LCD Price Fixing?

bilsaysthis asks: "Bill Kearney poses a really interesting question, one which I've been puzzled by for a while too: 'What's with prices on LCD displays? On one hand a laptop can be had with UXGA resolution display for $1000. Try buying that display alone and you'll find it's also around $1000. Then there's how much they're gouging for the same resolution in an LCD television.'" Sadly enough, as much as I want one of these for my wall, the market is willing to bear these prices. How long will it be before this hardware becomes affordable?

Comments

Price Will Come Down...

[Shuh]

When the OLED's come out!

;)

Re:Price Will Come Down...

[Klugheitsucher]

I agree whole heartedly, I have done research on OLED monitors and have discovered that at their final design stage (around 2010) OLEDs will be far lighter, thinner, cheaper, and will last have a lifetime equal or better than an LCD monitor. The approximate cost of the OLED monitors will be $0.50 per square inch. (around $5.00 in stage one around 2004)
For further information about OLEDs you might want to try either
Kodak
or PDF Detailing OLED

Mirror :(

[Anonymous Coward]

I setup a mirror (posted as AC to avoid karma whoring, I have better things to do with my time). You can read the article
here, once it's slashdotted.

Re:Mirror :(

[friedegg]

I setup a mirror, too... In my bathroom. It's one of the new flat screen models.

Fast Dirty Mirror of the Page in Question

[yeoua]

March 30, 2003
LCD price fixing?
What's with prices on LCD displays?

On one hand a laptop can be had with UXGA resolution display for $1000. Try buying that display alone and you'll find it's also around $1000. Then there's how much they're gouging for the same resolution in an LCD television.

There are, of course, manufacturing yield issues with LCDs. The bigger you make them, the harder it becomes to make one free from defects. But look at the price differentials between OEM panels in laptops vs that of standalone monitors. The disparity is quite wide. Balancing (subsidizing) one market on the backs of another is not a new thing. But it seems a reach to use that as justification for the LCD montior/TV prices.

So what's going on here? Are the monitor manufacturers pulling a fast one here? Are they gouging consumers? And why are they priced so similarly across the board?

# | Comments (3) | TrackBack (0) | 03:47 PM
Comments (scroll down to see all 3 comments...)
Hope it's okay but I submitted this to /. to see if any good answers come up. Who knows if it will get posted though, since none of my previous submissions have been.

Posted by: BillSaysThis on March 30, 2003 07:04 PM
It's been posted! I'm a slashdot subscriber and I see that this story has been posted, it will be up probably within 20 minutes

Posted by: Zach on March 31, 2003 08:35 PM
Brace yourself, here it comes. Its on slashdot, or will be in a few minutes. Hope you've paid you bandwidth bill! :)
Actually, as I am going to say on slashdot, a lot of it has to do with supply vs demand. There are a LOT of laptops sold, but comparitvily, not many standalone LCD screens. It does require some more work to make a LCD screen accept VGA or RCA input.

Posted by: Zaffle on March 31, 2003 08:39 PM

Re:Fast Dirty Mirror of the Page in Question

[Anonymous Coward]

Wrong! It has been estimated in 2004 that HALF of all display revenues will be from LCD Screens. By 2006, HALF of all displays sold will be LCDs.

Low volume is not the issue here. My guess is price gouging is running rampart, especially on LCD TVs...

P.S. Anyone out there know what the response times are on OLEDs? How do they compare to LCDs?

(This is docrobot posting, for some insane reason, I can't log into /. at work...)

How long...

[aePrime]

How long will it be before this hardware becomes affordable?

The real question is, how much longer until my eBay scam pays off and I can afford one no matter what the price.

Even if I do have to move suddenly to Vermont.

Maybe....

[rice_web]

Ten minutes after you make a purchase.

As I've said before...

[swordboy]

We need an open laptop form factor...

Three requirements:
- Chassis spec
- DC power supply spec
- LCD spec

It sparked in my mind when I broke the LCD on my thinkpad... IBM wanted $900 to fix it but I was able to disassemble one of their desktop models and get the component that I required for less than $300...

Sheesh...

But can you imagine an open laptop? Neon and clear shit for days... Case modding to the extreme!

Re:As I've said before...

[Anonymous Coward]

But can you imagine an open laptop?

Yes. Big, bulky, heavy, ugly, power-hungry, hot as hell, slower than other "non-open" competitors and still with few selections for parts, maybe slightly more than proprietary designs.

An open laptop is an often brought up idea and it is idiotic.

You have no idea what it takes to design a good laptop.

Re:As I've said before...

[addaon]

I tend to agree... except that we said that before SODIMMs were standardized. We said that before mini-pci became common. We even said that before ACPI actually worked. Standizing laptops wholesale would never work, but they do seem to be approaching some reasonable interoperability in many ways.

Re:As I've said before...

[s20451]

But can you imagine an open laptop? Neon and clear shit for days... Case modding to the extreme!

Indeed, I can imagine ... and what's the point? Most of the cool casemods take up power. With neon tubes everywhere, you would probably cut your battery life by a factor of two or three, which would defeat most of the point of getting a laptop.

I'm reminded of an acquaintance of mine from high school, who bought a Geo Metro and added so many car mods (ground effect, huge stereo, etc.) that his alternator couldn't keep up. He bought a new alternator, which destroyed the car's fuel economy, which is basically the only reason to buy a Metro.

Then again, this is probably the wrong crowd to ask "Why get a new gadget?".

Re:As I've said before...

[SuperBug]

Indeed, I can imagine ... and what's the point?
Well, in this case it doesn't sound like you're using the "fun" part of your imagination. People make low-rider bicycles for crying out loud. People will mod anything they can because it's a chance at practical application of their imagination. To many that's "fun." So as to your question about the point being, the point is to have fun trying it.
Not to mention, not just use imagination in some kind of applicable way, but actually create something new for the sake of trying. Lots of good things have come out of imagination, like creativity.

Laptop screens selling at a loss?

[hobbesmaster]

Perhaps the cheapest laptop LCD screens are being sold at a loss, and the desktop ones are sold at a high profit?

Just a random guess.

Re:Laptop screens selling at a loss?

[Rolo Tomasi]

I bought a 172T too, and to be honest, I was disappointed. The manufacturing quality was a bit shoddy (uneven edges where the front part meets the back, flimsy foot), the ghosting was barely tolerable (e.g. text would disappear completely when scrolling on pages with a black background, CS was virtually unplayable), and worst of all, it whistled! It produced a sort of high-pitched whine, the frequency and intensity of which was dependent on the type of image displayed; while showing the desktop it would be almost silent, but e.g. while displaying a CS screen you could hear it from the next room. Of course, I sent it back and got a refund.

Strangely though, the ghosting was unnoticeable with movies, but here another annoyance came up: in a dark room, playing a dark movie (e.g. Alien), the supposedly black bars on the top and at the bottom of the screen are annoyingly bright, so bright that it's really distracting. Yes, I tested all kinds of different monitor settings, and I know that this is a problem all LCDs have, but it still sucks.

I'm a bit baffled, as this LCD has a high-class PVA panel and is supposedly one of the best 17" LCDs currently available. The picture quality is really great, but there are some big drawbacks.

Buy a laptop and separate the base.

[baryon351]

Buy a laptop and take off the base. ta-dah, problem solved!. You have a flat-panel monitor AND a small headless server.

Of course, you do then need to make the interface to connect the flat panel to something useful, but thats where the fun comes into it :)

Old answer I'm affraid

[Zaffle]

A lot of it has to do with the old story of supply and demand. There is a very large call for LCDs for laptops, and the laptop manufacturers get them at almost cost, then intergrate them into the laptops.

However, there isn't much (comparitivly) demand for LCD computer screens, or even worse, TV screens.

When I was in singapore a few years ago, RCA input LCD screens weren't that bad a price, but the problem is that price hasn't drop that much.

It does take some more work to make a LCD screen take VGA or RCA inputs, so there is the cost the LCD is brought at (a lot more than the laptop manufacturers buy them at), and then the intergration of circuits to accept VGA or RCA input.

Re:Old answer I'm affraid

[denlogue]

I think you have that backwards

Prices rise as demand increases relative to supply and fall as demand decreases. So by that logic LCD computer screens should be cheaper and laptop displays more expensive.

Re:Old answer I'm affraid

[GlassUser]

But then they charge you even more for DVI. Higher quality, I guess they claim. And of course the video cards with DVI sell at a premium too, even though nobody has to make the DAC/ADCs.

Re:Old answer I'm affraid

[MonkeyBoy]

Sure. But last time I checked the expensive bit for LCD screens wasn't just the # of pixels you cram on the screen, but the size too. UXGA, like the original thread discusses, is a pixel count, and doesn't take size into account.

I seriously doubt that the two items under question @ $1000 aren't going to have the same LCD part inside them.

LCDs are digital. Adding in circuitry to go analog->digital (VGA, with ALL the bizarro resolutions that it implies) or even traditional external DVI (with it's ability to drive long cable runs, unlike the typical short runs required inide a laptop) costs money.

Implementing straight VGA is kinda tricky because the conversion has to scale the signal up to the LCD's native resolution on-the-fly. With DVI (any form) the video chipset can handle this duty (and usually does a pretty good job of it), with VGA the entire onus is on this piece of hardware. Install a cheap piece of hardware and that expensive screen looks like crap - good luck selling them.

'course this is just my opinion, and probably an outdated one at that.

Re:Old answer I'm affraid

[chunkwhite86]

It does take some more work to make a LCD screen take VGA or RCA inputs, so there is the cost the LCD is brought at (a lot more than the laptop manufacturers buy them at), and then the intergration of circuits to accept VGA or RCA input.

While this is true, it is not reflected in the real world price of an LCD display. The Digital flat panels (DFP's) which have NO analog converter always cost more than a comparable analog flat panel!

That analog display costs more to manufacturer since it requires the analog-digital convertor, but only high-end machines and enthusiasts will opt for the more elegant DFP - and thus are more willing to pay a higher price for what they percieve as a "better" solution.

Just my two cents.

Re:Old answer I'm affraid

[Osty]

Prices rise as demand increases relative to supply and fall as demand decreases.

That's not how I remember my economics. You have your basic supply/demand curve, with price on the Y axis, and units on the X. As price goes up, more units can be supplied, so the supply curve has an increasing slope. Conversely, there is more demand as price drops (units become more affordable). In other words, the demand curve has a decreasing slope. In ascii art (please let this look decent ...):

p |\ d /
r | \ /
i | X
c | / \
e |/s \
+-------------
units

d = demand curve
s = supply curve

(the curves aren't very curvy in this example, but they could be depending on the supply and demand dynamics)

Price is always determined by the demand curve, with the supply curve denoting how many units can be built at a given price. If the price is high, the demand is low, and although many units can be supplied at that price, that's only theoretical -- nobody's buying, so there's no money to manufacture those units. There are always the economincally-enabled few that can afford anything at any price, and the bleeding-edge early adopters that will pay a premium for being the first on the block, but most people won't buy until the price has dropped. When the two cross, you're at the optimum price (for a non-monopolistic competitive market). After that point, more units can't be supplied because the sales won't cover costs, and before that point fewer people will buy because the price is too high. This is where you get into loss-leader (selling to the right of the optimum point, below cost, to generate more demand) and monopoly (selling to the left of the optimum point, because nobody can compete with you to keep your prices down -- there's a point where the price is high enough to allow others into the market, but so long as the monopoly keeps the price below that point, it's got the market to itself).

Now, what the original poster was suggesting (I believe -- and if not, it's what I'm suggesting) is that laptop LCDs are being sold at a price on the demand curve to the right of the optimum point (lower price), but the manufacturers can afford to do so by selling non-laptop LCDs (desktops, TVs) at a price on the demand curve to the left of the optimum point. If things are ideal, the merged graph should come out with the combined demand and supply crossing properly at the averaged price. I doubt that's the case. It's likely that the price is higher than that, but it shouldn't be by much -- if it were, then competitors would lower their prices to gain more marketshare.

And just to CMA, it's been 3-ish years since I've had an economics course, so my analysis may be off, but my graph (ugly as it is) should be correct for a baseline S/D graph.

Where's the problem?

[mcrbids]

What's with prices on LCD displays? On one hand a laptop can be had with UXGA resolution display for $1000. Try buying that display alone and you'll find it's also around $1000.

Solution: Buy a laptop, nail it to the wall, and watch TV!

Re:Where's the problem?

[dimension6]

Yes, but try finding a good way to get TV on the laptop. So far, I haven't found any (granted, I haven't really looked in the past month or two). All of the TV tuners are either old PCMCIA ones or USB ones (lacking the bandwidth to have decent picture). The only solution I have found is to buy an expensive analog-DVI (firewire) adapter and a separate TV tuner.

Bulk Purchasing.

[LibertineR]

Laptop manufacturers buy screens in bulk, and dont buy fancy packaging, manuals, etc, that drive up the price. The cost for everything is cheaper, especially shipping.

Consider how many LCD's that IBM buys for their ThinkPads, compared to mom and pop.

When you think about it like that, we should consider ourselves lucky that our LCD's dont cost more than they already do.

Market equilibrium

[Jesus IS the Devil]

Supply and demand. Get used to it.

But seriously, prices are dropping. I just got a Viewsonic VX900 19 inch LCD monitor for $723 (including taxes) at BestBuys. Of course, I took advantage of their 10% off deal + $100 rebate. :)

It's not really price fixing

[anotherone]

There's only a limited number of LCDs availible. The more a company buys, the cheaper they can get the panels for. Laptops sell more and are sold for more than LCD monitors. A company that sells laptops can, therefore, buy more LCDs than a company that sells LCD monitors. They can get them more cheaply, and afford to sell them more cheaply.

It's not really price-fixing proper, just basic economics.

From my days in Sales

[doorman]

I ran into this same question when I was made responsible for parts ordering for my company. I was told at the time by the manufacturer rep (Toshiba, I think) that some sort of tariff was responsible. LCD's connected to computers were not charged the tariff, LCD's separate were charged. This was the reason given to us why LCD's ordered for broken laptops costs as much as a new one.

This was 1995, and the answer comes from a sales guy, so YMMV.

What the Market Will Pay

[abcxyz]

The subject is probably the answer. If people are willing to pay the current prices for the convenience of a flat LCD monitor to recoup deskspace then the price may very well be fair. I'm considering the same to replace my son's 17" Trinitron on his desk because it's huge and takes up too much room to give him space to work. The flat screen LCD would work perfectly. I suppose you could say "Price fixing" with the the apparent disparity between the LCD monitor and the total cost of a laptop -- but it's really comparing apples to oranges. Each have separate markets.

-- Rick

It's all about the numbers...

[_Sharp'r_]

Many of the laptop makers either own their own monitor factories (Like Sony) or get incredible volume discounts doing their own importing (say, Dell).

Items that don't sell well in "retail" channels get a much higher mark-up to make up for the small volume. The same item in lots of 1000 or more over and over again will sell dirt cheap. Ever noticed the price per 1000 of your favorite cpu when it comes out?

It's a bit of a catch-22. When customers buy more via retail channels, the prices will come down. When the prices come down, customers will buy more...

Eventually the retailers will get there trying to compete with each other, but with "most" (me and you not among them) customers are perfectly happy with what's out there now, there isn't enough demand for a big retailer to start stocking larger quantities and begin the price death spiral we've grown to know and love about computer parts.

As much as I would like to complain. . .

[GeorgieBoy]

The prices of LCDs has been steadily getter lower over the past few years. Even if prices seem a little inflated, it's not comparable to something like music CD prices, which have actually gone UP over the years. LCDs are becoming more attainable for the masses at this point, I don't see too much to complain about in this market. Wait for OLEDs and other (competiing) flat-screen technologies to become widely available, and we'll see what happens to LCD prices. Regarding the UXGA available for $1000 remark, it would seem the desktop market is devoid of models that offer greater than 1280x1024 resolution, even on large 19" LCD models - this makes laptop displays more attractive, which is unusual when comparing the possibilities on desktops vs. laptops.

Other ways the market should be working

[corebreech]

I might be willing to hand over the big bucks for one of the bigger flat-panel displays, but to do so I would have to accept a number of dead pixels in the bargain. For instance, there's the Samsung 240T which goes for about $3,000, regardless of whether the thing has dead pixels or not.

Why aren't the 240T's with, say, eight dead pixels sold at a different price? I understand the issues with the manufacturing of these displays, that if they were to reject all but those without dead pixels the cost would be prohibitively expensive, but why can't they just count the number of dead pixels and set a price accordingly.

Monitors are important; I end up looking at the thing most of the day for work and for play, I am willing to pay a premium for a very fine display. But to risk getting one with a bunch of dead pixels right in the middle of the screen, I mean, that would just suck really, really bad.

Re:Other ways the market should be working

[jsheperis]

Tom's Hardware recently had a good article summarizing manufacturer's policy's regarding dead pixels:

www.tomshardware.com/display/20030319/index.html

Numbers Way Off

[Rashkae]

How long has it been since you examined prices on LCD displays?? A 15" Samsung SyncMaster 152B can be had for roughly $450US, and I doubt your $1000 notebook has a screen this good. (And I see various 17" models price at $600)

Re:Numbers Way Off

[Osty]

I think 17" qualifies as UXGA (I think 1280x1024), which of course, can be had for $500. I am pretty sure one can get a laptop with 1400something x 1000 screen for $1000. Not exactly an apples comparison but the laptop has a better resolution screen than what you can find as a stand-alone monitor for $1000.

Nope. UXGA is a resolution measure (1600x1200), not size, and generally is found on 15"+ laptop LCDs (and usually you pay a premium for it, so I'd like to know where the author found this $1000 UXGA laptop), and even on a few 14.x" laptop LCDs. The 15", 17", and even most 19" desktop LCD displays I've seen in stores (sub-$1000 for most of them, but close to or slightly over $1000 for some of the 19"s) are all 1280x1024, which make them not UXGA. From Pricewatch, 19" UXGA LCD monitors start at $845, and quickly goes up from there if you want a quality name-brand. There are no 17" UXGA LCD monitors listed on Pricewatch.

Different technology?

[donutello]

I may be wrong but I was always under the impression that the LCD screens used in laptops were entirely different from the LCD screens used for monitors or TVs. I know, for example that my laptop screen does not do too well when viewed from an angle - not something I would tolerate from a monitor.

D/A A/D Problem

[istartedi]

I've been researching info regarding using laptop LCDs with a PC, because I want to build a portable PC. One thing I discovered is that the connector on your monitor is essentially analog, whereas the signal in the video card is digital. A laptop can drive the digitial display directly with a digital signal, using LVDS (Low Voltage Differential Signaling) or a similar proprietary standard. Stand-alone LCD monitors take an anlog signal from your PC and convert it to digital. Not only do you have the cost of D/A and A/D conversion, you also have power consumption associated with this.

The prices on the "controllers" that allow you to drive an LCD from a standard VGA connector are around $200 as separate items, mostly because they are low demand specialty items. Such controllers are integrated into stand-alone monitors, and economies of scale keep them from adding too much to the bottom line.

So, while there is some justification for the increased cost of stand-alone displays, I tend to agree that the controller, case, and associated parts don't explain the entire difference.

I'm less bothered by the prices, and more bothered by the fact that low-power technology is simply not available. For that matter, the entire laptop industry is full of artificial controls. However, it's encouraging to note that you can at least get laptop form-factor hard drives. Given time, I think some of the other tight controls will break down too, and we will start to see "screwdriver shops" building laptops from commodity parts. I eagerly anticipate the day that happens, as much as every incumbent laptop maker dreads it.

Comparison not apples vs. oranges

[JamieC]

The comparison in price really isn't a fair comparison. A $1000 laptop only has a 12 inch screen. An LCD TV needs to be larger than that. I wouldn't want to hang a 12 inch LCD screen on my wall to watch TV.

Also keep in mind ...

[mustangdavis]

... that the people that produce and distribute LCDs are the same people that sell CRTs ... and if they lower the prices on LCDs, they'll kill their CRT sales ... which cuts off one of their revenue streams ..


As soon as the majority of CRTs that are already produced are sold, the prices on LCDs will drop ... but these companies are still profiting off of old technology, so why should they cut off their nose to spite themselves?


Just a couple more cents of mine ...

These numbers don't add up....

[eschasi]

I don't recall seeing any $1000 laptops with UXGA resolutions (tho I could have missed it), and I seem to recall those prices or less for LCD panels.

Further, it's not an apples and apples comparison. The laptop vendors buy wholesale, in comparatively huge volumes, lots of different sizes all at once, and likely committing to purchase volumes over time. IMHO those combine to drive the price way below what the average LCD monitor guy is selling.

Come to think of it, something similar is going on with memory, processor and disk prices. Take your average laptop, price those components separately, and I'll be you find something that seems to be price gouging for all of them.

Re:Boohoo!

[chemmathguy]

They actually have a valid point, *gasp*, I mean when I can get a laptop with an LCD near/cheaper than a LCD on its own, something is wrong. There is a demand for these displays, so manufacturers can't claim that that's the reason prices are high, so maybe price fixing could be in place.

Walmart?

[sfe_software]

I thought the same thing for quite a while, but then I stumbled on this at my local Walmart. For $400, I got an 18-inch LCD.

It has an analog VGA connector (a good thing for me; most of my PCs lack digital output), a 160-degree viewing angle (I didn't think that was even possible -- 180 would be viewing completely from the side), 1280x1024 native resolution, and does a great job resampling other resolutions. I can't prove it yet, but I am pretty sure it uses subpixel rendering when resizing lower resolutions.

So all the things I didn't like about LCDs a couple years ago -- limited viewing angle, bad resampling, digital-only connector, small size, and of course price -- are solved with this Walmart cheapo.

I'm sure it won't last all that long, but for the price, it's really nice, easy on the eyes, and much sharper than my last monitor (an aging Trinitron).

So, at one month old, mine has convinced me to never go back to a CRT.

Oh, and in games or full-screen video it rocks. You still only get 60 actual refreshes a second, but that's more than enough (and unlike a CRT the light is constant anyway). Fast motion can be a tiny bit blurry, but nothing like my crappy Compaq laptop... and in games, the blur actually looks better in my opinion -- more realistic (or I'm just goofy)...

Re:Walmart?

[sfe_software]

I hate to reply to my own comment, but regarding the price similarities between a laptop and a stand-alone LCD. For $1000 you aren't going to get a laptop with a good screen (or a good anything else, really). Not with a wide viewing angle, good resolution resampling, etc...

My Presario cost me $1500 in 2000, and its display is horrible. Resampling is simple pixel-doubling, which is impossible to read. Viewing angle is on the order of 15-degrees (possibly exagerated, but it's pretty bad). Backlight never turns off until it's powered down (no display standby). And of course it's only 13.3 inches.

Compare that to a $650 Samsung a friend bought, also in 2000: 15-inch, decent (better) viewing angle, analog connection, etc. Not to mention the $400 Microtek I mentioned above.

I think if you shop around, and compare feature-for-feature, you'll find that the situation isn't really that bad. Find a laptop with a 15-inch display and good features. Now find that $1000 one you mentioned; there's going to be a lot of differences.

Finally, televisions are a different beast. You need hardware to handle scan-conversions, TV reception, composite/S-video conversions, etc. There's just more to it. Plus, I'd imagine (I haven't looked) that an LCD television would support HDTV or, at least, high-resolution inputs (game consoles, PC, DVD?)

Re:Walmart?

[be-fan]

For about $1500, you can get a cheap P4 laptop with a 15" UXGA screen. Sure, the laptop itself is huge, bulky, and hot, but the screen itself is wonderful. There are only two companies that make 15" UXGA displays, Hitachi and Sharp. Both screens are excellent quality. They're sold under the brand-name "UltraSharp" (Dell) and "Flexview" (IBM) in mainstream laptops.

Because...

[TheDanish]

They're maximizing their profits. That's what companies in a market to. They'll charge an amount such that (sales * (price - cost)) is a maximum. They're greedy capitlists. It's what they do. They're not out for charity. If you don't like it, don't buy them. Wait for the market to be saturated.

What's that I hear? It's the redundant and troll mods. Oh, well, I've had good karma for too long.

Re:Gouging?

[molarmass192]

Price-gouging is also called profiteering. Merriam-Webster uses this definition:

one who makes what is considered an unreasonable profit especially on the sale of essential goods during times of emergency

Ok, LCD screens are not an essential good and even though this is this a time of emergency for some, it's hardly relevant to the need for an LCD monitor. I'm not even sure they're making that much profit since there's such a high waste ratio in making LCDs. Besides, LCDs are just priced at what CRTs used to be ... so in retrospect were CRTs being price gouged?

Analog/Digital Converters

[JoshuaDFranklin]

I remember looking into turning an old laptop into an LCD and I was disappointed to find that the Analog/Digital converters present in LCDs are very expensive. (That's what allows you to hook it into your VGA port.)

I don't know if this effects the big-number LCD manufacturers, but it is a good reason. There is now more support for all-digital video cards, but it would be market suicide to become known as "that LCD manufacturer whose products aren't compatible with any of our old systems".

Isn't there a tarrif on lcd screens?

[nycheetah]

I took an international business class at RIT and I distinctly remember my professor say that there is a tarrif on lcd screens for the US market. Apparantly US lcd manufactures were loosing sales to Japanese and other foreign markets because they could produce them much cheaper. Has anyone else heard of such a thing?

Re:Isn't there a tarrif on lcd screens?

[SuperBanana]

I distinctly remember my professor say that there is a tarrif on lcd screens for the US market.

It was established in 1991, removed in 1993...and it applied only to components, not finished products, if I read it correctly:

http://www.wtec.org/loyola/displays/c2_s1.htm

Re:It's not really price fixing....not really

[adzoox]

Samsung and Sharp (and their co owned LG Philips and ChiMei subsidaries) are the largest manufacturers of LCDs. Both Samsung and Sharp also make the largest number of consumer availible LCD TV/Monitors. They also use the same screen, contrary to some posts here. There's hardly a LCD TV out there that doesn't have a laptop screen counterpart, or at the least, a LCD monitor counterpart.

Prices are being somewhat fixed as the LCD industry is "getting their commodity while they can" much as the memory industry did years ago. The memory industry has learned that volume is the better equation, thus, the low memory prices. OLEDs will change this because they are much cheaper to produce, much brighter and much thinner. Kodak already has OLEDs with Palm soon to follow in a new color Zire from ramblings on the net as well as Apple computer for a new device yet to be announced.

Different classes of screens

[tshak]

Notebook screens differ from desktop LCD's in that,

* Their viewing angle is usually a lot worse

* Their contrast ratio and brightness is usually worse

* They're smaller by at least an inch or two

* Their response times are generally a lot slower

Capitalism

[chunkwhite86]

In a capitalist system, the value of an item is equal to what someone is willing to pay for it. As long as there are people paying X thousand dollars for a plasma TV, the retailer and manufacturer have no incentive to reduce the price.

I'm casting my vote by not paying that high of a price. Just wait a little... It'll come down.

About time

[NMerriam]

I've been wondering about this for over a year, ever since I got a ThinkPad A22p, which has a GORGEOUS 15" LCD that runs native at 1600x1200.

I have a 19" CRT at home and a 21" at work, and this LCD beats both of them for quality, so i looked around to try and buy one. It literally did not exist -- you can but 19" LCDs with 1280x1024 (I suppose some people enjoy large pixels) but trying to buy one of these beautiful small LCDs was impossible. IBM doesn't sell them, nobody sells them.

I'm totally baffled by this. We would love to buy these LCDs for our desktops if we could get them for $1,000+ but as it is we keep these huge 21" 75 pound monitors on peoples desks, and most of those are run at 1280x1024 to stay readable.

I'm actually thinking about buying a cheap IBM and ripping it apart if I can get the screen cabling to go to the digital out on a GeForce card.

Prices are set by demand...

[Anita Coney]

Prices are set by demand. If a manufacturer/seller can sell LCDs for $1000, they will. And if they can sell them for more as TVs, they will. If they're forced to sell them for less when combined with a laptop, they will.

I'm always shocked when I hear complaints like this. Doesn't any school teach even basic economics anymore?! Why are such simple concepts so confusing for so many people?!

This is why HDTV will never happen in 2006

[GuNgA-DiN]

The prices of flat panel LCDS, and HDTV's are fscking ridiculous! When they get to $300 let me know......

Not a fair comparison

[Thai-Pan]

There are a few things that you're not considering. They are the key differences between a laptop LCD screen and a desktop LCD.

Desktop LCDs are made to have a very high brightness and high contrast ratio. Laptop LCDs are made for low power consumption, and thus don't need as powerful lighting units.

Desktop LCDs are built to have a very wide viewing angle. This uses some fancy technology and manufacturing processes that are pretty expensive to accomplish this task. Laptop LCDs are made on purpose to have a narrow viewing angle so the guy next to you on the airplan can't see your screen. A narrow viewing angle makes the LCD's requirements much cheaper to achieve.

Re:Naturally it IS price fixing

[Squareball]

Not price fixing. How could that be? If it was possible to sell 19" LCDs for $250 and still turn a profit, some one would be doing so. I think we need to look at a deeper reason. The same companies making LCDs are the same companies that have large stocks of CRT TVs and monitors. If they sell an LCD for $100 what are they going to do with that 17" CRT that they have time and money invested in?
I don't know if that is indeed the reason or not.. but it's something to think about.

In capitalism any one can cut prices and drive down the cost of a product. If coke started selling 12packs for $2.00 what would pepsi do? They would have to compete to survive. Of course Coke can't do that cause they will lose money. I suspect the same is the case with LCDs.

The SDRAM Effetct

[famazza]

All I can see is that LCD producers are afraid of the price war that we have seen sometime ago among the SDRAM producers. I remember to read about the fear of some producers get out of buissines due to the small profit ranges.

What could be better? A price war? Or avoiding producers going out of bussiness?

Re:Naturally it IS price fixing

[captainktainer]

I'm not sure you understand- price fixing is *exactly* the situation as described. You see, when manufacturers fix prices, all the manufacturers collude to set prices far above fair market value. In the modern world, they feel they can get away with it because if someone tries to undercut them they can revoke licenses and sue for patent infringement.

The point he's making is that this is a corruption of capitalism, and that the situation you're describing- lowered prices- is not occurring because of illegal collusion among competitors. This is encouraged in Japan (for an excellent fictional discussion of the topic, see Michael Crichton's novel "Rising Sun"), but frowned on in the United States. Unfortunately, stupid patent laws and unenforced hole-filled antitrust laws are what make this possible.

Example of price vs cost

[sx10]

I recently bought an 18" LCD for myself from *insert major computer manufacturer here*. I am a purchaser for a university and our inside sales rep was nice enough to provide me with their approximate cost. No guarantees here by any means, just what our rep told me.

For this 18" panel retail is $599, the university's price is $480, and cost is in the neighborhood of $375. About a 60% retail markup.
In comparison, a 19" CRT retails for $249, discounted is $211, and cost is around $205. About a 20% markup.

I don't expect the huge markup to end anytime soon, everyone is picking them up like hotcakes regardless.

Re:Example of price vs cost

[salesgeek]

Margins on these items are in the neighborhood of 11-15% (gross margin, different than markup). 11-15% is still premo margin in the commodity hardware marketplace which often sells at 2-4% over cost and counts on rebates and mfg incentives to increase margins to 10-12% 20-60 days after the sale is made. You got a good deal, but your rep is jerking you around so you like him.

$G

Re:Naturally it IS price fixing

[Waffle Iron]

If coke started selling 12packs for $2.00 what would pepsi do? They would have to compete to survive. Of course Coke can't do that cause they will lose money.

I've bought plenty of 12-packs of Diet Coke for $1.99. I consider anything below $2.50 to be a good sale price for a 12-pack. I do suspect that the store is actually paying more that $2 for the product and using it as a loss leader.

What I notice is that the really good deals at one store tend to alternate between Coke and Pepsi. One week Coke will be cheap, the next week it'll be Pepsi.

Random tip: If you're stuck buying your own soda for work, go with Diet Pepsi. Your scumbag coworkers will steal other peoples' Diet Cokes and/or sugary stuff first before they pilfer your pop.

Get real

[djupedal]

.....when you buy an LCD monitor, the price is artificially low. When you by products that aren't in that league, you come closer to the actual costs involved.

We all know that an automobile, in parts, is worth more than what you pay for a complete car off the lot. Try pricing the entire car, part by part, over the part's dept. counter, and then go to 3rd party suppliers, and watch how prices fluctuate. It is easy to imagine fixing if you don't understand how the market works.

Nothing's fixed, beyond the normal markets forces (supply/demand) causing prices to level for certain products, etc.

Re: Inferface??

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

I believe the interface is almost always an LVDS thing, very similar to that used in one of the greatest desktop LCDs of all time, the SGI 1600W. The problem is that each different panel has a different set of parameters that you need to set/use with an LVDS controller and

1) the parameteres ain't easy to find publically documented
2) LVDS controllers for regular PCs (like an Nvidia card with an LVDS interface) are few, far between and not very cheap

I would desperately like to be proven wrong on this - I'd especially like to find a dvi2lvds box for a reasonable price that I could use with any of the thousand or so bare laptop LCD screens that are offered on ebay every day...

just a thought

[ebuite37]

If I remember right, Sony and other manufacturers of CD based music just lost a lawsuit for falsely inflating the prices of CDs. Maybe there is something similar going on with the flatscreen business. As long as people keep buying at these high prices, they will continue to have high prices.

Another thing to think about, though, is the vast quantities that laptop manufacturers purchase in order to keep the prices down. It's kinda like Windows. A bundled version probably cost 2/3 what a shelf copy costs (or less, I'm not sure).

it's about the resolution

[xmldude]

You are all missing the point. This is not about finding a LCD that is the same size as your laptop screen, it's about finding one that has the same size and resolution. The dell inspirion i am writing this on is a 15 inch (viewable) lcd running with a native res. of 1600x1200. A quick scan of compusa.com revealed no lcd screens with those specs.

The closest i found was a 19 inch CTX lcd that runs at 1600x1200 but costs 1059.

The new inspirion 8500 comes with a 15.4 (widescreen) lcd that runs with a native res. of 1920x1200.

At compusa i would have to spend 2000 dollars to get a lcd with the same res.

BUNNY OF DEATH!

Re:Naturally it IS price fixing

[jagger]

the downside is that you have to drink crap

Lots of misinformation going on here

[Anonymous Coward]

Hi,

I have to remain anonymous or my boss will kill me.

I regularly order 50K+ units of TFT montiors, LCD TV, etc.

The market price fluctuates for a number of reasons:

1. Demand - ordering patterns of standalone monitors change season by season. For example, a glut of orders after Chinese New Year caused a worldwide shortage in March, with higher resultant prices

2. Raw material availability - motherglass is only produced by 2 manufacturers worldwide. If they squeeze production or undersupply, then LCD prices rise.

3. Shipping and insurance costs increase with war, pestilence and famine. March has been particularly bad this year.

4. The manufacturers (mainly in China and S. Korea) are opportunists who will use the above points to increase their margins. Despite factory audits, price pushing still goes on and some comapnies are known to collude on prices.

To be fair, when you take into account points 1 to 3, the manufacturers do have to offset fluctuations against average prices.

The difference between laptop prices and monitors is simply a matter of the size of production run and the power of the bulk laptop buyers.

Expect prices to rise as Bush proves just what a criminal he really is in the Middle East and beyond.

If Perle etc. move against North Korea, a lot of the world's production capacity is going to be severely affected.

As if that is the only problem with dropping bombs on innocent people!

18-bit notebook LCDs vs x-bit desktop LCDs?!

[Splendid Turd]

Considering the hardware used in notebook LCDs is limited to 18-bit color (are their ANY true 24/32-bit LCDs in notebooks??) For that matter, are desktop LCDs also limited by their hardware in terms of "true" color depth?

Methinks this may be one reason for the price differential. I would imagine glass size is another factor, and performance cannot be ruled out. Any notebooks out there sporting sub-20ms response times??

I'm reviewing NEC's 30" LCD3000. With a 22ms response time and a native resolution of 1280x768, this thing is a pretty slick display. $4200 is a pretty nice lump of change...but I recall plasma's with that native rez selling for much more.

Where the hell was I going with this??

Re:Naturally it IS price fixing

[wwwillem]

I agree, it all has to do with competition, or in this case a lack of competition.

In 1992/94 I worked for Philips in the Netherlands to build the first (and last :-) mass-scale LCD factory outside of the Far East. For the geographically less developed folks (those that think that Netherlands is the capital of Denmark :-), this means no company in the US or Europe. Please think a second of the consequences, like the US having to rely on Japanese GPS technologies.

At that time, Philips (world leader in CRTs and TVs) saw it as a threat that the possible successor of this product (LCD's) was built nowhere in the Western World. However, three years later they solved this in a differnt way by making an alliance with LG.

But, the important part is that no US manufacturer (Motorola, Intel, Zenith, RCA, etc.) has started LCD plants, and no European company (Siemens, Thompson, etc.) has done it either. That's asking for being dependent on only a very small group of companies, mainly in South Korea and Japan, that can very easy make a deal and keep prices up.

So, it's easy to say: We need competition. Someone must start that competition, even when you are the David against Goliath. Same is true with the MS domination of this world. Yes, it keeps the prices up, but you (the custumer) asked for it when you swapped your WordPerfect for Word4Windows.

So, when all that has happened, don't complain later!!!

DVI input to CRT monitors

[benwaggoner]

The best thing about LCD's is that the display is perfect with a DVI input. Perfect pixel alignment, and no analog artifacts. LCD + VGA is almost worse than CRT + VGA, since analog errors look a LOT worse on a digital display.

Alas, i do a lot of video testing, so I need a display that is analog resizable - a CRT. But that analog noise in VGA always worries me, since it's hard to prove what image errors are due to compression, and which are due to the cable. So, what I want is a DVI CRT! Something like a LaCie ElectronBlue 22".

Anyone making anything like that. I don't mind if it's significantly more expensive than a normal monitor.

Re:Naturally it IS price fixing

[cyberlemoor]

Of course Coca-Cola could lower their prices and still make money. But if they did, then Pepsi would just lower their prices, and both companies would make less. So they both keep their prices artificially high. You can't honestly believe that carbonated sugar water costs that much to make, even with all they spend on advertising.

The same thing can easily apply to LCDs. If all the major manufacturers want to keep their profit margins high, then they can all keep their prices high.

I'm not saying it does happen. I certainly don't know. But capitalism does not on its own prevent such a thing.

PC/TV Combo

[dimension6]

Samsung makes some great displays in varying sizes that combine video and PC inputs (some even have a TV tuner built in with a remote control). I have used a 170MP for a year now and it has worked flawlessly (17" LCD with built-in TV tuner and remote control). These units are FAR less money than the equivalent LCD TV: just doing a quick search at pricewatch.com brought up the the 170MP for $450 shipped (CompuHQ.com), and you can use it as a PC monitor!.

A Quick Economics Lesson

[gradji]

Every instance of a good being sold above its cost (or, more precisely, its marginal cost) is *not* an example of price fixing. In general, such mark-ups occur when supply is inadequate to cover existing demand. In the textbook models, it is always assumed that there are competitors with no real capacity constraints who are willing to undercut the imcumbent firms when prices are higher than cost.

But in real life, especially in electronics markets, firms can face binding capacity constraints. A mark-up in the LCD market is an example of price-fixing only if the existing firms are creating an artificial shortage: i.e. they are explicitly or tacitly colluding to keep supply artificially low. The classic example of such efforts is OPEC and oil. However, if all firms are providing their capacity *and* the price at which quantity demanded equals quantity supplied is greater than cost ... this is not price-fixing; it's just the firms earning a short-run rent until more capacity is added.

Yeah, but if the laptop LCD breaks...

[samdu]

...you'll notice that a vast majority of that $1000.00 price tag on the laptop IS the LCD.

Re:Naturally it IS price fixing

[localghost]

Coca Cola isn't in charge of vending machine prices. I see them as low as $0.45. There are three reasons I can think of for the higher price per can. (in order of importance)
1: If you're at a vending machine, you have no other option. You're forced to buy it or be thirsty.
2: You're not buying in bulk. It's a lot easier to give 1 person 100 cans than to give 100 people each 1 can.
3: The machine costs money to operate. Refrigerators use a lot of energy, plus they have to pay the salary of the person who stocks the machine.

All of these arguments apply to LCDs as well, as does the different in price you see in single Coke cans. Just as you can get a can of coke for anywhere from 50 to $1, you can get the same LCD for about $250-$500 depending on where you shop. Some places will give you a better deal than others, but nobody will give you the deal that Dell gets. They probably pay no more than $150 each. (going by analogy; in reality I have no idea)

What are you talking about?

[singularity]

I was just shopping this week for a third LCD screen. I already have a 17" Apple and a 15" NEC.

I found a Mag 14" for $150 after rebate at Best Buy!

Also at Best Buy: A off-name 17" LCD for $350. I paid close to $900 for my 17" LCD only a year ago. You can now pick up a 17" Samsung for $400!

Prices are definitely falling.

I have a similar experience

[SlimFastForYou]

My laptop took a fall and the screen cracked. It did not completely break as I can see most of it (there are some black splots). Compaq will not fix the screen for less than $999.95. Seems strange cuz the screen was lower end, and you can buy 17 inch LCDs for $250 after shipping charges on the Internet.

Unfortunately, Compaq will not even sell the part for me to fix. So I'm pretty much screwed. I figure I will buy a $250 LCD (standalone not mount-on-laptop), and just connect my *new desktop* to it. I can take the laptop around if I need to but the screen looks like shit.

Re:Naturally it IS price fixing

[xstein]

this is simple free-market economics.

firms in an oligopoly (when a handful of large firms hold a very large percentage of market share amoungst them) cannot compete on price.

sure, one LCD manufacturer could sell an LCD for $100 and still turn in abnormal profits, but this only means the other firms will meet their price--which means less profit for everybody. official cartels are illegal, but price is pretty much set by the first firm to enter the market, other firms know to price similarly to maximise profit.

because firms in oligopoly cannot compete with one another with price, they must compete with other non-price related things, such as improving their quality, advertising, new features, etc. this is how you see LCD companies competing.

coca-cola could drop their prices to $2/12pack while still making profits, but as pepsi would follow suit, both companies would be making less abnormal profits. hardly makes sense for either. a firm may choose to do this, however, to drive a competing smaller firm out of business, creating a monopoly for itself, so it could then raise prices to higher-than-ever levels. this is known as predator pricing.

a cartel, that is, when firms get together and agree on a price, is illegal. when market forces guide market equilibrium in oligopolistic competition, no legal faux pas has occured.

It's not gouging

[Ryan Amos]

LCDs are incredibly finicky. You can get a laptop for sub-$1000, but it probably has a 15" or less screen. You can get a 15" screen for less than $250, because they're easy to make. Keep in mind that screen area increases exponentially with respect to the inch number. Not to mention that LCDs don't have the greatest fault tolerance. I recall reading somewhere that half of the LCDs they make have to be recycled because of dead pixels etc. The more screen space you have the more dead pixels, thus the more broken screens must be thrown away, so it's gonna cost you more.

Don't go on slashdot screaming "PRICE FIXING" because that's really not the case. LCD prices have dropped SIGNIFICANTLY in recent years, to the point where a 19" screen is now somewhat affordable (around $700.) I know on a limited budget LCDs may seem expensive, but they're a lot cheaper now than they were 3 years ago (probably about half the price) and prices are still falling. OLEDs will come soon and that will cause even further price drops, because the OLED manufacturing process is less sensitive than the LCD process. In short, this article never should have made it to the front page, because it really doesn't line up with the truth.

Re:Naturally it IS price fixing

[porpoise44]

Short economics lesson: the price you pay is determined by the supply curve AND the demand curve. Company A is not going to sell you that cheap toolset (they bought from china for $1) for less than $10 because that is what the market will bear. They could sell it at $2 and still make a profit, but that profit would not be adequate to keep them running, because shareholders expect what is called an economic profit: they would rather invest in company B which pays a decent dividend because it sells the toolset for $10.

I would be willing to bet that large stocks of CRTs are not an issue and that R&D is pretty minimal. After all we've had CRTs for 60 years or so.

>If coke started selling 12packs for $2.00 what >would pepsi do? They would have to compete to >survive. Of course Coke can't do that cause they >will lose money
Coke would probably not lose money since I suspect the manufacturing/disbn cost of a can of soft drink is than 17c. The point is they would not make _enough_ money.

The problem comes when there are small numbers of suppliers: collusion is the natural tendency. Theoretically if the profits resulting from this collusion are great enough (ie prices are high enough) more players will enter the market and break the cartel. However there are clearly barriers to entry: setting up a plant is a very expensive business.

Collusion may not be overt: it could be simply that neither side really challenges on price.

The question is how many technology items are affected by collusion. DO you pay too much for your processor: how many makers can you choose from? Do you pay too much for your word processing softare: how many suppliers can you choose from?

Difference between gouging and fixing

[salesgeek]

Little bobby wants to know: "What is the difference between price gouging and price fixing?"

Price fixing: all the stores in town get togather and have a meeting and decide that everyone will sell 15" LCD monitors fo $299. The consumer is screwed.

Price gouging: You break the screen in your laptop and the repair center says (after taking it appart), "what's on the hard drive." You say, "my only copy of last year's books." The repair clerk says, "That will be $1759, plus labor." The consumer is hog tied and gang raped.

The important thing: to remember - either way consumers get screwed.

Why UXGA costs (manufacturers perspective)

[Wackston]

I work designing LCD controllers. This one is really easy to answer.

1. Size matters. The costs of an LCD 'glass' like a chip die rise rapidly with physical size. Not only do you get less from a given blank but your yield falls too.

2. UXGA stand-alone displays are expensive to control. The market demands a big display act like a CRT even if it isn't. This means you need to be able to do frame-rate conversion, which because UXGA panels are highly timing sensitive requires a fancy low-volume high-cost controller IC with an SDRAM frame buffer. High-speed AVI and DVI interfaces cost too.

3. Laptop displays ain't as good colourwise or luminance wise!

4. The base cost means low volume means even more cost...

In short, forget price gouging. A UXGA laptop display is simply much much cheaper to manufacture than a standalone UXGA panel.

Grokking pricing

[Arpie]

People here seem stuck on the fallacy of price having to do with cost.

There was a very enlightening article being commented on some site, which one was it... Oh, yeah this one ;-).

Here's a snippet:
"Monroe tells a pricing story that shows how even the simplest situation can confound accepted wisdom about prices. "A company is making two versions of the same product," says Monroe. "One has a little more gold and foil on it, but they're essentially the same. One is $14.95; the other is $18.95." Not surprisingly, the $14.95 item is selling better. It's also the lower-profit product.

"Then a competitor comes in with a third product. Again, it's essentially the same thing, but a fancier version. And it's much higher priced: $34.95."

For our original company, asks Monroe, "what becomes the best-seller? Why, the $18.95 version, of course."""

The gist is, price has nothing to do with cost (other, of course, that you don't want to lose money in the long run). Pricing is whatever will maximize your profit, either by selling more at a lower price, less at a higher price, charging different prices for different customers, selling at a loss now to acquire customers who will pay more later (DVDs for a penny each anyone?), or whatever you can get away with.

IMHO, LCD prices are high because people are buying. I still stick with my 19" CRT. Although I'd like to reclaim the desk space, energy savings, etc., I'm not gonna shell out big bucks for overpriced, lower refresh rate, lower resolution LCDs. Moreover, while other people do, the prices won't come down that much.