Slashdot Mirror
Slack LCD TV Market Means Cheaper Phones And Monitors
Shakrai writes "CNN and Business2 are running a story about the apparent failure of LCD TVs to make a major market impact and what it means for you. Specifically for us geeks it means cheaper cellular phones and laptops due to an oversupply of LCD manufacturing. Does this mean I can finally afford that 21" LCD monitor I've always wanted?"
Does this mean I can finally afford that 21" LCD monitor I've always wanted?
As a matter of fact, I am looking for the 20" (because there are no smaller LCD monitors which do 1600x1200) to cross the CHF 1000,- limit to acquire one.
In June, these were 1400,-
Now, they reached 1100,-
This might be next month.
Trolling using another account since 2005.
Dell 2001FP.
That is almost half of the price you said and a VERY awesome monitor. I work at a healthcare facility and several of our physicians have this monitor and it is awesome. Great response time as well. Very crisp.
Chris
At >$5,000 for a 40" LCD TV, exactly what market impact were they expecting? There are not too many folks out there with that kind of disposable income. I'd love to have a large, widescreen LCD TV, but I'm waiting for a good quality 42" model for $3,000. If another technology wins out because the LCD TVs can't find the right price/performance ratio, that's fine. It doesn't change the amount I have to spend on toys.
$389?!?!?!
= 20&DEPA=1&submit=property&mfrcode=0&propertycodeva lue=3789
Where in the hell are you buying YOUR monitors???
http://www.newegg.com/app/ViewProduct.asp?catalog
As it happens, The Economist recently ran an article addressing some of these issues, particularly the "bang for the buck" of LCDs versus other display technologies. The article also provides context and perspective that should be of interest to those participating in this discussion. For convenience, the full text is reproduced below; it is also accessible online (may require paid subscription).
----
RATIONAL CONSUMER
Televisions go flat
Sep 16th 2004
From The Economist print edition
Consumer electronics: TVs based on bulky cathode-ray tubes are giving way to flat-panel models. How will the market evolve?
[Image]
TELEVISIONS, it seems, can never be too wide or too thin--and increasingly, they are wide and thin at the same time, thanks to the growing popularity of flat-panel televisions based on plasma and liquid-crystal display (LCD) technology. Flat-panel TVs are stylish, do not take up much room, and do justice to the crystal-clear images produced by DVD players, digital-cable boxes and games consoles. Sales of LCD TVs in particular are expected to account for an ever larger portion of the market (see chart) as consumers embrace these new technologies at the expense of bulky models based on old-fashioned cathode-ray tubes (CRTs). LCD-based models are expected to account for 18% of televisions sold in 2008, up from just 2.2% in 2003, according to iSuppli, a market-research firm.
LCD TVs are the latest example of a technology from the computer industry causing a stir in consumer electronics. For years, anyone who wanted to buy a flat-panel television had to buy a plasma screen, a large and expensive (a 42-inch model costs around $3,500) option. LCD technology, already used in flat-panel computer monitors and laptop displays, makes possible smaller, more affordable flat-panel TVs: a 17-inch model costs around $800, for example.
The prospect of a much bigger market has prompted new entrants, including PC-makers such as Dell and HP, and established consumer-electronics firms, such as Motorola and Westinghouse (both of which stopped making TVs decades ago) to start selling televisions alongside the established television-set manufacturers. For PC-makers, which already sell flat-panel monitors, diversifying into TVs is no big leap. For consumer-electronics firms, the appeal of flat-panel TVs is that they offer much higher margins than conventional televisions. During the late-2003 holiday season, makers of flat-panel TVs, both LCD and plasma, succeeded in creating a tremendous buzz around their products, says Riddhi Patel, an analyst at iSuppli.
But it did not translate into sales to the extent that the manufacturers had hoped. Although more people are now aware of flat-panel TVs, many are still deterred by their high prices. The expense is difficult to justify, particularly since a 30-inch LCD television can cost up to four times as much as a comparable CRT-based model, with no real difference in picture quality.
Flat-panel TV-makers have now, says Ms Patel, begun to cut their prices. For one thing, they are sitting on a lot of unsold inventory: the panel-makers made too many panels, the TV-makers built too many TVs, and the retailers ordered more than they could sell.
Prices are also expected to fall as production capacity is stepped up. Sharp opened a new "sixth generation" LCD factory in January. In May, Matsushita, the Japanese firm behind the Panasonic brand, announced that it would build the world's biggest plasma-display factory. And in July, Sony and Samsung announced that their joint-venture, a "seventh-generation" LCD factory at Tangjung in South Korea, would start operating next year. There is concern that this year's record investment in LCD plants could lead to overcapacity next year. For consumers, however, this is all g
Not really... Supply and demand say that the price will go down... That's the way it works for EVERYTHING. LCD's aren't going to be some special case... and dropping the price will not make them lose anything. Those things are so stinkin overpriced compared to what they cost to produce that even a 50% price cut would still turn a pretty high profit...
What the heck are they expecting when they sell LCD TV's for two to three times the cost of the SAME SIZE LCD monitor?
I can walk into Best Buy, buy a cheap 17" monitor for $250 - $300 after rebate, and put a TV tuner box from Viewsonic on it for $150, that's $400 for a 17" TV. If I walk over to the TV sections, the CHEAPEST 15" TV is almost $500. The 17" LCD TV's are between $650 - $900... one is priced over $1000. So what's the deal? Why the hell would I EVER buy an LCD TV? There's absolutely no reason to pay as much as they want for an LCD TV. They are overcharging something fierce, when LCD monitors are cheaper, it's obviously not the LCD that's costing more for the TV... it's just plain corporate greed.
So no... I sure as hell won't be buying an LCD TV anytime soon.
Its also heavier (important for the younger crowd thats likely to move two more times in the next 10 years), has an unweildy depth (about 3 feet versus 6" thus occupying more square footage, big for us in expensive urban areas), and consumes far more power, which generates far more heat (higher bills).
The problem I have is prices are falling rapidly and the tech keeps improving. (In 1 year the Dell 30" LCD TV I'm eyeing has fallen 30%, to about $2,200). I'd still really prefer a 1080p panel, or better yet a 2160p panel (2x 1080i, 3x 720p; no interpolation, or better yet, interpolate those extra pixels).
You are in a maze of twisted little posts, all alike.
While a 42-inch Sony (SNE) Wega LCD TV retails for $10,000...
Uh, sure. But in practicality, I purchased a 60 inch Sony Wega LCD 2 weeks ago for $4500.
You have captured the essence of the problem.
Further, when you look closely at an LCD television, you notice that the image quality is no better than the image produced by a CRT television. So, why would anyone the premium price for the LCD television?
People do want the convenience of an LCD, which uses much less space than a CRT. Yet, they also want improved picture quality in order to justify the price.
The answer is just around the corner: optical interference displays (OIDs). They produce far sharper and brighter images than an LCD. The OID also consumes less power than an LCD.
I was just pricing this out this morning. My conclusion: Given my typical usage, a new 17" LCD (to replace my 17" CRT) would save me $10-$15 per year in electricity costs. (This is figuring about 5 hours of usage a day; probably a bit on the high side, when I remove sleeping, eating, and work time, though I know that many people are at their screens 24/7.) Certainly not enough to justify buying it based on energy costs alone.
How can we continue to believe in a just universe and freedom to eat crackers if we have no ale?
Umm... in general, corporations also want to dump inventory and take the loss now. Inventory is a bad thing... it's supply that you spent money to make and are spending money to keep. If you lose the inventory at a discounted price, at least you take in revenue and don't incur storage costs. See "Memory in the late 1990's" for another example.
-Rob
Marriage doesn't have to suck!
I agree with this... I also did the calculations and the power savings do not really justify the higher costs for the LCD screens.
Right now I have two 19inch screens, they cost me about $133.144 per year in electricity. LCD screens would cost me about $43.574 per year. Saving me about $89 per year. Given that CRT screens are about $250-290, and LCDs are $760-790. It's not really worth it.
Darn!
Negative points are:
There are other thin TV techologies coming along, though, which may be better for TVs than LCD (but perhaps a bit too heavy for a monitor, compared to how useful LCDs are for monitors).
The problem is that there is a 200+ dollar price difference between an LCD computer monitor and an LCD TV at the same size. This is ridiculous since the only real difference may be the addition of cheap speakers and a TV tuner.
Bingo!
I have a lovely Formac 17" LCD for my PowerMac tower (bought back when it was in the $900 range.) I can get a 20" LCD from them for $1200, and a 17" is about $650.
I have a small TV in my office room and was thinking about replacing it with a 17 or 20 inch LCD TV. I strolled into the local Frys expecting to see the 20" LCDs costing within $50 of a LDC monitor of the same size. Well, imagine my state of flabbergasted shock when I saw that they were at least $800more than a monitor.
I said screw you Sony, Zenith, Panasonic, etc and shelled out another $300 to buy a tv tuner/video capture widget.
Actually, I ought to thank those greedy price gouging bastards. I had $1300 budgeted to buy a an LCD TV. I've thrown the remaining $1000 into savings, and buy the time that Tiger comes out I'll have the CASH to buy a top end dual G5. I couldn't have done it without them.
OS X:*nix for the real world.
Regarding the "Fatvision"-
People watch it that way because they're idiots, basically. I actually had this discussion with a guy I know who bought a Gateway LCD TV (which is truly a piece of shit, by the way).
Me: "You know, you can set it so that the picture isn't stretched out like that."
Him: "Yeah, but then I get those black bars, and I didn't pay all that money to not use all the screen."
Me: "But it looks pretty awful"
Him: "Oh, I've gotten used to it."
So this guy spent a couple thousand bucks to have a TV with a picture that looks worse than my $200 Philips (and much worse than his former TV, a nice 32" Toshiba). And he was apparently happy with it.
You know what they say about a fool and his money...
for more discussion check out LCD TV Reviews lots of talk about LCD TV's and Digital TV issues
Ok, ehough speculation. The law is specific as to what contitutes a defective screen. The standard is ISO 13406-2. Toms hardware has a good review on the law. The link is:3 0319/ index.html
http://graphics.tomshardware.com/display/200
I suggest you go annd read it but if not...
In summary: There are 4 grades of LCD.....if they do not meet this standard then you have not bought an "official LCD display" and then it is defective , the official sales policy of the shop is not relevant. Just go and exchage. the rest is toms hardware quotes:
"Class 1, the highest, allows no defects at all. Class 4, the lowest, allows up to 262!"
If they do not specify, the monitor is Class 1 by default and you can have it changed at the smallest pixel defect.
The standard distinguishes four types of defective pixel.
* Type 1: number of always-lit pixels.
* Type 2: number of always-unlit pixels.
* Type 3: other defects, particularly on sub-pixels and the RGB cells making up pixels (lit or unlit). This means red, green and blue pixels lit the whole time. Experience shows that this is undoubtedly the most common defect.
For 15" LCD Panels
Native resolution is 1024 x 768 pixels, a total of 786,432 pixels.
Class 1 panels: this is the easiest - no pixel defects are allowed.
Class 2 panels are more complicated.
* Type 1: Lit pixels allowed = 2 x 786,432 / 1,000,000 = 1.57.
* Type 2: Unlit pixels allowed = 2 x 786,432 / 1,000,000 = 1.57.
* Type 3: Red, green or blue pixels allowed = 5 x 786,432 / 1,000,000 = 3.93.
If you refer to the standard, 2 always-lit pixels is >1.57. So this is over the top and the warranty comes into play. 15" ISO 13406-2-compliant panels may not allow more than: Type 1 + Type 2 + Type 3 = 5 defective pixels altogether, with a maximum of one lit, one unlit and three red, green or blue pixels.
17" Panels:
This is calculated the same way as for the 15".
Resolution = 1280 x 1024 = 1,310,720 pixels.
Class 1 panels: no pixel defects are allowed.
Class 2 panels:
* Type 1: Unlit pixels allowed = 2 x 1,310,720 / 1,000,000 = 2.62.
* Type 2: Lit pixels = 2 x 1,310,720 / 1,000,000 = 2.62.
* Type 3: Red, green or blue pixels allowed = 5 x 1,310,720 / 1,000,000 = 6.55.
If you refer to the standard, two always-lit pixels is 3>2.62. So, this is over the limit and the warranty comes into play.
17" ISO 13406-2-compliant panels may not allow more than: Type 1 + Type 2 + Type 3 = 10 defective pixels altogether, with a maximum of two lit, two unlit and six red, green or blue pixels.
There are several tv's including new Syntax Olivia tv is a good value. Dell also seems to be aggressively trying to drive price down. Coming OLED technology and the prices should be very reasonable in 3 years or so.
So the future looks good.
Laugh at my ignorance while I learn Rails - a Real ne
The answer is just around the corner: optical interference displays (OIDs). They produce far sharper and brighter images than an LCD. The OID also consumes less power than an LCD.
I wouldn't expect them to be very cheap at all though, Iridigm is the only company that makes them. Well, Qualcomm soon if you read that latest press release.
Possibly around the corner for phones, I'm not holding my breath for anything bigger. It does sound like neat tech though.