3D TVs Are Dead?

[Just the facts]

I found this story pretty interesting because it is the exact opposite of what I see going on.

Static: Can 3-D TV come back from the dead? | News OK

I bought a 3D TV about 2 years ago and it is the single best electronic item I have ever purchased. Yes ESPN 3D went away but so what, all they ever showed were replays of SEC games from 3 or 4 years ago and the occasional live European Soccer game. I don't care if it is in 3D or not, the 2010 Auburn-Vanderbilt game doesn't make me want to tune in for 2 hours. Besides, 3NET has plenty of X-game type sports which are much better in 3D than football is (spoiler alert - football isn't that good in 3D).

As for movies, we have stopped seeing movies in 3D at the theater. Now we just watch the 2D version and use the money we save to buy the 3D version when it comes out. The 3D pack usually only cost $10 more and includes the 3D, BluRay, standard DVD, Digital Copy, AND an Ultraviolet versions all in one package. Even if I didn't own a 3D TV and would still buy the 3D pack just in case I bought one in the future.

I think people are making too big a deal out of wearing the glasses. I have the passive glasses which are no different than wearing reading glasses or sun glasses - both of which I already wear countless hours every day. I tried the active glasses which flicker back and forth between each eye and after about 20 minutes they gave me a headache so maybe that is what most people are complaining about. I have no side-effects from the passive glasses and use them for more than 2 hours at a time on several occasions. I'm not sure what the viewing angle restrictions are on the active glasses but the passive have like a 110 degree viewing angle, which means every seat in our living room has no problems seeing the image in 3D. Plus our TV swivels so it can be adjusted to any viewing angle.

Visio might be dropping out but they are at the low-end of the TV spectrum anyhow. That is like saying Kia is going to stop making their Supercar. People who are buying at the top end of the TV market aren't buying from manufacturers at the bottom (although now with several Chinese TVs the bottom did get lower - which is probably more likely the reason for refocusing at Visio). As for 4K TV's - yes they look good but until there is content in 4K all you can do is simulate it using the current signal - which is gimmick anyhow since you can't create pixels that aren't there.

I will agree that 'upgrade fatigue' was a real problem. I skipped a whole generation of TV buying because I knew I wanted a 3D TV as soon as they got into my price range. I went from a bulky 10 year old projection HD 1080i (which used a DVI cable) to the 55 inch LED 1080P 3D TV. If I had bought the intermediate plasma TV I probably would have held off on the 3D myself. Glad I waited.

On a final note. For anyone wanting a 3D TV, or any TV for that matter, skip the smart TVs. They will waste you about $200 to $1000 because they are redundant technology. I don't need both my TV and BluRay player having Netflix on them. Plus, for $35 you can turn any smart phone into a Netflix/Pandora/etc... player on any TV with an HDMI connection.

[Midtowner]

I don't see it as dead at all. I recently acquired a high-end 70" Sony TV. (KDL-70R550A 70-Inch) --it was "higher end" when I bought it. My folks bought a Samsung Smart TV. If I had it to do over again, I'd go with the Samsung for no other reason than the remote (picture is about the same). The Samsung Remote includes a full QWERTY keyboard on its reverse side which makes it so much less of a hassle to enter passwords, etc.

There's nothing on the horizon which really interests me. 4K has no content and I don't think there's enough difference in quality to justify the price difference.

3D will be back. Theaters make too much money from the increased ticket prices for it to go away.

[Just the facts]

I posted about this another thread but now that they can take 2D movies and convert them to 3D I think the market just opened up for 3D big time. I got the 3D versions of The Wizard of Oz and Jurassic Park for Christmas. I don't know how they did it but the 3D versions are incredible. It was like watching both movies for the very first time. If they start doing this to other older movies I will be replacing the vast majority of my movie library.

[Snowman]

There's nothing on the horizon which really interests me. 4K has no content and I don't think there's enough difference in quality to justify the price difference.

While no 4K content is being released now, most any recent major film has a version stored in that, older content on 35mm has enough fidelity that 4K would benefit the quality if remastered to it, both though are likely to remain a nitche in the home tv market for the next several years. I could see it having a bigger impact for screens in public on closed circuit TV or sports broadcasting if they had a source of content.

[bchris02]

I see 3D TVs finally catching on after years of flopping.

[Snowman]

I see 3D TVs finally catching on after years of flopping.

I see most of the flopping was 3D demand at the time was never going fill the void the tailing off of the HD/digital upgrade boom like the manufactures tried to push. They wanted TVs to be on an upgrade cycle closer to computers than a major appliance and the majority of people did not go for it.

[Just the facts]

I see most of the flopping was 3D demand at the time was never going fill the void the tailing off of the HD/digital upgrade boom like the manufactures tried to push. They wanted TVs to be on an upgrade cycle closer to computers than a major appliance and the majority of people did not go for it.

Maybe they should do what the cell phone companies do and sign people to 2-year agreements and give them a new TV for $50 every two years. My TV was $650 on sale and I just got 4 cell phones for $4 (but each phone had a no contract price of $599). So I got $2400 worth of phones for a 2-year contract and my TV content provider gives me nothing except a slightly lower monthly price and I have to buy my own TV.

[SoonerDave]

Looks like the market and various analysts, commentators, and even a movie production experts tend to agree with the demise of 3D:

Why 3-D TV Has Been an Epic Failure
The 3D Hype Bubble Is Now Completely Busted | TIME.com
Future looks flat for 3D TV

Even the late Roger Ebert had an early vibe on the demise of 3D:
Why 3D doesn't work and never will. Case closed. | Roger Ebert's Journal | Roger Ebert

And here's a remarkably sage and intelligent analysis from a 13-year-old junior reporter/blogger :
Why 3D Movies Are a Flop - The Granite Tower

The point is that regardless of our personal investments, 3D as a leading-edge marketing "gotta have it or I'm just not cool" notion is a flop. 3D may persist as a marginal extra feature among myriad others along the way, but as a standalone motivation for dropping the coin on a dedicated set and those infernal glasses...not so much.

The death of 3d is precisely in line with what I experience and those around me experienced. I know of no one who bought a 3D tv solely for the purpose of watching 3D content - they might have purchased a TV that happened to have 3D features as an incidental element among other, more desirable options. And this is among the crowd (not me) with a good deal of disposable income. And I never had any interest in it, so all the 3D hype was wasted on me.

3D in the movies was a double-edged sword; for all its hype, what some movie houses realized was the premium realized for 3D tickets cut audience sizes and revenue, and pushed many folks over to the 2D side. If you had a family of four heading to the movies, but one of them got headaches from the 3D business, that's usually four 3D seats not sold. And it wasn't headaches - there was nasuea, dizziness, and a hodgepodge of other oddities arising from the theatric immersion unique to the 3D presentation that just put people off. And it wasn't until 3D had been out a while before this was realized as a non-trivial phenomenon. Look at that article from Australia - note the comment from one sales type who said one of the first things people asked was "how do I turn it off?"

Did I see some 3D movies? Sure, but not because they were 3D. If that showing was at a convenient time, and I didn't mind paying the surcharge, I'd bite the bullet and go, but most of the time my family was completely happy with the 2D version. While there was interest in 3D early on, as there is with any new technology, the bottom line is that good movies that tell good stories with good characters don't really need the 3D gimmick. Put a different way, 3D never made a bad movie into a good one - see disasters like Mars Needs Moms in 2011. Even James Cameron offered that 3D wasn't what made Avatar the billion-dollar success it was.

Ultimately, retailers and manufacturers realized 3d was not much more than a gimmick in the 2010's than it was a gimmick in the 50's. Manufacturers and retailers saw the sales of HD sets leveling off, and manufactured the 3D notion to ramp up sales, but the broad public wasn't buying - and ESPN's decision to kill their 3D channel was merely the broader public admission of its failure. The glasses were but a part of the technology's failure - regardless of the type of glasses involved, people didn't want to go to that much effort to use them or expense to buy them. When other elements of technology emerged such that 3D became incidental, but not essential, that was the surest sign of any of its marginalization in the marketplace.

The rapid onset of 4K/UHD TV's represents a legitimate technology jump in the coming years, and while it likely won't become mainstream nearly as quickly as HD did, I think it has significantly stronger "legs" than 3D did or ever will, at least so long as glasses are a significant part of the equation to watch it.

[SoonerDave]

I see 3D TVs finally catching on after years of flopping.

The marketplace would disagree with this. 3D offerings are at their lowest since the fad started, and the folks who make the sets wouldn't stop making them if there were increasing demand.

[Just the facts]

The point is that regardless of our personal investments, 3D as a leading-edge marketing "gotta have it or I'm just not cool" notion is a flop. 3D may persist as a marginal extra feature among myriad others along the way, but as a standalone motivation for dropping the coin on a dedicated set and those infernal glasses...not so much.

The death of 3d is precisely in line with what I experience and those around me experienced. I know of no one who bought a 3D tv solely for the purpose of watching 3D content - they might have purchased a TV that happened to have 3D features as an incidental element among other, more desirable options. And this is among the crowd (not me) with a good deal of disposable income. And I never had any interest in it, so all the 3D hype was wasted on me.

What? 3D TVs are also 2D TVs. In fact, most 3D TVs also have the best 2D picture. I only have to use the glasses while I am watching 3D content, not while just watching regular TV. My 3D cost less than many 2D TVs that were sitting right next to it on the shelf. While I was buying mine there was a young couple looking at TVs. When the salesman pointed them to the 3D TVs they said they didn't want a 3D TV and picked a 2D that cost more. Maybe they thought they could only watch 3D content or had to wear the glasses all the time because why would someone intentionally pay more for less features (yet people do it everyday).

[SoonerDave]

What? 3D TVs are also 2D TVs. In fact, most 3D TVs also have the best 2D picture. I only have to use the glasses while I am watching 3D content, not while just watching regular TV.

Okay, guess I'm not understanding the point - obviously 3D TV's are 2D as well, and obviously you only use the glasses to watch 3D content...???

The point I was making was that among the folks I have encountered, I know of no one that bought a TV solely on the basis of it being a 3D capable. One guy bought a TV he liked, and it happened to have 3D capability, and it came with a 3D movie I believe, which he said they watched once and tossed it in a drawer.

Just saying that 3D was a gimmick only slightly more successful than the old Circuit City DIVX disaster of about a decade-plus ago, although I'll admit the failure of DIVX was easier to predict than that of 3D . Had a former co-worker who swore that DIVX was the way to go, he had a DIVX player, paid a pretty penny for it, and apparently didn't know his stock of movies became worthless once the service was shut down and the mechanism for authorizing playback was dead...

[Anonymous.]

I think it is because overall, nobody cares about 3D and the price difference between TV models to make it 3D shows that it is clearly not worth it to consumers.

I also want to say that "smart" TVs are also a dead product. TV companies are branding their products as being "smart" and can play all of these web based applications right on your screen! Too bad almost everyone who would want a smart TV more than likely has multiple devices that achieve the same thing. Consumers are being suckered into paying hundreds more on a TV that is simply "wifi" enabled when they probably already have multiple devices that achieve the exact same thing.

Also I think overall brand identity of TVs is also meshing together. The traditionally "lower" quality brands are turning out to be just as good looking and long lasting as the "high" end brands. I think the TV market has become extremely favorable to consumers in terms of competition and prices falling for nice home theatre setups.

[SoonerDave]

I think it is because overall, nobody cares about 3D and the price difference between TV models to make it 3D shows that it is clearly not worth it to consumers.

Also I think overall brand identity of TVs is also meshing together. The traditionall "lower" quality brands are turning out to be just as good looking and long lasting as the "high" end brands. I think the TV market becoming extremelty favorable to consumers in terms of competition and prices falling for nice home theatre setups.

Agree completely, anon. I had a really nice old 27" tube TV in my bedroom that I bought in 1987 for $1000. I bought a 31" HD replacement TV with many-fold superior picture (perfectly suitable for my purposes) about two summers ago for right at $200. Ridiculously cheap.

[Richard at Remax]

Probably doesn't help that next gen gaming consoles don't support blu ray 3D, but do support 3D games.

[Just the facts]

Probably doesn't help that next gen gaming consoles don't support blu ray 3D, but do support 3D games.

Well that settles it - I won't be buying a PS4. That decision doesn't even makes sense. Thanks goodness we own 3 PS3 so I should be okay well into the future.

[Just the facts]

I don't understand the smart tvs either. As I said in my original post, it is a redundant feature that cost a lot more. The TV doesn't even need internet access if a device attached to it has it.

[BBatesokc]

Three of my TV's are 3D and while I hardly ever use it, I actually found the feature to be not much of a price difference if you shop patiently and smartly. Difference was about $65-$100. For the little we use it that's about all I'd pay, but I do like it. We watch some movies in 3D and love video games in 3D.

However, most people I know with the 3D feature, virtually never use it. That said, most I know don't use the Internet or smart features either and we use them daily.

[SoonerDave]

Probably doesn't help that next gen gaming consoles don't support blu ray 3D, but do support 3D games.

Interesting. However, as I think about it, considering that most of the console vendors loathe privately owned media anyway, this isn't terribly surprising. I'm not even sure how much traction 3D BluRay will really have over the long haul, anyway.

[SoonerDave]

Three of my TV's are 3D and while I hardly ever use it, I actually found the feature to be not much of a price difference if you shop patiently and smartly. Difference was about $65-$100. For the little we use it that's about all I'd pay, but I do like it. We watch some movies in 3D and love video games in 3D.

However, most people I know with the 3D feature, virtually never use it. That said, most I know don't use the Internet or smart features either and we use them daily.

Bingo. I think that's precisely what the manufacturers have realized - people will take it as a low-cost add-on or feature, but marketing it as a leading, must-have, reason-to-upgrade feature just didn't work. If people have it, like it, great, but they just weren't sold on it being a must-have feature.

The Internet/smart features are merely a different way of leveraging the codecs that are already in the firmware on those TV's, so the marginal additional cost on those sets is really small. The codecs don't care if the bits come from a BluRay disc or an Internet stream. I could be wrong, but I believe some of the licensing fees for the codecs are non-trivial, so they may add the "smart/internet" stuff as another way to leverage them and explain away some of the cost.

[Just the facts]

Three of my TV's are 3D and while I hardly ever use it, I actually found the feature to be not much of a price difference if you shop patiently and smartly. Difference was about $65-$100. For the little we use it that's about all I'd pay, but I do like it. We watch some movies in 3D and love video games in 3D.

However, most people I know with the 3D feature, virtually never use it. That said, most I know don't use the Internet or smart features either and we use them daily.

For me the 3D was cheaper than equivalent 2D TV. Right now you can buy a 3D 55" inch TV at Best Buy cheaper than you can a regular 2D TV (unless you are buying one of the Chinese knock-off TV brands like Seiki, Sceptre, Coby, or Hisense).

[hoya]

Had a roommate that had a 3D TV. We never used the 3D stuff.

Last TV I bought was a 35" non-flat screen, non-HD old style thing, over 10 years ago. Weighs about 1000 lbs. I'm gonna miss roommate's TV I think.

[SoonerDave]

For me the 3D was cheaper than equivalent 2D TV. Right now you can buy a 3D 55" inch TV at Best Buy cheaper than you can a regular 2D TV (unless you are buying one of the Chinese knock-off TV brands like Seiki, Sceptre, Coby, or Hisense).

Not sure if its the case in this instance, but I believe many retailers are in the early stages of clearing out old or existing 3D inventory. Think you have a really good point in that there will probably be some really good deals on really good TV's as the stores slowly start to unload the 3D-specific units (well, those that were sold primarily with emphasis on 3D features but were limited elsewhere).

[Just the facts]

One of the knocks I have heard the most is that 3D content is lacking, but I am finding more 3D content than ever before. In the 2 years I have had it the only 3D content that has gone away is ESPN, but like I said, SEC football games from 5 years ago have no interest to me and that (coupled with old Big 10 basketball games) made up about 95% of their broadcast. If they would have had auto racing, championship games, playoff games, bowl games, or any other sports in 3D I would have watched it more - but they didn't.

[SoonerDave]

One of the knocks I have heard the most is that 3D content is lacking, but I am finding more 3D content than ever before. In the 2 years I have had it the only 3D content that has gone away is ESPN, but like I said, SEC football games from 5 years ago have no interest to me and that (coupled with old Big 10 basketball games) made up about 95% of their broadcast. If they would have had auto racing, championship games, playoff games, bowl games, or any other sports in 3D I would have watched it more - but they didn't.

Yeah, but the problem was they couldn't get a "critical mass" of support for one of their premier offerings - and they threw the proverbial technology book at it. They did do at least one or two BCS title games in 3D, some soccer, possibly even some of the Masters -even (possibly?) some bowl games - and it just didn't catch on. Lots of technical ramp-up to support it, too, so if it couldn't be made big enough to sell the corresponding carrier channels to the various cable/dish outlets though one of their most heavily watched offerings, it wasn't hard to do the math and realize it wasn't going to sell for the lesser-watched stuff. I know Cox carried the ESPN 3D channel.

There was one of the articles above I posted about a big overseas 3D channel that had to shut down recently. The practical hassles of the way 3D was delivered, plus a lack of real, home-grown interest in it, just proved too much to overcome. And given the emergency of UHD/4K TV, I think they rightly opted to move their resources more in that direction.

And I'm sure if someone comes along with a critical-mass implementation of 3D that doesn't make folks vomit or induce headaches or whatever, ESPN will probably among the first on the bandwagon to provide it. But there are some "biotechnical" obstacles to overcome, as the guy who wrote Roger Ebert keenly noted. Just for me, I'll be interested to see how the 4K/UHD TV situation evolves. Lots of interesting potential there, perhaps even including some new geeky way to do 3D that's so out of the box it might actually be compelling

[Just the facts]

Thanks for the reminder - they did show the Masters in 3D but I think it was a week later. Golf in 3D actually made it interesting to watch on TV.

Here is a pretty good blog on why ESPN 3D didn't work out. It makes a lot of sense.

SENSIO Blog :: ESPN 3D: Goodbye, thank you and hope to see you soon!

He does a good job of identifying the difference between watching broadcast TV and watching a movie and why glasses are a problem with tv shows.