Huge Shocker — 3D TVs Not Selling

itwbennett writes "It comes as no surprise to the vast majority of us who haven't rushed out to buy a 3D TV, but according to a DisplaySearch report consumers aren't doing their part to make 2010 the year of 3D TV, says blogger Peter Smith. And the stats are even worse than Smith imagined they'd be: 'DisplaySearch estimates that 3.2 million 3D TVs will be shipped in 2010. Note, that's shipped, not sold. 3.2 million equates to 2% of all flat panel displays shipped (as far as I can ascertain, that's worldwide shipments). So yeah, there are not many 3D TVs being shipped this year. But wait, that's not the end of the bad news. In Western Europe (the only region where they offered this data point) sales of 3D glasses are less than 1 per 3D set sold. In other words, a lot of Western Europeans who buy a TV with 3D capability don't even bother to buy the glasses to use that feature.'"

Comments

I know why.. lack of standardization

[Anonymous Coward]

maybe it's because there's no 3d standard yet.
I know I'm holding off until I don't have to choose from eighteen different technologies ranging from shutter to active to glasses free to holding flash cards infront of my head.

Make a 'standardized' 3d format, and I'll dive in.

Re:I know why.. lack of standardization

[delinear]

I doubt most buyers even understand the different formats, they probably just think 3D TV is all the same. No, it's more likely higher cost plus lack of a real need just yet that's behind this - sales of HDTV were similarly low when sets first started appearing on the consumer market, due to both the high cost and the lack of content. It's way too early to say 3D TV has failed as TFS seems to be suggesting - let's wait until 3D movies are widespread and prices of sets have dropped a little before making blanket statements (although from a geek perspective I'm totally with you - I wouldn't buy into 3D until I knew which format was going to win, I just don't think the average consumer thinks that way, which is why some people got burned by HD-DVD).

Re:I know why.. lack of standardization

[Scrameustache]

maybe it's because there's no 3d standard yet.

Maybe it's because its an expensive device that delivers a sub-par viewing experience in exchange for a gimmick that people are already fed up with.

Re:I know why.. lack of standardization

[Defenestrar]

Or perhaps because it's not really worth the sticker shock for all 4 movies out there you want to watch in 3D. Wait - let me correct that. Don't want to pay the sticker shock price for a 2D stereoscopic projection.

Heck - I'm not even willing to pay that percentage of my annual income for a regular HD TV. Then again, I have different hobbies and fairly limited free time, so I probably don't spend more than two hours a week in front of a TV. So my comments should be taken with a whole spoon of salt since this I'm not the targeted demographic.

Slightly off topic, but where do they get off calling something HD (both regular 2D and 2D stereo) that computer monitors in the early 90's were doing in a fraction of the physical viewing space?

Re:I know why.. lack of standardization

[AlecC]

I don't think they are saying that 3D TV has failed, merely that this is not "The year of 3D TV". Which doesn't surprise me. Leaving aside the format problem, which is serious, the consumer needs to have much more awareness of the products and much more available material in order to put out that amount of money. I think they are not totally stupid - they know that the home TV experience will not match the experience that the got watching big movies - not to mention that while some moves have looked brilliant in 3D, others have less satisfactory. It does not at all surprise me that consumers are playing wait-and-see.

Re:I know why.. lack of standardization

[digitalunity]

You've got it all wrong.

HD isn't "High Definition", it's "Higher Definition". That is to say that it is higher definition than the really abysmal NTSC specification called out.

On another note, I just got rid of my old 21" Viewsonic CRT. I think it was close to 18 years old and still had higher resolution than my new widescreen LCD monitor.

Re:I know why.. lack of standardization

[EdZ]

As far as I know, there are only two methods of encoding 3D that are actually in use for consumer products (ignoring proprietary and bespoke systems, For That Way Madness Lies): page-flipped, and side-by-side. Page flipped is basically stored at twice the normal framerate, with one eye image then the other. Uses double the bandwidth/bitrate, but as it's storing two full frames there is no loss in quality. Side-by-side encodes the images side-by-side anamorphically in a regular frame. Easy to broadcase because it uses exactly the same bandwidth (and same broadcast equipment) as a 2D signal would, but with half the horizontal resolution (not too noticeable with stereo). You can probably guess that page-flipped is used for Blu-Ray,and side-by-side for broadcast.
Displaying 3D is not standardised (horizontal or circular polarisation, active shutter, funky-multi-layer-dichroic-anaglyph, etc), but this makes no difference whatsoever. There are multiple methods of displaying a HD image (LCD, plasma, CRT, DLP projection, etc), but thatdoesn;t mean HD isn't standardised.

Re:I know why.. lack of standardization

[Rasperin]

And have been fed up with since the mid 80's

Re:I know why.. lack of standardization

[mlush]

Actually, it's just how you look at the sales numbers. If you're wearing your 3-D glasses they look much better.

That only applies if the figures were made in 3D, if they were converted from 2D you may as well rub mud in your eyes.

Re:I know why.. lack of standardization

[Firethorn]

Displaying 3D is not standardised (horizontal or circular polarisation, active shutter, funky-multi-layer-dichroic-anaglyph, etc), but this makes no difference whatsoever.

Depending on the technology used, it DOES matter though. Why? Because with all the HD image techs you listed, nobody needs special glasses to see the image.

With most existing 3D techs, you need the glasses. What happens when you get friends over? When you break a set, or they just fail? Right now you can't just order generic glasses, your friends, assuming they have 3D, would likely have different 3D and would thus have different glasses.

They aren't even standardized as far as blink rate synchronization goes, so many glasses, even if the sets of different makers use the same basic tech, aren't inter-compatible.

Re:I know why.. lack of standardization

[Scrameustache]

They aren't even standardized as far as blink rate synchronization goes, so many glasses, even if the sets of different makers use the same basic tech, aren't inter-compatible.

Everyone wants THEIR patent portfolio to be the standard, so it's a fight.

Re:I know why.. lack of standardization

[Anonymous Coward]

Or perhaps because it's not really worth the sticker shock for all 4 movies out there you want to watch in 3D.

4 movies? That's nice. A friend of mine went to a place where they sold 3D TVs. They weren't selling any 3D movies. Not a single one. The next shop had one and said "we'll have two more by Christmas".
BluRays and HD-DVDs had a slow start but at least you knew that you could actually buy movies, not just the player.

Re:I know why.. lack of standardization

[hairyfeet]

You jest but I'd say those stupid glasses are part of the reason stereovision TV (real 3D you can walk around, this is stereovision) will bomb hard. The glasses ARE expensive, which means to have enough so friends and family can all watch will be $$$, they just aren't comfortable or easy to deal with if you wear glasses, and even though my vision is good I've found wearing those things more than an hour gives me a headaches, and from talking to friends I'm FAR from alone on that. Then you add to that the fact that even though we have had Stereovision since the 50s most directors just can't figure out what to do with it so you end up with movies on par with "Dr Tongue's 3D house of Pancakes" (Man I miss John Candy, he would have cranked up the funny with this crap) and you end up with an expensive solution to a problem nobody really has.

The problem is the TV industry hasn't accepted what the PC manufacturers are finding out the hard way: We passed "good enough" a long time back and many folks just ain't interested in the latest whizz bang. Hell we have had dual core for...what? 6 years or so now? yet the majority of machines I see cross my desk or are in people's homes are late P4 era, why? Because paired up with a 19-22in flat panel the stuff folks are doing with their PCs, watching videos, going on FB, surfing the web, etc, just ain't taxing even these 7+ year old machines. Hell I have a damned nice AMD Quad for gaming but I'm typing this on a circa 2003 AMD Sempron I use for a Nettop. For the above uses it is whisper quiet and ultra low power and even though I like the toys there just isn't anything I do with it that even needs dual cores. Most of the homes I go into doing service calls have a nice 32-46in TV and you know what? They are happy with it. They see NO reason to change it, it works, they can plug all their consoles and gadgets into it, and everyone can pile around WITHOUT needing a bunch of expensive glasses just to watch a movie or the game.

I think Stereovision TV is gonna bomb and bomb hard, simply because it is too expensive and too much hassle for too little. I've asked customers thinking about getting a new set about Stereovision and down almost to the last one they'd rather have a bigger cheap screen than a Stereovision smaller one. Hell even the gamer customers I talked to just didn't seem that fired up by Stereovision, and gamers are usually first adopters. I'd say it'll probably bombs hard.

Re:I know why.. lack of standardization

[fizzup]

All good points for why stereovision sucks, but you missed one. You can't lie down on your side and watch television. Even if you lean to one side a bit, that's bound to give you a headache.

Re:I know why.. lack of standardization

[jesset77]

Its 3d! What kind of nerd hates new tech.

It's really not that hard to grok, "new tech" is not always "good tech". "Expensive and complex" does not always mean "worthwhile or interesting". 3D (but I'm on board with the more accurate term Stereovision) as it is sold today is really just the tech industry selectively forgetting the lessons learned from Virtual Boy/VR32, and really the whole VR hype train from the 90's.

We want our TV's to have good brightness at an angle because we're not always sitting right in front of them. We want our game controllers wireless and our laptops and tablets to have wireless internet and good battery life because we want to pick them up and take them places. We want to lay down or sit or sprawl in odd positions.

We want our electronics to accommodate how we feel comfortable using them.

The current generation of Stereovision fails on that point. It makes us strap shit to our heads. Many geeks already wear glasses, and those almost never stack comfortably. It makes us sit at a certain angle from the screen, and we cannot tilt our head more than a few degrees. Our eyes are forced to refocus on the binocular (cross, uncross) while remaining at a fixed focus on the monocular (depth of field) which induces the same headaches as stereograms do.

So as far as "new tech" goes, it's barely even a novelty. The basics of Stereovision are nearly a hundred years old, and we've all ridden this train before. It's expensive and inconvenient. And probably the worst bit for geek involvement is, it's not really hackable or malleable in any way.

Part of the goal for media's stereovision push it to create a content walled garden. 3d is expensive to produce, more difficult to pirate, and gives them an excuse to charge for another premium. Independents can't compete. Geeks have no easy way to generate or record their own 3d content to display on these devices.

But if tech only has to be complex or new to turn you on, then there is this great inmate ankle band you've got to hear about. Delivers shocks on par with a tazer when the inmate leaves their itinerary. It's all proprietary so I can't really tell you how it works this magic, and it costs a mint, but I can certainly put one on you and charge it to your nerd card! :D

Why Get one?

[mattwrock]

It's not like there's a lot of 3D choices. Most of the movies I saw in 3D still work in 2D. Until there is something really compelling *cough* porn *cough*, it's not going to fly off the sheleves.

Cumbersome

[olsmeister]

Who wants to wear some clunky glasses while they watch a movie? Who wants to purchase a pair for every member of their family? Who wants to walk into a room where someone is watching 3DTV with their glasses on and not be able to look over without seeing garbled pictures on the TV? Who wants to replace the $2,000 TV they purchased a two years ago? Seriously, the only reason I would jump on the bandwagon would be for video games. I think they should be pushing that market more. (or porn, of course...)

Re:Cumbersome

[elrous0]

Yeah, which makes it even WORSE for us because we have to wear those annoying glasses uncomfortably over the glasses we already have. DOUBLE ANNOYANCE!

content

[snookerhog]

as soon as they can come up with more content that is not just more monster chiller horror theater they might have a chance. I think the real win for this will be with video games. even just making the most basic platforming game in 3D would be pretty cool.

Maybe because of this kind of warning?

[rsborg]

WARNING: 3D Video Hazardous to Your Health:

... You Cannot Give This To Kids! Pesce says that Sega took the test results and buried them. Fearing lawsuits and consumer backlash over health risks, the VR Headset never made it to market and neither did the truth about the dangers of prolonged exposure to 3D virtual environments - until now. The results of SRI's research have been published and there is an unclassified document from the defense department of Australia that says there are a variety of "...unintended psychophysiological side effects of participation in (3D) virtual environments."

All that took was one google search for "3d tv danger". I'm sure experience with the actual devices would yield more "headaches" and other disorientation, which a parent takes as serious coming from the kiddos.

Can't wait for this fad to die...

[MetalliQaZ]

I hate 3D. It looks awful, adds unnecessary cost to everything, and gives me eye-strain headaches faster than "Battling seizure robots". Lets not forget the fact that even Justin Timberlake can't make those glasses look cool in their super-budget commercial.

It is just a fad pushed by a panicked industry who is seeing their strangle hold on the home-cinema market evaporating to iPads and other disruptive technologies. The fad will die, just like it did in the 50's, but it will gobble up a few orders of magnitude more money this time.

Its a UX problem.

[AndersBrownworth]

As long as you have to have glasses, 3D TV will remain a niche market.

Re:Price and glasses, most likely

[Maxo-Texas]

If they want this feature to catch on, they need to include a pair of glasses and a couple popular 3d movies.

Apple

[Krneki]

In 2 years Apple will make a 3D TV and everyone will want one.

The key to this success?
1. Increase price
2. Fancy design.
3. Marketing
4. ????
5. Profit!

Re:I Can Only Hope This Keeps Fumbling

[Dorkmaster Flek]

I know I'm the minority when I say that I am satisfied with current DVD resolution and am okay with buying into DVDs but the price difference is unreal -- especially used discs.

I don't think you're the minority at all. I think a lot of people feel this way, myself included.

It's just not that compelling

[shadowrat]

Most people want higher resolution. HD was a compelling shift in tv technology. One look and people saw it was better. Wide aspect ratios were compelling as they take advantage of our natural FOV. 3D is just kind of MEH
.
I think people generally think of what they see in the day to day world as a 2D scene. Sure you rely on depth perception, but it's sort of at a lower level of thought. You know when to catch a ball that someone throws you, but you don't marvel at the depth of field. You appreciate rich landscapes, but are mostly focused at infinity. Kids don't really struggle with projecting a 3D scene onto a 2D plane. They just start drawing what they see on paper. They don't even think about vanishing points and projections. That interpretation is natural as our vision is really based on 2D sensors.

When we watch tv or movies, 2D is good enough because we are used to thinking about the world this way. We appreciate a good 3D scene, but it doesn't really ever add anything that was missing from the 2D scene as we are very adept at reconstituting depth.

Re:Paying for the headache privelage

[iamhassi]

"Hey, I can pay a huge premium for something that will give me a headache, requires glasses and that almost no content can use. "

Or pay for a feature I'll only use maybe 4 hours a month, assuming you watch a 3D movie twice a month. Sorry, that 4 hours of fun a month is not worth an extra $2,000, I could buy a lot of Avatar 3D tickets for that.

Besides, if we all had 3D HDTVs doesn't that mean pirates would download 3D movies and the MPAA would be mad again? Can't make everyone happy.

Re:Price and glasses, most likely

[arivanov]

Flat panel was hugely expensive for many years. Its transition from early adoption to consumer technology took nearly 5 years. Once the prices dropped under a certain threshold the CRTs disappeared off the shelves virtually overnight.

The replacement of BW by Colour took even longer. We are talking decades here. Once again, once the price difference dropped under a certain level BW disappeared overnight.

HD TV crawled to HD through "HD Ready" for more than 4 years.

12 months are not indicative of an adoption rate. The first 12 months in consumer electronics are often the same for tech that eventually dies and for tech that becomes the de-facto standard. Will the 3D TV live or die is yet undecided. It will become clear in 3-4 years (earliest).

Re:I Can Only Hope This Keeps Fumbling

[slyrat]

Exactly. I did the math once and at 15', the difference between DVD and HD is meaningless on a 46" screen. Pretty meaningless on a 55" screen.

15 feet? Well no wonder. Most every time I've seen tv set ups it is at most 10 feet, and even then everyone I know has distances closer to 6 feet. If you have that kind of distance you should look into projection hd. You can make it a bunch bigger for just moving it back a bit farther.

Re:I Can Only Hope This Keeps Fumbling

[dogsbreath]

I have gone a step further and stopped buying things like the X-Files (tho I did buy that before I stopped).

I only buy a movie on DVD now if I know I will be watching it at least 5 times or at least once a year. If I know I'm going to watch the movie once or twice, I rent it.

Yup... we stopped buying video content a long time ago. We just use the PVR, watch a show a couple of times and then let it disappear into the bit bucket. I have almost no interest in owning/permanently keeping video content. My experience is that most discs are played once or twice and then just take up space on the shelf that would be better used for books, pictures or photo albums.

OTOH, I am very much into a permanent collection of audio. Music has more meaning and permanent value for us than videos/movies. Go figure.

I still buy CDs because of the flexibility and control: I can convert it to any format with ease, but if (legal) downloadable content was DRM free then I would not buy CDs either. I would rather maintain a reliable NAS vault of music than manage a collection of fragile plastic discs.

Re:I Can Only Hope This Keeps Fumbling

[Anonymous Coward]

but if (legal) downloadable content was DRM free then I would not buy CDs either. I would rather maintain a reliable NAS vault of music than manage a collection of fragile plastic discs.

??? Amazon? iTunes? Where are you legally downloading music that has DRM? Now if you said "lossless" I might buy your argument, but DRM? Is that really a part of legally downloadable music anywhere anymore?