Slashdot Mirror
CES Scorecard 2007 - What Came True; What Didn't
narramissic writes "In the race for Consumer Electronics Show (CES) headlines, companies parade new, hot, and not-quite-ready-for-primetime products while keynote speakers rev things up with predictions for the year ahead. An ITworld article runs down the list of who stuck their necks out too far in 2007, starting with Sharp's monster 108-inch LCD. 'The set represented the biggest flat-panel TV developed -- a title it still holds today -- and came without a price but with the promise of availability during 2007. But wealthy consumers are still waiting. Sharp said recently that it is still working on plans for a commercial launch for the TV set.'"
the list of who stuck their necks out too far in 2007
The guy killed by the tiger at the SF zoo on December 27 didn't make the list?
The theory of relativity doesn't work right in Arkansas.
How cute! Lookit them, they're so small! Are they them new whiz-bang hybrids we've been hearing about?
U-S-A! U-S-A!
Am I the only one who read this and wondered where the rest of the article is? I found this kind of empty. They only wrote about four products and five technologies out of the 2000 vendors.
Athiesm is a religion like not collecting stamps is a hobby.
The 108" display being forgotten is all great and stuff (who cares, really) but the article focused much more on the unresolved HD format war (blu-ray vs hd-dvd) which I find funny considering JUST HOW MANY blu-ray ads I've seen on Slashdot recently. Anyway, prices have indeed dropped a good bit over time and with the slow adoption rates is it really looking like any of these formats is going to take over, let alone win over the standard DVD format, ever? I'm not sure anymore. It seems like if another couple of years go by and nothing much changes, we'll see a solid-state memory format becoming more viable as next-gen storage for media.
Actually that would be nice, but I don't see the movie industry being too keen on that happening, and Sony will never give up on pushing a proprietary media format that they can monopolize.
I like basketball!!1!
...why not go with a projector? Honestly, the main reason to have a TV rather than a projector for small sizes is the awkwardness of placing the projector. For the big screen, place it out of the way near the ceiling and you'll have a wall full. All in all, I don't see the niche the 108" would fit even if I had lots of disposable cash.
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
The parent post is a MyMiniCity link. Please disregard.
A truck is something you can park your F-350 on.
http://www.komatsuamerica.com/?p=equipment&f1=view&prdt_id=864
Some of those gigantic beasts can really cost ya. I installed a giant for USC and they had us return it before a week was over because it stopped working. This was only an $8,000 beast but yes a lot of bugs need to be worked out of TV LCD HD TV that are over 60 inch diagonal. The DLP televisions are still very good, but the larger the set, the more options have to be offered, like internet viewing and other hookups. There are some rumors that Plasma production is slowing down, but early adopters risk being abandoned later...
parent is a myminicity.com url or whatever that gay game is.
And go with smaller LCD HDTV units.
... I built it based on Popular Mechanics designs by hand ...
It's amazing how gullible the electronics press was, in believing that bigger is always better.
Now, if you'll excuse me, I have to fire up the generator for my personal computer that takes up my entire basement
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
I don't understand the appeal.
I've seen a lot of LCD TVs on sale and display at various stores. The one thing they all have in common is they all look like crap. These aren't just the cheap TVs. I'm talking about multi-thousand-dollar models that just look horrible.
Perhaps "crap" isn't an objective term. They look grainy, have flicker, pixelation, and cost a fortune.
I saw an ad for one recently that was very proud of its "10-bit engine" capable of 1080 lines! Wow! Correct me if I'm wrong (like I have to ask) but that's basically the same picture you'll get on your 1024 x 768 monitor, but blown up to be 108 inches. Right now, on my ols 17" CRT, I'm running at 1152 x 864. If this picture was blown up to 108 inches, it would look like garbage. And yeah, an 1152 source is equivalent to HD already.
Why do people buy these? Is it for the graininess, the cool factor, the marketing hype, or what?
---
ECHELON is a government program to find words like bomb, jihad, plutonium, assassinate, and anarchy.
I am not so sure about DLP sets. There have recently been some revelations about longevity of nanomachines and DLP chips probably fall under that same issue since they are silicon that really gets a workout as it aims the little mirrors. Also, one dead pixel and you can have a super bright pixel on your screen. I'd rather have a pixel go dark than super bright.
Plasma sets are also having issues, suffer from burn-in, and are expensive.
I think LCD (either reflective or transmissive) is the best bet for a long-lived and trouble free TV.
I just add each one I see to my /etc/hosts file to redirect them to 127.0.0.1. If I ever accidentally click one, it fails.
He also now has the entire attention of the MPAA, ready to sue him into oblivion.
Twitter supports and protects racists - by smearing their critics with the "Hate Speech" label.
As long as the DMD can last 5-6 years (which shouldn't be a problem), that's fine with me. My TV upgrade cycle is about that long, so what do I care if DMDs will fail after 10 years of use? Also, dead pixels on a DMD are just like dead pixels on an LCD. How they die determines what type of dead pixel you get. If the pixel dies "closed", you get a dark pixel. If it dies "open", you get a bright pixel. The only thing you won't get is colored pixel death. Also, my 2 year old 50" DLP has 0 dead pixels, while my 2.5 year old 17" laptop LCD has a number of dead pixels cropping up around the edges (a few more and it'll be time to buy a new laptop).
That's the risk you take when you use phosphor-based technology (plasma TVs still use phosphors to emit colored light, just like a CRT; the difference is in the excitation model). As far as I'm concerned, I'm done with phosphor-based technology. That includes SED, if it ever materializes.
It depends on your criteria. LCDs have the worst picture quality and contrast of all of the technologies. Black level is horrible. LCDs also are very prone to dead pixels, especially at larger sizes. Cold cathode backlights have a relatively low half-life (on the order of ~5 years to half-brightness), though that is being solved with LED backlights. For my TV dollar, DLP is the way to go. The DMD is reliable enough for medium-term use (none of these TVs are going to last 20-30 years like your parents' old CRT), the price is great, and being front- or rear-projection allows for more flexible sizes. The downsides (rainbow effect, viewing angle, extra cabinet depth) at least for me are completely outweighed by the upsides. When I upgrade again in ~3 years, I fully expect I'll get another DLP.
Actually, I think the answer is to point clickbots at them and get their account yanked for fraud. Or if myspamcity actually pays up, then it can bankrupt 'em. Win-win.
¥200,000 is no amazing price for a small scale release with frontier technology... It's around $1,750...
Beware: In C++, your friends can see your privates!
...but where is my goddamn JetPack?
Tony.
-- "Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?" -- Juvenal
Plasma sets are also having issues, suffer from burn-in, and are expensive.
For a given size, plasmas are cheaper than LCDs. Granted I got a good price, but my 58" plasma (the family holiday present) was $1900. Plasma is a power hog though; I think it is rated at over 600 watts.
Ooh, a sarcasm detector. Oh, that's a real useful invention.
That's the price for an 11 inch diagonal OLED TV. I don't think I'd pay $1,750.00 for any 11-inch screen, no matter how nice it looks.
http://www.informationweek.com/news/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=202103858
Yeah, well you're weird! My TV is almost as old as I am, and I'll bet a large section of the market is probably more similar to me than you. (Of course, I'm admittedly not planning on getting a 108-inch LCD anytime soon either, so the point is somewhat moot.)
"[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz
It was in late 2005 that there was a big article about Atom Chip and the products that they were suppose to be developing. They were at CES 2006 but according to what I read about them they allowed no one to touch their supposedly fantastic chips(a terabyte non-volatile memory chip). If one goes to the CES 2008 site and looks at the corporation that will be present one will again find Atom Chip. It one goes to their site one will see a pitch for a 100 gigabyte(2 50 gigabyte memory devices on one chip). Now if CES 2008 has any responsibility to the public they would not allow this corporation to display anything unless they are willing to let someone touch it who can determine if the product really exist.
#1 hdtvs in stores (and sometimes in people's houses) OFTEN are displaying SD material,
Of course. The DRM system, HDCP, won't let you run multiple monitors from the same protected source. The player and monitor do a cryptographic key exchange to authenticate the monitor, then exchange session keys. So each player-to-monitor session has a unique key. You can't just split the output.
There are multiple-output HDCP-compliant splitters., and they're not cheap. $750 for a 5-output unit is typical. These are certified DRM devices that do the cryptographic handshake on both sides, decrypting and re-encrypting within a single IC, as required by the HDCP consortium. You might find these in use at a high-end video store, but the local discount electronics retailer won't bother. Our local Fry's and Costco are still piping analog S-Video into most of their HTDV monitors.
A TV as old as you? I'm not sure whether you or me are in the majority but I can't imagine having a TV that old. The oldest TV in our house (besides one we just got from one of my grandparents whose age is unknown and which sits unplugged waiting for a purpose) is about half as old as me, and that one's not used to watch TV but just as a backup in case we need 2 large TVs for playing console games. Our primary TV is only 4 years old and starting to look somewhat replaceable.
I'm no TVplile either, no HD, Blu-ray, just DVDs and cable, but I couldn't stand to have a TV as old as myself...I mean, it would probably be smaller than our current one (42 inch) and very low res, even I couldn't put up with that...
There are two kinds of fool One says 'This is old therefore good' Another says 'This is new therefore better'- Dean Ing
Well you see, I'm not that old -- I'm 23. ; ) The TV is from the late 80s/early 90s; it's a hand-me-down from my parents. Aside from having only coax input (no RCA or S-video, but it is "cable-ready"), it's not much different than any other cheap analog CRT you'd find these days at Wal-Mart and the like. Oh, and it's a whopping 19".
My parents have a 15" TV in their bedroom that's at least a decade old, and the other (a 27", for the living room) is almost brand new -- yet still analog and CRT! -- that they only got because the previous (15+ year old) TV had suddenly died. They also recently got rid of their oldest TV (another 19"), because it had finally faded enough that it was too dark to watch comfortably. It was so old the tuner couldn't go above 70.
Sadly, my parents couldn't get a TV larger than 27" even if they wanted to bother spending the money on it (which they don't), because it wouldn't fit in their built-in entertainment unit that was made 15 years ago when they had their house built. (I argued vehemently against the thing, but they didn't listen. I think they've finally realized I was right, though...)
Anyway, the point is that quite a lot of both college students (like me) and baby-boomers (like my parents) still aren't in the market for any sort of TV other than small, SD CRTs, and won't be for quite some time.
"[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz
According to the CEA, 50% of households have a digital TV. I would venture a guess that 80-90% of those were bought in the last 6 years. That would put most of the country on track with replacing their TV in the last 6 years. I don't think most people have TV manufactured in the 80s (or even the 90s) anymore.
Disagreeing with me does not mean you get to mod me troll.
I just went to Best Buy today and was impressed with how far LCD TVs have come. Some of them looked better than some quality DLP TVs. That was just my opinion, I'm not trying to talk anyone into getting a TV but I love my 50" LCD projection TV that is only 720p. I have to get pretty close before I notice pixelization.
OK, I'll correct you. 1080 lines is the vertical resolution, so it's actually 1920x1080 widescreen (16:9 ratio). That's better resolution that most people's computer monitors, about the same as my Dell 24" which is 1920x1200 (16:10 ratio). My screen sits about 24" from my face, so it would be about the same viewing my Dell on my desk and viewing this monster from nine feet away (4.5 times the size means 4.5 times the distance to take up the same portion of my vision). If you are going to watch TV closer than nine feet from it, I suggest you get a TV that is smaller than nine feet itself. I think this TV is meant more for home theater enthusiasts that are probably sitting further than that... 1080p is really a large leap in resolution, think about it this way: If you watch standard definition TV (480 lines and it's interlaced) on a 27" screen, you would have to move up to a 73" screen to get the same lines per inch at 1080p. If you don't notice pixelization on your 27" TV watching standard definition TV, you can safely upgrade to a 73" HDTV in the same position and not notice pixelization when watching 1080p content.
"I think LCD (either reflective or transmissive) is the best bet for a long-lived and trouble free TV."
You can't use shutter glasses with them so doing 3D is impossible.
> I am not so sure about DLP sets.
Consumer Reports did a survey of their members about flat screen TVs. 3% of the Plasma and LCD TVs needed some sort of repairs, while for DLP the number was 10%.
At last! Another insightful, informative article that told us nothing!
Who pays these people? That's right, if it has any kind of tech buzzword it gets published, bought, invested in, fawned over and masturbated on.
Man, reminds of about 10 years ago...
DVORAK!!!!
That would put most of the country on track with replacing their TV in the last 6 years.
You are making the (IMO crazy) assumption that most households only have one TV.
note: i'm known as plugwash most places but i screwd up registering that here somehow in the past and now can't register
Very true. To clarify, my point wasn't that most TVs are new, but rather that most households have new TVs. I think most people do have a TV in their basement that is pushing 10 years. However, it's not the primary device.
Disagreeing with me does not mean you get to mod me troll.
I think it is fair to say that most households have at least one newish TV. I think it is also fair to say that most households would be very upset if the main TV was the only one that stayed working.
But TVs aren't the real problem since the TV problem is easilly solved with set top boxes and sometimes ariel upgrades. VCRs and PVRs are a much bigger problem at least in my experiance they don't get on too well with set top boxes if you want to make timed recordings reliablly and they have only moved to integrated digital tuners VERY recently.
note: i'm known as plugwash most places but i screwd up registering that here somehow in the past and now can't register