Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Intel Delays TV Chip Launch

Posted by CowboyNeal on from the waiting-games dept.

portscan writes "The Financial Times is reporting that Intel has dropped a planned technology that would have halved the price of big-screen televisions by year end. This is the latest mistep in Intel's consumer market strategy. Slashdot has reported on the technology, LCOS, before."

7 of 136 comments (clear)

  1. Re:Whoa! by tomhudson · · Score: 4, Insightful
    And I almost forgot. That half means half the price of manufacturing the TV, not half of the retail price.
    In today's agressive retail market, the final sale price would have also quickly dropped in near-lockstep with the wholesale cost. Look what's hapened with other consumer electronics - dvds, camcorders, computers, monitors, blank cds and dvds (picked up 50 blank dvds yesterday for $20 CAN - that's under $15 US).
  2. Re:TI had "stolen" the lead... by Aphrika · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I think this is more of an anglicised expression than a legal dig at competitors, although I agree with your comments and wouldn't be surprised if it was selected for the subtext that it conjours up. The quote came from David Mentley - an analyst at Stanford Resources, not the reporter - so I'd expect him to be the kind of guy that chooses his words for effect.

    Then again, I personally don't agree with Mr Mentley's opinions. If you asked me 5 years ago whether Intel or TI would succeed in the LCOS/DLP or large size TV arena, I would've said TI. The lead wasn't stolen - not even in the metaphorical, it's just that Intel were always second and still haven't got their act together. Citing 'clear product differentiation' as a reason for pulling a product usually translates to 'we spent so much time on it, it's not any better than what's out there now...'

  3. Re:TI had "stolen" the lead... by Ben+Hutchings · · Score: 3, Insightful

    "Steal" is used here to mean moving stealthily, as in the baseball term "stealing a base". (I believe the words steal and stealth have the same origin.)

  4. Front Projectors by Rick+Richardson · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Entry level DLP front projectors like the Benq PB6100 and InFocus X1 are now sub-$800, and will be less than that by XMAS.

    These are now priced within range of the average consumer, and will kill sales of the overpriced flatscreen TV's.

    There is a reason that Best Buy et al do not place these projectors anywhere near their TV department. They don't want the consumer to walk out of the store with an $800 (or less, by XMAS) purchase when they can suck them into to paying $2000 or more for plasma/LCD flatscreens or rear projectors.

    Intel might have missed the boat on this one. It wouldn't be the first time.

    -Rick

    1. Re:Front Projectors by ArsonSmith · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Front projectors are not for everyone. I have one and I love it. but there are a lot of setbacks that can make them unreasonable for many. Things like bulb life, luminescence of the room, space, etc can easily turn people off of the projector. I have minimized these by also using a 27" CRT just to the right of the screen that is used for watching news and regular tv shows. The projector is then used for video games and movies, or other desired to be big entertainment.

      Most of this was put into place when I had to replace the bulb. $280 repair bill on the projector will help to make you limit it's use. Some research into the new sub $1k projectors do show a decrees in the bulb cost to about $100 but still a pretty high cost.

      --
      Paying taxes to buy civilization is like paying a hooker to buy love.
  5. that should read - by kulakovich · · Score: 3, Insightful


    "double the profit on big-screen televisions"

    No doubt they have "dropped" this technology until someone else threatens to do it. Why kill the market? There are plenty of suckers out there willing to pay $50/mo for the rest of their lives to own a giant tv. Especially with the holiday season upon us.

    Don't foret the x8086 machines, at some point, were $3000.

    kulakovich

  6. Re:widescreen by Archibald+Buttle · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The reason why 16:9 screens are more expensive than 4:3 screens is two-fold.

    Firstly many wide-screen TVs are high definition. This necessitates a whole load of extra technology and a significantly higher-spec display, which costs more money.

    Secondly TV manufacturing was geared up to 4:3 screens, and to produce 16:9 screens means having to start over. Demand for 16:9 screens in some markets like Europe has now caught up with 4:3, where wide-screen generally isn't high-def yet. In North America wide-screen TVs are almost exclusively high-def, so there's a double price premium to be paid, and demand for 16:9 screens is a tiny fraction of that for 4:3 screens.