Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

The flat market for 3-D TV -- is anyone interested?

By Rob Pegoraro

Back in January, I figured that I would have written a review of 3-D HDTV by a few months ago. But then a funny thing happened after the technology's high-profile launch at CES: Nothing.

Between near-zero reader interest and an abundance of other tech topics, I never got around to reviewing 3-D after noting how little it added to watching a World Cup soccer match. And nobody has complained about my lack of coverage since then. People have rarely even mentioned 3-D in my Web chats.

My distinguished competitors at the New York Times and the Wall Street Journal haven't gotten around to reviewing 3-D TV, either.

I can assure you that's not the result of a tech-columnist conspiracy. There are simpler explanations.

Start with the dismal sales numbers reported by DisplaySearch last month: 3.2 million sets sold in 2010 (only 1.6 million in North America), about 2 percent of all flat-panel TVs this year. In the one market in which its study broke out the 3-D glasses-to-sets ratio, Western Europe, DisplaySearch found that sales of the required "active shutter" glasses fell behind sales of 3-D sets.

The Santa Clara, Calif., research firm bravely predicted that 2014 3-D TV sales will soar to 90 million, but that assumes "the availability of quality material to watch." (To see what a real TV trend looks like, note DisplaySearch's estimate that more than 40 million "connected TVs" offering access to Internet media will ship worldwide this year.)

Or consider the research posted by Nielsen in September, suggesting that 3-D TV may not sell itself. That survey found that the share of people who regarded themselves as "very likely" to buy a 3-D set over the next 12 months fell from 25 to 12 percent after seeing the technology in action. Those who said they were "not at all likely" to buy 3-D jumped from 13 to 30 percent after firsthand exposure. Nielsen's study found that would-be buyers worry about the price of 3-D sets, having to wear special glasses and not having enough 3-D programming to watch.

(Toshiba demonstrated a no-glasses 3-D technology a few months ago, but it suffers from severe viewing-angle limitations.)

In the anecdotal realm, ask my neighbor David, whom you'd think would be an ideal candidate for this upgrade. He was among the first of my friends to buy an HDTV, then replaced that projection set with an LED-backlit LCD high-def set when that was a non-trivial upgrade. He has TiVo HD recorders on both the upstairs and downstairs TVs. He's even bought the "power conditioners" that help pad out the profits of high-end electronics stores. And he and his wife just had their first kid, making in-home TV viewing even more important.

But he has yet to even hint of an interest in 3-D.

The main thing holding back 3-D TV seems to be what afflicted HDTV for many years: Not enough stuff to watch.

The selection of 3-D Blu-ray titles remains tiny. DirecTV provides only three channels and Comcast only offers two, while Verizon's Fios has limited its 3D fare to a few sports events and a handful of video-on-demand movies.

Sports looks to be the major draw so far on pay-TV services. But ESPN 3D's schedule is painfully thin, listing a total of 10 events from Sept. 6 through today.

The selection and pricing of sets, however, have changed dramatically since the spring. Back in March, Best Buy listed only two 3-D TVs, with prices starting at $2,400. Today, that retailer carries 40 products in that category, with pricing starting at $969.99 for a bundle of a 50-inch Samsung set and two pairs of 3-D glasses. Its cheapest 3-D Blu-ray player sells for just $149.99.

That trend may be the technology's salvation. If it gets cheap enough to bundle in 3-D support, it can become an equivalent of the 1080p resolution that most sets feature but which many viewers never take advantage of. That, in turn, might generate enough of audience for TV services and networks to invest in more programming.

Or 3-D TV could wind up something like Super Audio Compact Disc, a better-than-CD technology that got crushed by digital downloads but plays on in some select--very select--audiophile circles.

Have you bought a 3D set? Do you know anybody who has? Do you have any interest in the topic at all?

By Rob Pegoraro  | November 10, 2010; 12:31 PM ET
Categories:  TV, Video  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: and you won't receive
Next: CEA launches 'Tech Enthusiast' membership


Hit it on the head: content, content, content. Build it, and we will come...although, now I may wait for the "glass-less" version from Toshiba.

Posted by: DoubledownDC | November 10, 2010 1:16 PM | Report abuse

Not interested in buying new TVs to replace the new TVs. Vz sent me a little FIOS subscriber magazine (good for birdcages) and I noticed a small piece about limited 3D titles/programming ahead. I tossed the magazine already but something must be brewing for 3D folks...maybe only pay form via on demand??

Posted by: tbva | November 10, 2010 2:02 PM | Report abuse

Really no interest at all. My reaction to 3D is just a stronger version of my reaction to HDTV, which is: nice technology, impressive views at times, but basically the content is the same old uninspiring, um... nonsense. Even when 3D content becomes plentiful, not much of it is likely to interest me beyond the gimmick level...

Posted by: mjohnston1 | November 10, 2010 2:04 PM | Report abuse

I generally agree with the above. Wait for the glasses-less version to improve (leave it to the Japanese -- it will). Moreover, I am happy with 2D, on TV and in movies. I tried it in the theater. Nice novelty. Interesting, but a distraction. Reduced brightness too, I think.

Posted by: RepealObamacareNow | November 10, 2010 2:50 PM | Report abuse

Rob's article says: "If it [3-D] gets cheap enough to bundle in 3-D support, it can become an equivalent of the 1080p resolution that most sets feature but which many viewers never take advantage of."

I have a new HDTV set but I'm ignorant of any options I have relating to 1080p resolution. Would someone please add something about this to the comments section, or email me at Thanks.

Posted by: wullman1 | November 10, 2010 3:13 PM | Report abuse

Content catching up to technology is indeed key to increased 3D adoption in the home. And as you point out, sports will likely lead the way. Outfits like ESPN are quickly innovating to create compelling 3D experiences for the living room. The network recently broadcast our beloved and #1 ranked Oregon Ducks trouncing UCLA in 3D. Glorious.

Perfecting the 3D media experience is tremendously important. It must be fulfilling as well as convenient (i.e. no glasses).

Posted by: elementaltech | November 10, 2010 3:26 PM | Report abuse

Don't really care. I'm partly blind in 1 eye (no central vision) so I /can't/ see 3dtv anyway.

Hopefully the 3d can be turned off.

Posted by: wiredog | November 10, 2010 3:27 PM | Report abuse

There is absolutely no reason to buy a 3DTV

Their is little if any 3D programs....and why would people want to spend thousands on 3DTV?

Posted by: Bious | November 10, 2010 3:40 PM | Report abuse

Rob, one more obstacle: 20 percent of the public may not be able to watch 3D TV due to vision issues and illness caused by viewing:

Posted by: swanni | November 10, 2010 5:17 PM | Report abuse

I have no desire to see Jersey Shore in 3D, that's a bit too much like going there in person. Watching `Planet Earth' much of the content on National Geographic & stuff on Discovery & PBS in 3D? Well that I could see having some real value.

Posted by: Nymous | November 10, 2010 10:31 PM | Report abuse

I bought the best 3D set I could as soon as possible, and I love it! IMHO, it adds a great deal to the experience. As for the glasses, I already wear eyeglasses, so don't even notice. The only issue I have with the technology at all is the current dearth of material available.

Posted by: jneps | November 10, 2010 11:56 PM | Report abuse

Rob, what is this your second or third column this year on 3D TV? I think that's a good pace.

I've never seen 3D TV, only 3D movies. If they're anything alike, I don't think I would want to watch that much 3D.

@Nymous, I saw a 3D Imax nature film at the Smithsonian not long ago. It doesn't add that much value.

Posted by: Booyah5000 | November 11, 2010 12:21 AM | Report abuse

Never mind 3D TV, when will we get holograms?

Posted by: jimbo1949 | November 11, 2010 12:48 AM | Report abuse

This was my feeling after seeing the greatest & latest 3D spectacle of all time on the big screen - Avatar - what's the big deal?

Posted by: Rocc00 | November 11, 2010 12:54 AM | Report abuse

I find it more of a distraction when watching in 3d.

Posted by: peter_b450 | November 11, 2010 1:07 AM | Report abuse

Couldn't care less, myself. 3D is a distraction. More Gee-Whizzardly tech to sell more sets. I have no doubt that as the 3D feature is thrown in on new sets (with a capability for unassisted 3D) and DVD players, it will catch on, but unlike the move from tubes to HD flat screens, 3D is up against an enormous obstacle going forward at least for the next 12-15 or more years. That is the current in-home "stock", that is, tv's already in people's homes, have an estimated screen life of 50,000-100,000 hour operating life.

People are not going to replace good TVs that already have 1080P HD capability for a new 3D-capable set when there is hardly any 3-D programming, let alone 1080P HD from CATV sources, Vz FIOS or satellite. Unless lightning or a killing power surge comes along to kill their set, believe it or not, anyone over 50 with an LCD (and ESPECIALLY new LED-LCD) set that satisfies their size requirements is watching the last TV they'll ever buy. The changeout to flat screens took from 1992 to 2006 to complete. Picture tubes and rear projections took that long to wear out before people replaced them with plasma and later, LCD flat screens. People didn't replace sets just for high-def. They only replaced them when their old sets were dead and the HD came along with the replacements. And THAT was a period of relatively high prosperity.

So folks that are all itchy and gooey for 3D (the usual suspects, tech-geeks) will sign on and pay up for the new format as they always have (see the huge laser disks, cassettes, 8-tracks, beta-max, then VHS, SVHS, name the formerly "next big thing").

But stuff isn't mainstream until the mainstream has it. And the mainstream doesn't spend until it HAS to. I suspect Rob is going to be wondering the why's of how 3-D hasn't caught on "yet" in about 2030, but I know why. Those sets sold in the last 3-5 years (2007-2012) will only have about 40,000 hours burned from their expected 100,000 hour life cycles. That's an ENORMOUS hurdle to get over if any manufacturer is banking on lots of sales based only on the miracle of 3-D. There's your lesson on TV history and marketing. I'm gonna send Pegararo a bill.

Posted by: JamesChristian | November 11, 2010 2:16 AM | Report abuse

Three points to consider why 3D television has already failed:

1) It was clearly a fad pushed by movie studios and theaters to pad profits

2) With the exception of Avatar, 3D is not seen as real value to movies

3) Who wants to wear special glasses to watch TV?

Posted by: Ombudsman1 | November 11, 2010 5:30 AM | Report abuse

I finally bought an HDTV last year and now you want me to upgrade to 3-D? (Perhaps I should take out a home equity loan and splurge - isn't that how the US got into trouble in the first place?) Forget it. Maybe in 5 or 10 years, I'll think about it...maybe not...

Posted by: cselby1 | November 11, 2010 6:44 AM | Report abuse

I saw it, but I wouldn't want to watch tv like that everyday. Video games and the occassional movie is one thing. On top of that they're expensive. Regular flat screens are just starting to come down in price and general DVDs are going up.

Posted by: lidiworks1 | November 11, 2010 6:47 AM | Report abuse

Disagree !!
Large percentages of Hollywood block busters are now produced in 3D. Majoy movie houses here in Europe all have two or three 3D movies at any given time.
The prime markets - at the beginning - will be games (today a larger market than cinema), home videos (easily produced, and edited, with available products) as well as CAD-CAM, scientific and education productions.
This is not a fad.

Posted by: jaytuck | November 11, 2010 6:54 AM | Report abuse

Right now even having a 1080p TV is overkill unless you have a bluray player, because there's hardly any content broadcast in that resolution. Having a 3D set is even more of a waste becasue of the lack of content.

And I think the industry knows that 3D TV is going to be a really tough sell as a result -- if you walk into a store and ask about the benefits of buying a 3D set, the salesperson will immediately start talking about how the better, stronger, faster video processor in a 3D set will make your 2D content look so much better.

The TV manufacturers should have stuck with trying to boost sales by evolving sets to include bells and whistles that nobody could really understand (e.g. 240 Hz picture, etc.) rather than something that the public can understand perfectly well but finds yawn-inducing.

Posted by: jfw9 | November 11, 2010 7:00 AM | Report abuse

When my first wife, an American, first came to Australia to get married way back in 1987 she was stunned by the definition of our colour (color) TV because we had the european PAL format as compared to the much lower resolution NTSC U.S. format. She said it was like watching TV in 3D. I never thought about it that much until HDTV turned up and the difference wasn't that big for us. I thought, what's the big deal?

Since then I've been less impressed by the ever-growing clarity mostly because the stuff you get to watch on the "idiot box" became less entertaining. Except for the occasional decent movie or rare documentary, the stuff you see these days is pathetic reality shows and talentless talent shows. We now have three HDTV's in various parts of the house but hardly watch the things anymore, preferring to either read (a book) or surf the web. So why would we, particularly, be bothered with watching vacuous trash in 3D?

Posted by: icurhuman2 | November 11, 2010 7:57 AM | Report abuse

They already got me on a 5.1 surround sound unit, for which I receive no programming from Time Warner.

20 years ago a $300 CRT TV was pretty likely to outlive the buyer. If my $1400 plasma lasts 2 years I'll consider myself lucky.

Posted by: gpsman | November 11, 2010 8:01 AM | Report abuse

I have a three year old Samsung 3D "ready" DLP HDTV coupled with a Panasonic 3D Bluray DVD player. The results equal theater picture quality, if not better. Content is the problem. I have six 3D DVD's, but between now and Christmas many more DVD's are about to enter the market. Mitsubishi is still selling 3D ready DLP 60 inch screen models. It's a good way to get 3D at a reasonable price.

Posted by: jmcdon7230 | November 11, 2010 8:11 AM | Report abuse

In September of 2010 I was walking towards my gate at Cape Town airport in South Africa. While getting there I saw a stand with 3D TVs that did not require glasses. Let me tell you, I spent about 20 minutes watching mindless reruns of the same 5 commercials. Not having to wear 3D glasses is a completely different experience, somewhat equivalent to watching BW and then discovering TV in color.

Although I am a hardcore movie afficionado (and weekend videographer) I have decided not to upgrade to HDTV until glassless 3D becomes standard.

Posted by: 3dglasslessviewer | November 11, 2010 8:51 AM | Report abuse

I watched a very nice 3DTV for a while in a Best Buy. The effect was very true and accurate and quite effective.

And it was nothing but a gimmick. All it added was certain moments of feeling startled, something that if anything is a distraction from watching whatever it is you're trying to watch. No actual enjoyment was added to the experience at all, nor did it appear any "realer" than just watching a good TV.

The increased framing rate, with some 3D LCD sets now sporting 480 fps (plasmas are all 600 fps), is a very welcome enhancement for regular HDTV viewing on an LCD set and will probably trickle down to the 2D sets soon. But I think the 3D thing is just a flash in the pan again, like it was back in the '50s when it was all the rage for a few months and then almost completely disappeared.

The problem isn't that it doesn't work -- it does, and very, very well -- I had no complaints about the realism. The problem is that it adds so little to the viewing experience that it will never be worth the additional cost or the necessity of wearing those heavy glasses.

Posted by: FergusonFoont | November 11, 2010 9:29 AM | Report abuse

My old Sanyo 31 inch CRT is getting ready to die so I'll be forced to buy an HDTV. I'm actually looking forward to getting a larger, much clearer set but 3D is not and will not be included in my search for a LED TV.

As others have said, aside from having to wear glasses and near zero programming, it's just a gimmick.

Posted by: rcubedkc | November 11, 2010 9:44 AM | Report abuse

HD and 3D are just more tools to advance the mind control agenda of the corporate matrix and manipulate the sheeple.

Posted by: kendi | November 11, 2010 10:00 AM | Report abuse

I can't imagine a technology that I would be less interested in buying, no matter how much content might be available.

Posted by: perlman1 | November 11, 2010 10:03 AM | Report abuse

I agree with many of the comments here but I have to add that until you've seen Avatar in 3D, you haven't seen the full 3D experience.

I agree that content is the driving force behind sales, but as soon as my 56" Samsung DLP TV bites the dust, I'm going for the 3D equivalent.

All my 2D content will view just fine, and I can be "Immersed" in 3D when I want to.

Posted by: pxkatz | November 11, 2010 10:07 AM | Report abuse

Like other technologies, 3-D won't take off until the porn industry adopts it. (Of course, that might not work as folks might get a little - ahem - close to their screens.)

On a more serious note, lack of content might be a smaller factor than having to wear glasses to watch TV. Having friends over for a viewing? Make sure you have plenty of glasses, otherwise you'll end up with folks unable to participate. I've seen the picture and admit it does *look* good, but I was nowhere as near impressed as I was when I first glimpsed HDTV back in '97 ('98?) at a tech show. I was stopped in my tracks and couldn't keep my eyes off the screen. And that was just the ubiquitous "moving over the landscape shot" you see on all display TVs these days.

Posted by: SamFelis | November 11, 2010 10:34 AM | Report abuse

No, Rob - I'm certainly not disinterested.
I've been a 3-D nut since the movie "Bwana Devil" came out in the 1950's. Saw them all - House of Wax, Creature from the Black Lagoon, etc. Bought all the 3D comic books, and even learned to draw in 3D.

Suddenly it all stopped. "cost too much and not enough interest" they told us kids. Guess I'm waiting for the other shoe to drop in regard to 3DTV.

I saw the 3D IMAX underwater movie at the Chattanooga Aquarium - Awesome!! But I haven't watched 3DTV yet -- If it will clearly show me which way the soccer ball is going, then I'm sold; otherwise its just a competing luxury, compared to HDTV which was a real necessity in the US when it came out - Our old 60 Hz. raster wouldn't let us read movie credits, and we never knew where the hockey puck was. Now I can see it all on HD. Yeah, I'm still a real 3D nut and if I can ever find a decent 3D movie to go to I'll try to make it - but there aren't many of em, or BlueRay copies of em either... so tell this nut why I really need to replace my new HD with a 3DTV anytime soon.

Posted by: Aggytater | November 11, 2010 11:19 AM | Report abuse

Alright, I'll try a little different approach. I see the continued march to larger HDTV and 3D to have similarities to housing trends. Starting to see a move away from McMansions that are 6000sqft, and an emphasis on location, style, and green building.

So I now have a 46" and 37" HDTV. Any decision to "upgrade" would be more likely driven by ease of mobility (no wires, all Wifi); thinner and lighter set perhaps with an emphasis on it looking good even while just sitting there; and finally something that is recyclable and not just more e waste during production or disposal. FCS, its TV and in large part there are hundreds of channels and a virtual wasteland. Besides, I watch maybe 6-8hrs a week max including news and sports.

Posted by: Flyover_Country | November 11, 2010 11:50 AM | Report abuse

I used to be an early adopter type of person, but not anymore. Not in this economy where we have real world numbers of 17% unemployment. I still use my 36" JVC CRT TV just fine with my Roku for streaming Netflix, Pandora, MOG, etc., (and there is getting to be a lot more of the "etc." out there thankfully.)

However, my HDTV will be either a 2-D 120 Hz fluorescent back-lit LCD or a LED back-lit LCD TV. Why? Because I want the brightness of LCD instead of Plasma, and the prices of 3-D TV's are prohibitively expensive given the "bang for your buck" from them. Yes, I've seen Avatar, and the 3-D was "neat", but what I remember mostly from the movie was that the story was pretty lame and very derivative (Dances with Wolves meets War of the Worlds with us being the bad old Martians).

Given that the number of hours I actually watch TV are way down compared to 10 years ago (yes, Hollywood I'm NOT looking at your recycled boring content and yes, network TV, I'm not getting emotionally involved in a show knowing it can be yanked from your line up without warning or any closure). It is hard to even justify spending $1000 on a 2-D TV, let alone double that on a 3-D TV. Then having to worry about feeding it 3-D content. Nope, I'll be happy to stick to 2-D 720p and some BlueRay discs in 1080p. Even watching bad movies like Heaven's Gate in 1080p or 3-D won't make them any better. Funny that the salvation of Hollywood may come from Bollywood if they buy MGM. Their character driven movies might offer some content worth watching.

Finally, all these LCD's have been on the market for just a few years. I'd like to know the failure rate of these things. They always quote 100,000 hours, but I wonder of those numbers are real. I know more than a few friends who were burned badly by their LCD TV's dying on them right after the warranty died. The old CRT TV's seemed to last 10 to 15 years. Will these?

Posted by: moonwatcher2001 | November 11, 2010 11:54 AM | Report abuse

If you haven't seen 3D on HDTV, go to a warehouse club and watch. You will come away less than impressed.

Don't believe me, or the hype. Go see for yourself.

Posted by: Skeptic1 | November 11, 2010 1:23 PM | Report abuse

No interest here in 3D. It seems like no more than a gimmick to distract people from the banality of the content. Probably the best viewing is in B&W from the days when movies had substance.

Posted by: sage5 | November 11, 2010 2:16 PM | Report abuse

I am a big tech enthusiast & early adopter, yet I have zero interest in 3D TVs. I just bought a 50" plasma last year and won't be in the TV market for awhile.

Posted by: Corn_Laden | November 11, 2010 2:56 PM | Report abuse

I have nearly zero interest in 3D television. And if I'm not interested, the format is in trouble. Why? Because I'm a home theater buff always on the lookout for my next upgrade and am not particularly shy about shelling out for marginal improvements. I have two high-quality flat panels at home, both bought within the last three years. I don't anticipate buying another television for 5-10 years, knock wood. If 3D is still around and included as a standard feature then, fine. Count me in. But If I were buying today, I don't think I'd pay more than a 10 percent premium for this feature. I'd much rather put the extra money toward a bigger screen and better picture.

Posted by: McPanse | November 11, 2010 3:23 PM | Report abuse

I have been at the sales and installation end of consumer electronics (high end audio/video) since the advent of Stereo and Stereo FM (1958)... I have usually spotted formats and technologies that were doomed early on in their introductions. (video discs, PAL large format audio cassettes,etc.)We have been selling and demoing 3-D displays since their inception. It's all in the demo. I can safely say that almost every adult male and child (of either gender) LOVES 3-D..Admittingly, women could care less (just like in the 50s when 3-D made a big move in the theaters). We have to be thankful that men still have a big say in the buying decisions for our products. It's also important to note that the displays we've been selling are first and foremost, excellent 2-D TVs. The big problem is available content. Time Warner here in NYC, is offering 10 movies on Pay Per View..But where are the BluRay 3-D movies ?

Posted by: avsalon | November 11, 2010 4:04 PM | Report abuse

I own the Panasonic 54" Viera 25 which has spectacular HDTV and impressive 3D capability, using the special glasses. Almost instantly when watching one forgets about the glasses, since the experience is so compelling and immersive. I agree that the available 3D contents right now is extremely limited, tough I've managed to buy 8 BluRay 3D titles, some animation, some moves, some nature documentaries - most of them quite exhilarating to watch. Looks like a slew of new titles are slated for release here in Nov and Dec. I like having the 3D option for an occasional thrill ride, but also thoroughly enjoy the Viera's 1080p display. I use my PS3 to playback BluRay 3D.

Posted by: bstern2010 | November 11, 2010 4:17 PM | Report abuse

3D is levee against the death of cable, and it's not going to be enough. 3D will die with cable.

Posted by: tws1372 | November 11, 2010 5:43 PM | Report abuse

I have two 3D TVs a 61" and a 67" Samsung DLP sets. With an adapter I am able to get 3D Blu-ray and Comcast 3D programming. I agree 3D programming is very scarce although Comcast does have some 3D Video On Demand. My biggest complaint is how the hardware manufacturers have locked up most of the desirable 3D Blu-ray movies in exclusive deals. An example of this is Avatar 3D which is a Panasonic exclusive until February 2012! The general public who purchases a non-Panasonic 3D TV has to wait over a year for this title to become available! Avatar 3D is the movie that really put 3D on the map and Panasonic along with Fox has locked it up. Exclusive deals like this will slow down the adoption of 3D since without quality content their is no reason to invest in 3D equipment.

I do enjoy the limited 3D content available. One thing I have found out is bigger is better when it comes to 3D. If your field of vision includes the frame of the TV then you mind puts things in a window so everything is behind the window. If you do not see the frame the images can pop out at you similar to an IMAX 3D experience.

Posted by: paulgo | November 11, 2010 5:50 PM | Report abuse

The UK version of "Tom's Hardware" gives an excellent step-by-step project on how to build yourself a 3D Projection Home Theater to display 3D Blu-Ray titles.,review-31849.html

The US site did a comparable project but I am too lazy to find it. ;)

The long and short of it is that you get a very nice wall display, hard-mounted projector units hanging out of the ceiling (perhaps hiding among the track-mounted accent lights) and you don't need anything but the cheap polarized glasses from the movie theater to watch it. No more $100-a-pair cable or IR attached glasses.

All in all, far more elegant, and it's about $3000 for a far larger screen than you'd get with that sort of money in the HDTV 3D units now starting to be mass-marketed.

Posted by: thardman | November 11, 2010 6:38 PM | Report abuse

It's a little ahead of the porn curve, is all.

Posted by: mattintx | November 11, 2010 7:15 PM | Report abuse

Welcome to the real world Rob

No one except the wealthy or foolish will buy into 3D TV until the price comes down, content is greatly increased and they loose those stupid glasses.

Posted by: dontsendnofarkingspam | November 11, 2010 10:15 PM | Report abuse

I think it is just bad timing to introduce such expensive technology. A lot of folks have recently upgraded to newer flat panels and blu-ray DVD players and NOW the giants want to say that those purchases are obsolete because you need all new equipment for 3D television. I do no think this is going to catch on fast.

Posted by: htw4 | November 12, 2010 9:14 AM | Report abuse

The new 3D is a two-edged sword for the TV industry. My 52 inch projection set (6 years old, $2,400) was recently dumpsterized as a lens blew, parts are unavailable and it cost more to fix than half the price of a comperable flat screen. I have a 42 inch flat screen, but was hot to get another 50 plus inch set. However, if I don't buy 3-D, I'm concerned I will have obsolete hardware in a year or so. But 3-D is still not mainstream. So I watch the 42 incher for another year or so until the dust settles. One flat screen sale lost. I also know content is coming as so much of the new movie product is in 3-D, the cost has to have come down to a reasonable level, which means we will probably see more product on TV.

Posted by: 20steveltd | November 12, 2010 2:53 PM | Report abuse

Psuedo 3D is 19th century technology. Steropsis viewers frequently found in parlors in the 1880's And there was Tru-View in the 40's and 50's. But they were just a fad. The only thing 3D tv adds is color and motion. I say it is just a fad and forget it as it seems most folks have.
cjake silicon valley

Posted by: chkwgn07 | November 15, 2010 2:59 PM | Report abuse

Post a Comment

We encourage users to analyze, comment on and even challenge's articles, blogs, reviews and multimedia features.

User reviews and comments that include profanity or personal attacks or other inappropriate comments or material will be removed from the site. Additionally, entries that are unsigned or contain "signatures" by someone other than the actual author will be removed. Finally, we will take steps to block users who violate any of our posting standards, terms of use or privacy policies or any other policies governing this site. Please review the full rules governing commentaries and discussions.

characters remaining

RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company