only reason Sony, Samsung, LG etc... are pushing it is cause they just clued in they can charge a premium for it and make money off consumers by making them re-buy their TV's, bluray players, receivers and movies... You must change everything to work with 3D.

I can understand your nickname better now.

If no one tries to push 3D in our houses, then MS won't get into it, right?

And call me strange for saying this, but I think (not sure) that if people wants to notice the capabilities of 3D, someone HAS to push it first.  I may be wrong though... Things like 3D and consumer ready technologies may pop out of nowhere and I've been in a delusional world all this time.

Argh, you're right!  Selnor gets a reprieve... for now! *dun dun DUNNN!*

And alright, I'll give him the benefit of the doubt this time, but only because you asked me to!

People don't tend to upgrade their televisions that quickly, at least not in the U.S.  HDTV's took quite some time to reach wide adoption, even with the benefits offered by things like a smaller size, a larger screen, and broadcasts turning digital.  To this day I believe they're still a minority in this country, albeit not by much.

Those people are not going to eagerly plunk down thousands of dollars more to buy a 3D-TV when their HDTV is only a few years old, especially if most content is still not in 3D.

Edit: Curses!  I double-posted.

You know, I was wondering why Squilliam had been turning into such a Nintendo fanboy lately...

Now it all makes sense!

I agree with the, 3d is too expensive point.