Slashdot Mirror


Sony Profits Low, Halts CRT Production

mtndue1 writes "Forbes is reporting that with lower than expected profits, Sony is halting the production of CRT's for televisions at many of its plants. The restructuring move is meant to catch the company up with other manufacturers who moved to LCD displays more quickly." From the article: " In the second quarter to September, net profit dropped 46.5 pct to 28.5 bln yen, pressured by 32.3 bln yen in restructuring expenses to write down the impaired value of its cathode-ray tube (CRT) plants. Under the plant closure program, Sony will shut down some of its CRT television assembly factories by March 2008 in order to shift its focus to the flat-screen TV business ... In a bid to revive its game division, Sony plans to release its next-generation stand-alone PlayStation 3 game console in the spring. To speed up development of PlayStation 3, Sony plans to devote 410 bln yen to capital investment in the year to March, up from 356.8 bln yen a year earlier."

10 of 270 comments (clear)

  1. Re:Anyone know...? by dduck · · Score: 3, Informative

    They did so a while back. When I was in Tokyo about 3 years ago, you could hardly find a CRT TV, uch less a CRT monitor. Everything new was flat and thin.

  2. Too Bad; LCDs are Overpriced by h4ck7h3p14n37 · · Score: 5, Informative

    It's too bad that Sony is phasing out it's CRT production. Granted, flat-screens have much better resolution, a smaller footprint and are lighther, but they're still extremely expensive. A 32" Sony Trinitron is going for around $400, while a 32" Sony LCD Wega flat panel is more than $2,000 (the cheapest 32" LCD flat screen I could find goes for $1,300). I just don't understand why anyone would buy one flat screen when they could get four or five CRTs for the same price.

    1. Re:Too Bad; LCDs are Overpriced by b1t+r0t · · Score: 4, Informative
      Except that you're comparing apples and oranges. A 32" Wega CRT is about $600-$700, but the HD-ready Wega is about $1000, and was around $1500 two years ago. Oh, and a minor point is that their LCD line seems to be called Bravia, not Wega.

      Mmmm... and that LCD has a PC input, too. I know for a fact that their CRT Wega line isn't designed for PC scan rates on the DVI input. You can get 640x480 to work, but there's overscan, and even if you get your video card to generate ATSC scan rates, anything higher than 480p forces the 4:3 CRT into widescreen mode.

      --

      --
      "Open source is good." - Steve Jobs
      "Open source is evil." - Microsoft
  3. Hard choice by boa13 · · Score: 5, Informative

    It must have been a hard choice for mtndue1, torn between hyping up his scoop so that he would have a chance to be published on Slashdot and not telling outright lies. So he took both approaches:

    Sony is halting the production of CRT's for televisions at many of its plants

    Sony will shut down some of its CRT television assembly factories by March 2008 (emphasis mine)

    No, I didn't read the fine article, but I did laugh out loud.

  4. Re:Mostly a good thing by petabyte · · Score: 3, Informative

    Well yes, me. I just opted for the 30" CRT Television (HDTV widescreen) instead of the 30" LCD. The reason? True black on the CRT and better colors overall. People have mentioned size constraints with televisions and yes, I got a slim fit CRT but it sits on an entertainment center which houses my reciever and DVD player. Since thats a dedicated area for the TV, I don't have a problem with that space being used for the TV and having the best picture I can. When it goes kaboom, I figure LCDs will be the standard and the picture will have improved.

    Now, my desk is another story. I have a CRT for my computer there too but when that goes, the LCD cometh ...

  5. Re:Mostly a good thing by Yaa+101 · · Score: 3, Informative

    All people in need of real colors still use CRTs...
    Those LCDs are ugly, none of them come near to what colors should look like.

  6. Re:Mostly a good thing by networkBoy · · Score: 3, Informative

    Actually there are a few that cover the gamma curve of CRTs nicely, and can be calibrated further for color temperature and such. The downside is those LCDs cost around $2K for a 17-19 inch.

    Tom's Hardware did a nice piece on them.
    -nB

    --
    whois gawk date unzip strip find touch finger mount join nice man top fsck grep eject more yes exit umount sleep dump
  7. Re:It's about time... by Zathrus · · Score: 3, Informative

    Didn't the patent on Trintron expire?

    Yes, but remember -- when it's a patent/copyright/other IP that you hate then it's evil and wrong. When it's something you like, when the IP expires then others "rip off" your hard work.

    And I heartily disagree with the grandparent about the brightness factor of LCD/DLP -- my 46" DLP is visible in normal light conditions, in a well lit room. No, I can't see shit on it when the sun is shining directly on the screen, but I can't see shit on a CRT in those circumstances either.

    And I suspect he was comparing apples to oranges anyway -- direct view CRT to projection LCD/DLP (since projection is the only way you can view DLP). Compare projection CRT and the LCD/DLP literally shine -- you need as dark a room as possible for projected CRT. Also, if you want much more than 36" diagonal you can't use direct view CRT -- the tubes are just too big, heavy, and expensive (IIRC, the largest direct view tube ever produced for home use was a 44" Mitsubishi).

  8. Re:Sad by Alioth · · Score: 3, Informative

    Although the sharpness of a modern LCD monitor is better than my 21in Sony Trinitron monitor at home, overall, the Trinitron has them beat. Not just because the colours are better - but also that they don't change if you move your head or change your seating position, or adjust the monitor stand! The rather nice LCD I have at work - this Slashdot section here, if I move my head to the side, the background on the comment titles all but disappears, and the brightness changes. This is inherent in the way LCDs work.

  9. Re:Mostly a good thing by Kjella · · Score: 3, Informative

    LCD 'refresh' rates are measured in 'ms' not 'Hz'. Poster also seems to be stuck in 2002...todays LCDs with sub-10ms refresh rates (I believe I read about a 3-4ms LCD coming soon as well) have eliminated the 'blurring' problem evident on older units. I've played many BF2, Doom3 and several others on my 19" 8ms LCD and it's been excellent...no ghosting. Todays units are greatly improved over the old 20ms+ ones. The only area CRTs still maintain an advantage are in displaying high resolution...LCDs outside their native resolution just aren't as nice.

    Well, ms and Hz are just two different units of measurement. What they mean by "refresh" is completely different though. For one, a CRT will flicker, an LCD will not at low refresh rates. Furthermore, a CRT will actually refresh exactly so, while an LCD will not (you will see different numbers for gray-gray, black-white-black, averages vs worst case). Not to mention you have ringing caused by trying to speed up the process. Take the "3ms" screen on slashdot here recently, it has 5ms black-to-black, more like 8ms before the ringing stops. Effectively, that means ~125fps, not ~333fps. Realisticly, most people don't notice more than ~60fps (as it doesn't flicker), so around 16ms actual response time. To make up for the marketing BS you need to buy a "8ms" screen though.

    --
    Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings