Slashdot Mirror
Flat Screen Monitors Sales to Reign This Year
swimfastom writes "Yahoo! News reports that sales of flat-panel computer monitors will top sales of bulkier traditional models this year, signifying a long-expected turning point in the computer monitor market. Flat-panel screen sales are expected to grow at a 49-percent compounded annual growth rate from 2001 through 2006, giving them an 82-percent share of the desktop computer market."
Until 19" flatscreens are available for sane prices they will not sell as well as they predict. the 15" models are ok priced ($299.00 compared to $100.00 for a 15 inch monitor is a tough one) but anything larger is nuts and any model that is fast enough for gaming get's up in price really fast.
and then you have that nasty problem with not running at the native resolutions...
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
flat panels, in general, cost a lot more than traditional CRTs, so "measuring by dollars" isn't necessarily the best way of calculating market share. it's like saying that more people saw "the waterboy" than "gone with the wind," just because it made more money in the theater.
Most people say the biggest advantage of the LCD screen is that it is compact, but most people who I've seen using them put the screen so it is as close to them as a traditional CRT. That leaves a large empty spot behind the LCD that they don't see.
That's a pretty optimistic prediction, because the current price ratio is about 5 CRT monitors for the cost of 1 flat-panel. Common sense tell us that the price of a flat-panel screen would have to drop by about 60%-70% before the majority of consumers would consider buying forking out the extra cash to save 1 or 2 cubic feet of desk space.
Personally, I wouldn't buy a flat screen until I could get a 19" one for under $499. I have lots of deskspace and another desk is always cheaper than the price difference between a CRT and LCD. I'd be interested, in the Slashdot community, how many people use LCDs, and for those who don't, what would the price/size have to fall/rise to that you would buy one?
The best part about this report is that it will hopefully kick some people in the pants and get them to make more, better, and cheaper LCD monitors (anything less than 1600x1200 and I'm not interested). This will in turn mean that there is more competition in the market, meaning lower prices, meaning more people adopting.
Seriously, if I could get a 19" LCD for $200-300 more than a 19" CRT with the same resolution, I'd do it. I know that price point is a long way off, but if you've got lots of companies making the parts, and serious competition, it could happen (closer to their 2006 time frame). Anyway, LCD's are so much easier on the eyes.
Just a thought...
- Sighuh?
I'm not so sure on that one. I've helped alot of people put together computers and in some cases, they had used a flat panel at work and were willing to pay the rediculous price for the monitor since I got the rest of the PC for them so cheap. You can also get E-machines with 17in flat panels from Best Buy for under $1000. I have also used these flat panel displays at work and it is damned tempting. The screen is much sharper and brighter. However, I'm in love with my $350 19in that I've had for a year and a half, so I personally will wait. The question is, how many home users(read mom,dad, grandma, etc...) who only use a PC for IM and email actually have a 19in or larger monitor? The article may have some validity.
I've dirtied my hands writing poetry, for the sake of seduction; that is, for the sake of a useful cause. --Dostoevsky
I am the PC tech for a large BUSINESS, 17" is too small, we order on 19" or larger. For business the LCD's are nice and easy on your eyes, for gaming they just plain suck, slow blurry and running at low end resolutions. I'll stick with my 21" .23 monitor at 1200X1600.
errr....umm...*whooosh* *whoosh* Is this thing on ?
Most computer sales are to corporations. Home users only account for something like 20% of Dell or Gateway's sales. Corporations are interested in the presumably increased life of LCDs, their reduced power consumption, space savings, and the effects of CRTs on their employees' eyes (People sue for everything after all). I work for a medium-sized credit union (which, unlike banks, are non-profit) with ~250 seats and we are already to the point of being 30% flat panels. By next year we will be over 70%. I love not pulling a muscle every time I have to swap a display out.
Everyone should take not that this article probably refers to sales in "dollars" and not sales in actual "units." This is why we barely see or know anybody who has a flat panel display.
Sunny
Sunny
Be my Friend
The supplier of this news to Reuters is the DisplaySearch firm, "The Worldwide Leader in FPD Market Research and Consulting." Hello, they make their money offering information and marketing data to help sell more flat panel displays. Not really surprising that they'd release this kind of economic news--free advertising anyone?
Under capitalism man exploits man. Under communism it's the other way around.
Are they counting only monitors or laptops also (since they include flat screen monitor)? If they count laptop monitors, then obviously the sales will be larger than CRT for simple reason that the laptop monitors cannot be reused while CRTs can be reused.
I remember sometime back the lust I had in my heart for one of those new, fancy 17" monitors. There were occasionally rumors or adverts of something larger. But 17" was the holy grail of geekness above the 14-15" myself and everyone I knew had.
"Someday, it'll be afforadable" I thought to myself. That someday came in the late 90s. So I got one. Of course, I liked it.
Flat panels are the same way. Do I want one? Yes. Will I eventually buy one? Yes. Will I spend 700-1500 for a good quality one right now? Not on your life.
If these industry experts really belive that it will pass up CRTs this year, then they really have to change the pricing structure on them.
In the meantime, I'm very happy with my current 19" NEC, in black, which looks dang cool and cost me $250.
The Internet is generally stupid
It seems like compactness is the ultimate feature. But then why do so many people drive SUV's?
Ah, grasshopper, you come so close to the truth, yet so far away. It is not compactness that is the ultimate feature, it is price. He who has the most expensive toys becomes the envy of his friends, thus enhancing his self-esteem. Cell phones, laptops, and SUVs are status symbols - every American wants them because the sages of Madison Avenue tell them that these objects will bring happiness.
Hey kids, there's only 5 days left 'til Yak Shaving Day!
I've not seen a flat panel that can pass the toddler test:
1) Find a 2 year old.
2) Give them a random hard, pointy object such as a ball-point pen. (This step is optional, toddlers can create such objects out of thin air. You just have more control this way.)
3) Put said toddler within 6 feet of flat panel monitor with a pretty screen saver being displayed.
The problem with an LCD is that you don't hear the "ting ting ting" warning bell that a CRT gives you when a toddler is too close.
null sig
The whole color issue is over-rated.
If you know what you're doing, and trained eyes (color), you don't need to know black is black.
Unless you're doing super-professional work, it shouldn't matter. And if you were, you would probably be working at a super-professional workstation (multi-mon (lcd/crt), with this and that).
The typical user and internet photochop kiddy shouldn't have to 'care' that much. Not enough for them to completly shutout lcds as a possible buy.
Only problem with lcd's is the response time, which is needed ( 25ms) to play FPS games. RPG's and 'slower' games aren't affected. And you must play them at your LCD's set resolution to get the best image. But shouldn't be a problem with all the new vid cards out now (Radeon 9500).
But who says you have to throw away your old monitor? Dual monitor setup baby!
I'm not sure, but this may have something to do with how they look when you film them. If you're shooting with a fast shutter speed, you can get some ugly effects from the scanning of the monitor. That's why you'll see some odd flickering of the screen on CRTs in movies. IIRC, there's not the same problem with LCDs so they should be easier to film.
There's no point in questioning authority if you aren't going to listen to the answers.
Its been my experience that most "gamers" are like audiophiles. They claim to observe details that just aren't their while claiming superiority of their particular technology.
Also, lumping all gamers together isn't quite right. First person shooters are the only genre that really suffers from moving to a slightly inferior monitor. A gamer that logs massive hours in something like Civilization, The Sims or Everquest may actually prefer the break on the eyes. Its funny to see so many people claim gamers will spend any amount on a CRT but never mention that the perfectd solution may in fact be one of each.
I really don't mean this as flamebait to the many technophiles here.
t
...When they fix these problems:
1. The resolutions. CRT's have better resolutions and you can freely change resolutions. LCD's are limited when it comes to max-resolutions (the ones that can do 1600x1200 cost too much) and the image-quality deteriorates if you use a "non-native" resolution
2. Response time. It's just too high on LCD's. Luckily this is getting better all the time.
3. The price. They cost quite a bit more than CRT's.
When those three points are fixed, I might consider it.
Lesbian Nazi Hookers Abducted by UFOs and Forced Into Weight Loss Programs - -all next week on Town Talk.