LCD Overtaking CRT

prostoalex writes "IDC has a new report out, claiming that revenues for LCDs by the end of this year will top the CRT revenues. The only market not susceptible to the shift will be gaming and graphics-intensive applications, where the refresh rates of LCDs are not satisfactory yet."

Comments

of course

[jonnyfivealive]

well, sure revenues are going to be more, they cost a helluva lot more

not only reason...

[st0rmcold]

The price is still a bit overwhelming, so I don't think it's only the gaming community refraining.

I'd love to have one, but not for the price of a P4 3ghz.

Re:not only reason...

[Rick the Red]

I'm hoping they get to commodity pricing quickly, so that I can afford an LCD (or OLED or whatever) television. I'm sick and tired of the overscanning on CRT television. Just as I was going to get a Heathkit TV so I could adjust the overscanning myself, they stopped making TVs (oops, I'm dating myself). And yes, I did try asking my local TV repair shop if they could adjust mine; modern TVs aren't adjustable that way (I guess they save money by leaving off the potentiometers).

In fact, modern electronics aren't repairable at all; once somethings out of warranty it's more cost effective to throw it away and buy a new one. On the other hand, as long as it's working there's little better on the market, so there's no reason to "upgrade."

So, on another topic, any MTBF figures on CRT monitors? Are they built with planned obsolesence in mind, or is it "the last monitor you'll ever own"?

Makes sense

[Galvatron]

First of all, LCDs are more expensive, so it takes a smaller volume to achieve the same level of revenue. Second, all laptops use LCDs, and you need to buy a new LCD for every new laptop, whereas desktops can reuse old CRTs. Finally, this is only looking at new sales, and doesn't really say anything about how fast people are replacing existing CRTs with LCDs.

Despite this statistic, I think it'll be a long time before CRTs become an uncommon sight on a desktop machine.

Re:Makes sense

[poot_rootbeer]

CRT's measure the total size of the picture tube, which is substantially larger then the viewable screen.

For the past 5 years at least, CRT vendors have usually included the measurements of both the entire picture tube and the viewable area.

So a 19" CRT (17.1" viewable) still has more usable screen area than a 17" LCD, and at 1/2 to 1/3 of the purchase price.

The article mentions total sales

[Rev.LoveJoy]

not total units shipped. LCDs are typically 2X the cost of a CRT (roughly). This means that CRTs are still outselling LCDs on a volume basis.

Cheers,
-- RLJ

Exciting, because

[AEton]

Higher revenue leads to companies thinking this is a viable (desktop) technology. That will stimulate more research, more development, and more production.
And that means that one day they'll be cheap enough for me to own; a simple pricewatch check shows that I could get a 17-inch LCD monitor for $333 OR spend $329 on a 21-inch CRT monitor. Which do you think (given only $350) I'd rather do?
Also, this article makes an interesting claim that LCDs haven't done as well as they might've because "the human eye needs to see 25 frames per second to be tricked into thinking that motion is continuous, and LCD monitors have often failed to meet this specification". Um, my laptop LCD has a fixed 60Hz refresh rate. If that's what Computerworld is talking about, they're full of it.

refresh rates

[syle]

It was my understand that the notion of 'refresh rates' doesn't really apply to LCDs. So, while your CRT monitor may redraw its screen anywhere from 60-85 times a second, the limiting factor in LCDs is the speed at which each individual pixel can change color.

Am I misunderstanding something, or was the article author just intending a more generic meaning of refresh rates?

CRT Disposal

[asv108]

One of the big questions is where are all these CRT's going to end up? I have no problem finding takers for old computers, but nobody wants to take 15in and soon 17in CRT monitors. Selling them on eBay doesn't work because usually the shipping is 3x more than the monitor itself. 21in CRT's that cost $1500 three years ago are going for under $100. I've seen quite a few companies with closets full of old CRT's.

the other market that will hold out

[sirshannon]

broke users who demand quality.

cheap LCD monitors look like my old laptop monitor. I didn't complain too much about the laptop because it was only a laptop. No way I'm paying twice as much for a monitor that doesn't work as well as my dinosaur of a CRT.

"no way I'm paying" means "I can not afford", in this case.

Re:Burned out pixels suck

[istartedi]

Losing a pixel on a CRT is bad too. No, it doesn't happen as often, but I am typing this on a machine that uses a Philips CRT (model 107s 17 inch). The first unit I got had a missing pixel. I took it back to CompUSA and they replaced it. The next unit I got mysteriously went black after a month. Fortunately, I kept my old 15 inch as a backup, and the RMA process went very smoothly. Interesting to note is that the monitor I got via RMA was made in USA. You never see that in the store... so I guess if you have to sit through RMA, they make sure you get the best quality. I was able to put up with this, BTW, because at the time 17 inch CRTs were expensive and this one was a bargain. My Philips has now provided me with 5 years of uninterupted service under conditions including no A/C and daily power cycling (sometimes twice a day).

The point? Both technologies have their problems. What matters is the support. A good manufacturer won't leave you "stuck with an annoying glitch".