US consumers purchase $55 million worth of 3D TVs and Blu-ray players, despite the glasses
By Thomas Ricker 
posted June 25th 2010 6:58AM
posted June 25th 2010 6:58AM
Disclaimer: NPD's Ross Rubin is a contributor to Engadget.
3D Capable Home Entertainment Product Revenue Exceeds $55 Million in the U.S.
PORT WASHINGTON, NEW YORK, June 22, 2010 - 3D TV and 3D Blu-ray standalone player revenue in the U.S. has exceeded $55 million in the first three months since the launch of these products in February, according to leading market research company The NPD Group's Retail Tracking Service.
"3D TV and Blu-ray players are seeing steady growth even as major product line launches are slated for the coming months," said Ross Rubin, executive director of industry analysis at NPD. As more consumers adopt 3D, the industry can help foster a 3D ecosystem similar to that of HD."
One inhibitor to adoption of 3D TV at home is the need to wear special glasses when watching 3D TV. These glasses can add significant cost and work only with their brand of television. Only 10 percent of consumers surveyed in The NPD Group's Analyst Poll of NPD Panelists cited "looking silly" as a main concern of the glasses, whereas 41 percent cited not having enough glasses on hand for everyone watching the set.
"3D TV will be a premium home entertainment experience in 2010," said Rubin. "Many consumers have already shown that they are willing to use special glasses to obtain the effects, but want to preserve the social aspect of the group television viewing."
PORT WASHINGTON, NEW YORK, June 22, 2010 - 3D TV and 3D Blu-ray standalone player revenue in the U.S. has exceeded $55 million in the first three months since the launch of these products in February, according to leading market research company The NPD Group's Retail Tracking Service.
"3D TV and Blu-ray players are seeing steady growth even as major product line launches are slated for the coming months," said Ross Rubin, executive director of industry analysis at NPD. As more consumers adopt 3D, the industry can help foster a 3D ecosystem similar to that of HD."
One inhibitor to adoption of 3D TV at home is the need to wear special glasses when watching 3D TV. These glasses can add significant cost and work only with their brand of television. Only 10 percent of consumers surveyed in The NPD Group's Analyst Poll of NPD Panelists cited "looking silly" as a main concern of the glasses, whereas 41 percent cited not having enough glasses on hand for everyone watching the set.
"3D TV will be a premium home entertainment experience in 2010," said Rubin. "Many consumers have already shown that they are willing to use special glasses to obtain the effects, but want to preserve the social aspect of the group television viewing."
Finally!
The Matrix 4 is coming!
@evoGage Morpheus!? I know kung fu!?
@KrazyCalvin
Show me!
That picture looks like a cast photo for extras in Blade 4.
3ds no goofy glasses
I gotta feeling Imma be rocking that body in 3008 looking at my humps in 3D.
What's worse than the Black Eyed Peas?
The Black Eyed Peas in 3D!
Its the Black Eyed Peas!
but $55,000,000/$2000 (ave. cost of a 3d tv) = less than 30,000 units sold.. that = pathetic!! and that 55mil includes DVD players as well so that even less tvs sold.. that's pretty pathetic!
@doctorSpoc
.000009% of the population really puts it into perspective, especially when 99% of the population at least has 1 household TV
It would be interesting to know if these statistics are accounting for the fact that a lot of the new bluray players being released are 3D ready and capable. So if that's what is in the stores, and places like Best Buy and HH Greg want to sell the latest and greatest, then of course people are buying 3D Bluray players. I work at a Sony Outlet, so we don't have a single 3D product in our store (yet) but the Sony Styel stores, I bet that's close to all that they carry.
This article was completely ruined by the picture of those fucking ass hats, the Black Eyed Peas. I hate them with an unbridled passion.
I'm going to go punch a kitten to relieve some stress now, thanks Engadget.
@GdgtMan
I didn't even know James Cameron was IN the Black Eyed Peas
That guy is OFF THE HOOK!!!
@GdgtMan They're are trying to make the glass stylist.
That's like, what, 20,000 people? I wouldn't count that as stellar sales.
I paid $2000 for my Samsung 46" 8000 series led 3d. Honestly I was there to buy a different tv but this was on sale, and figured why not, in case 3D ever takes off. Theres not much 3d content yet, and those glasses are sorely overpriced! Otherwise the picture quality is absolutely stunning, and obviously 3D is only used when needed or present. So this way if 3D ever ends up being the norm, at least I am ready.
@XChrisX and then 3D TVs that don't require glasses come out and you're stuck having to wear glasses and buy multiple pairs for all your friends and family at $100+ a pair...
@onlysublime I don't own the glasses, and t's not in my immediate future to own them either. I had a 15 year old weighs a ton tube TV that I wanted to upgrade, and found this 3d on sale for around $2k and thought it was too good a deal to pass up. Second, I doubt glasses free 3D will be within the general publics price range for some time.
Thanks, Engadget. I really wanted to be told I'm a freak for wearing my 3D glasses. Who the heck cares if I'm wearing glasses in my living room or at my computer? No one should. You'd have to be obsessively superficial... with yourself.
@Smurf
+1
plus, the 3d experience with 3d glasses is kinda neat, even superior to the glasses-less alternative.
@Smurf
www.this_is_why_your_single.com
Suckers.
Are they in the Matrix?
Went to a Sony Store while in Vegas and watched a video in 3D. it was ok. It wasn't recorded in 3D, so it wasnt anything special, but they also had a PS3 with the 3D game demos on a 3D TV and I nearly crapped my pants. I'm definitely more interested in 3D. Seeing how the games (Wipeout, MLB, & Motorstorm) had 3D added, and not built for 3D (a la, KZ3) the effects weren't the best, but it was pretty damn awesome.
considering the price of 3D TV (Average is about 3K) thats less then 20,000 units sold, which really isn't that impressive at all.
I thought that J.Cameron made a deal with Panasonic first. But it seems that Samsung gave him some more money after. Oh, J.Cameron is promoting a Samsung 3DTV? Gotta go running and get one! Oh my god! Did anyone listen Black Eyed Peas during the Soccer World Cup opening show? They get paid for that? They made Shakira sound ok!
I'm not surprised. My friend works for Fry's Electronics, delivering and installing appliances. He says about 30-40% of his TV deliveries are 3D. And their mostly Samsung. Those dang rich people. These aren't even the main home TV's he's delivering. He says a lot of these 40+ incher's are going in the basement or some room that's like an afterthought.
Right now I think 3D is just like the first implementation of 120hz cinema processing. It causes a lot more problems than it fixes.
I can't watch it. I can see flickering in every 3D set I've tried and it gives me a headache after a few seconds. I tired watching the Monsters vs Aliens movie for 15 minutes to see if my eyes would get used to it but I had to go take two Advil to get rid of the headache.
I don't have that problem with polarized 3D in the theater so it must be from the shutter glasses. The technology just isn't there and I wish they would release the 3D enabled sets as 2D only to shave $500 off the price. Because flat panel prices have fallen so low the big companies have resorted to adding all kinds of worthless extras to jack up the price. Do I really need Youtube and Netflix streamed to my TV when I have three other devices hooked up to it that can do the same thing?
The problem is dropping the gizmos also means dropping to an 8bit panel or non LED backlight. The best TV is still the Sony Triluminous XBR8. They dropped to around $2000 at the beginning of the year but have climbed all the way back up to $3000 once the top tier buyers saw that almost every 2010 TV was a downgrade from that set.
I don't mind watching glasses in a theater because I'm not going anywhere and all my attention is on the screen. Most of the time at home I'm watching news or sports and walking around the house doing other things as well.
I don't want to wear glasses at home because the rest of my life doesn't need them to be 3D.
that white chevy chase-esque guy next to fergie looks like hez holding a tiny camera :D
How much of that $55 million is for the glasses?
I will switch to 3D TV when there is a 46 inch TV that can create 3D without the use of glasses.
Wow.. looking at that photo, I never knew Steve Kim was a member for the Black Eye Peas. Steve is the one standing next to Will I am
The guy on the far right is such a poser.
Thank god you're still alive and posting articles after your last post..... or are you?
For as much press as this gets, it's simply a non-starter for me. 3D is fine for the occassional big event movie (although the premium cost turns me off), but otherwise, I'm not putting on glasses to watch content on a regular basis in my home. It's just not happening.
And just because you buy something capable of a feature, doesn't necessarily mean you bought that equipment because of the feature. I have equipment that supports DTS and THX. Never used either.
This may not be likely, but I'm still hoping for Dolby 3d at home. The one that uses the 3 different colors for each eye. It would basically require a set with twice the pixels, but it's passive, and works at any viewing angle.