Avatar was the proof on concept for 3D entertainment.  I'm not saying it set any standard, I'm saying it cemented the concept of 3D entertainment.  It's the springboard everyone's working from.

What Sony needs to do is prove their own standard out.  3DS actually works directly against that, 3DS literally is "the standard" Nintendo's pushing.  If consumers adopt that standard foremost, and align with Nintendo's position that "glassesless" should be the standard for 3D, it works directly against Sony's format.

And I'm not implying consumers are "idiotic", I'm saying if Nintendo sets the standard (glassesless) consumers will expect more in their living rooms than what Sony's pushing.  If the technology isn't there, then they'll simply wait until it is.  

Well, i thought it was obvious it was the development cost of the tech, not the lack of tech. Thats why its not possible because its absurdly expensive.

I guess i should clarify, what i mean is, the glassless 3D being affordable enough to mass produce or sell is too far off. By me saying people arent idiotic, i mean people will not expect glassless 3d in their homes right now. Thsi in no way hurts Sony or other manufacturers. Just like when AVatar took off and 3D in cinemas was going strong for a while it didnt make people stop buying 2D television to wait for 3D, just like i believe the 3DS will not stop people from buying 3D TV's because they need glasses.

Long term glassless 3D will be essential, what im saying is, opening the door on this market over the next 3-4 years is essential and the 3DS does NOT harm Sony from doing that in the living room, it helps them.

Consumers will not associate what they see with the 3DS and extrapolate that to what they expect from a live action movie on a big screen. They wont view them as identicle, but they will view them as 3D which is whats so important and th epoint i was trying to make. Seeing the Ocarina of Time in 3D on a 3.5 inch screen will not increase expectations for watching Toy Story 3 in 3D on  a 55 inch screen. I feel consumers will understand the difference in image quality as well as screen size and thus not expect such a thing in their homes right now.

I can't believe this. Sony says something nice about Nintendo, and people still find a way to hate on them. Turn down the fanboyism some of you. Damn.

For now the cost is prohibitive yes, but that will change over the next decade....2015ish we should see a harder push. Sony's only aim at this point is to make it available and get it in the minds of gamers that they want this. They know that saturation will be slow for this, much much slower than Blu-Ray. With that stated, I think its safe to assume they are prepaired for a long term gameplan to push this entertainment medium.

I'm not arguing the common knolwedge that its cost prohibitive though, I am simply dispelling the notion that there will be no link in consumer behavior between those who buy a 3DS and those who invest in stereoscopic or autostereoscopic 3D.Nintendo will profit in its infancy, but with Blu-Ray being the new movie standard and a 3D standards having been created for it, Sony will stand to see long term gains if they play their cards right. It seems reasonable that Sony has a pretty good hand in this game.

I have to wonder, who is manufacturing those auto stereoscopic screens for Nintendo?

The avatar/television comparison really doesn't work though, as Avatar wasn't a consumer level product.  There's always been that fundamental divide between public and private consumer entertainment.  Avatar wasn't competitive with television, Nintendo and Sony's 3D formats however are starting to take a competitive approach (particularly from Nintendo's end, that's exactly how they're positioning 3DS).

If Nintendo defines the standard, their goal is define it as "glassesless" and to define glasses-baed-3D as goofy, expensive and archaic.  That doesn't support Sony, that impedes them, pretty directly.  Even worse for Sony (and everyone pushing 3DTV, and Apple as well actually), in addition to gaming Nintendo's aggressively pursuing film content seemingly, and they already have the ear of Disney, Dreamworks and WB (and likely other content providers).   Nintendo's made it pretty clear what direction they're heading, and it rather obviously does not support Sony's 3D standard...

Sharp owns the patents for the technology. I don't think Sony or anyone else could use incorporate such technology without a licensing agreement with Sharp.

The manufacturing will probably be done by Foxconn or some other Chinese company, since they make just about everything consumer electronics already.

Sharp.  And considering the volumes Nintendo buys in, plus their history with the company, they're likely getting a killer deal.

But Jarrod, you're side stepping (or not noticing) the fact that people are more and more going to theaters and putting on the glasses.  Avatar was watched through glasses.  People are getting more used to glasses every day.  A remarkable little handheld device with a magical picture doesn't necessarily completely erase that trend.  I think you're basically articulating what Nintendo would like to happen.  And it very well could, I'm not arguing with the possibility of what you're suggesting.  But, if 3DTVs and 3D glasses fail to catch on, I would bet it will have more to do with the ridiculous price of the glasses rather than a game handheld making people not want to bring the experience they're getting at the theater home to their family.

*edit*

Ok, I see that you're depending on the distinction between "public" (home) and "private" (theater) products.  The problem for me is that you haven't really made an argument for that outside of the categorical statement, "There's always been that fundamental divide between public and private consumer entertainment."

How fundamental do you feel this divide is?  Is it so significant that it makes the handheld experience and the TV experience look like the same thing by comparison?  Will the 3DS make it so that families all sit around in their living rooms, everyone staring into their own handheld, rather than all watching something together on the TV?

Also my other point, people will not extrapolate the 3DS experience to what they have in homes and theaters. I think there will be a definitive and obvious distinction for consumers, as you said, they simply need that little push toward 3D in their home, regardless of glasses i feel its irrelavent as youve said, theyre doing it in droves in theaters.....the 3DS might be that little push to expand 3D into their home. I truly dont believe people will view 3D using glasses as obsolete after playing with a 3DS.