News - One in five TVs sold in 2013 will be 3D-capable, says report

[HEXUS]

The future will be in 3D, whether you like it or not.

Read more.

[Saracen]

Well, the report actually said, according to the text, "one in every five TVs purchased in the US will be 3D-capable."

I'd also like to know how they define "capable"?

If, as I said once before, a set is "capable" and that capability doesn't add (significantly) to the cost, then I'd go along with that prediction. But personally, I'm far from convinced that 3D will ever (short of a radical break and 25th century holographic technology) be much of a driver for new TVs.

So my view is that it depends if both capable and non-capable sets are available, and what the price differential will be.

Personally, I don't give a flying fig for 3D, and if I ever buy a 3D capable set, it'll be because it's the set I decided on and it happened to be 3D capable, and that capability won't have any impact on the buying decision whatsoever.

Do I believe that people will be buying sets (in those sorts of volumes) for the 3D capability? Nope. Will they be buying "capable" sets? Maybe.

A lot of people have bought new sets to get flat panel, and a lot have bought again to get HD ready or TrueHD (or whatever the marketing speak currently is), and therefore virtually the entire population has a relatively set, and most (except enthusiasts) aren't going to get bounced into yet another technological advance requiring a new set unless that advance is overwhelmingly convincing. And, for my money, 3D isn't.

Of course, I could be wrong. But I wonder who commissioned that marketing survey? Manufacturers of 3D capable TVs, perhaps?

[duc]

Capable, so they're not 100% sure; 1-in-5, 3 years, so its possible. Its like the early adopters of HD-ready televisions, by the time HD content became widespread the majority of these television owners realise that HD-ready isn't the same as Full-HD.

[format]

Looks to me like this is the new hot thing that manufacturers are trying to push on us.

[ecat]

Looks to me like this is the new hot thing that manufacturers are trying to push on us.

Of course it is:
1) Minimum increase in manufacturing cost
2) Ability to charge premium price
3) Chance that those who already have a fairly new TV will buy again

It's a trick that's been used several times in the past, it looked as if people got wise with BlueRay (re-buy all your old movies), I wonder if people will stay smart this time around ?

[crossy]

It's a trick that's been used several times in the past, it looked as if people got wise with BlueRay (re-buy all your old movies), I wonder if people will stay smart this time around ?

A lot of folks I know basically went "meh" when BR turned up - mainly because if you looked in Comet, Curry's, etc then there wasn't a heck of a lot of difference in quality - it wasn't "gee wow, that's like going from VHS to DVD!". Plus - of course - the small matter of BR=£15+, DVD=£10.

A lot of people have bought new sets to get flat panel, and a lot have bought again to get HD ready or TrueHD (or whatever the marketing speak currently is), and therefore virtually the entire population has a relatively new set, and most (except enthusiasts) aren't going to get bounced into yet another technological advance requiring a new set unless that advance is overwhelmingly convincing. And, for my money, 3D isn't.

Agree totally with what you're saying in your whole post (not just the fragment I've quoted). Is it just me, or is there an air of desperation from the manufacturers?

Then again, I'm a hopeless old curmudgeon - I'm not particularly impressed with the internet-enablement either. Like you, if the set I get to replace my old CRT is "3D ready" then fine, but that's a "oh, that's nice" rather than a "oo, I've got to have that" in my book. Certainly way down the list behind looks, picture quality, refresh rate, et al. (Looking for a 32" with superb picture quality, good sound, 100Hz refresh or better and a thin/unobtrusive bezel)

Shame that no-one seems to do an 'upgradeable' set - basically a high-quality, but dumb panel, that you could slot different modules into. Naive I know...

Bob

[Funkstar]

A lot of folks I know basically went "meh" when BR turned up - mainly because if you looked in Comet, Curry's, etc then there wasn't a heck of a lot of difference in quality - it wasn't "gee wow, that's like going from VHS to DVD!". Plus - of course - the small matter of BR=£15+, DVD=£10.

It's not as simple as that though. BR does everything DVD does just better, where as DVD did a whole heap of things VHS could never do. BR is an incremental improvement over DVD, not the leap in technology needed to go main stream in the same way. I personally believe DVD will be sold along side BR for a long long time.

If 3D technology had been around from the launch of BR things might be different as that would be it's USP (Unique Selling Point).

I have to agree about 3D capable sets though, I certainly won't be dashing out to get one. I passed up on HD sets for a long time until the technology came down to a reasonable price and I actually had content to view on it. Now I have a 1080p 42" set that I'm very happy with. I see no need to change it. When I do though, I hope to be able to justify a 50"+ screen for a very large living room/home cinema

[capt_cornflake]

Well surely 100% of colour TVs are 3-D capable, if include good old blue/red blurro-vision