Entelligence: 3D TV falls flat for me
By Michael Gartenberg 
posted July 25th 2010 9:00PM
posted July 25th 2010 9:00PM
Entelligence is a column by technology strategist and author Michael Gartenberg, a man whose desire for a delicious cup of coffee and a quality New York bagel is dwarfed only by his passion for tech. In these articles, he'll explore where our industry is and where it's going -- on both micro and macro levels -- with the unique wit and insight only he can provide.
It's generally a bad idea to extrapolate larger consumer behavior from personal experience and say "if I like it, surely everyone else will as well." It's a mistake that happens all the time, but there's is one case where I will use my personal behavior to at least start the foundation for analysis -- when I don't want a new gadget or technology. Granted, sometimes I'm just not the target audience, but even then I'm usually able to remove myself from the process and say it might not be for me but others will love this. In the case of 3D TV, however, I think my lack of interest doesn't bode well for the market.
I'm surprised by figures, forecasts, predictions and prophecies all showing a rosy outlook for 3D TV beginning as early as this year, because I've seen most of the 3D offerings available and I have no plans to buy -- not now and not anytime soon. I should be a part of the core demographic for 3D: I like TV, movies and video games. I'm am early adopter. I have reasonable disposable income. I'm not afraid of betting on the wrong standard. And yet, I'm not buying. Here's why.
Cost: I'm fortunate that cost isn't the biggest inhibitor for me when I buy things, but I still do a cost/benefit analysis before I make a purchase. To really embrace 3D, I need a new TV, even though my current 1080p set is only a few years old and is wonderful. I'd need a new media player. I'd need glasses -- lots of them, as there can often be five or six people sitting around my set. I'd probably want a new digital camera to take 3D shots. And of course, I'd need some compelling 3D content from somewhere. That's already starting up to add into a significant cost proposition that takes it far out of impulse purchase territory.
Hassle: It's not just the cost to move to 3D. It's the hassle. Moving to HD was a breeze -- you just plugged in a new TV and were wowed by immediately available content. My upscaling DVD player made existing SD content look better than ever. By contrast, just viewing 3D content is a hassle due to the glasses. They're not cheap. They are gadgets in and of themselves, which means they require care and feeding, and everyone in the room needs a pair. Worse, I find 3D glasses very uncomfortable to wear for long periods over my regular glasses. The hassle alone of acquiring and viewing 3D content is enough to put me off.
Benefit: The cost and hassle of 3D could easily be justified and rationalized if there was a superb benefit on par with the move to HD. For me, 3D is cool but at best gratuitous. It doesn't change the visceral viewing experience for most of the content I've seen. I just don't see the value or wow factor that 3D brings to the table in its current format.
Someday technology will advance and 3D will be integrated into every screen. Standards will be deployed and the bulky and costly glasses will disappear. Content providers will figure out how to tell better stories with 3D that wouldn't have been possible before. And if that happens before I do my holiday shopping this year, I'll be on board. Given the low probability of that scenario, I'm going to pass for now. I expect many other consumers will as well.
Michael Gartenberg is a partner at Altimeter Group. His weblog can be found at gartenblog.net. Contact him at gartenberg AT gmail DOT com. Views expressed here are his own.
I'm surprised by figures, forecasts, predictions and prophecies all showing a rosy outlook for 3D TV beginning as early as this year, because I've seen most of the 3D offerings available and I have no plans to buy -- not now and not anytime soon. I should be a part of the core demographic for 3D: I like TV, movies and video games. I'm am early adopter. I have reasonable disposable income. I'm not afraid of betting on the wrong standard. And yet, I'm not buying. Here's why.
Cost: I'm fortunate that cost isn't the biggest inhibitor for me when I buy things, but I still do a cost/benefit analysis before I make a purchase. To really embrace 3D, I need a new TV, even though my current 1080p set is only a few years old and is wonderful. I'd need a new media player. I'd need glasses -- lots of them, as there can often be five or six people sitting around my set. I'd probably want a new digital camera to take 3D shots. And of course, I'd need some compelling 3D content from somewhere. That's already starting up to add into a significant cost proposition that takes it far out of impulse purchase territory.
I just don't see the value or wow factor that 3D brings to the table in its current format. |
Hassle: It's not just the cost to move to 3D. It's the hassle. Moving to HD was a breeze -- you just plugged in a new TV and were wowed by immediately available content. My upscaling DVD player made existing SD content look better than ever. By contrast, just viewing 3D content is a hassle due to the glasses. They're not cheap. They are gadgets in and of themselves, which means they require care and feeding, and everyone in the room needs a pair. Worse, I find 3D glasses very uncomfortable to wear for long periods over my regular glasses. The hassle alone of acquiring and viewing 3D content is enough to put me off.
Benefit: The cost and hassle of 3D could easily be justified and rationalized if there was a superb benefit on par with the move to HD. For me, 3D is cool but at best gratuitous. It doesn't change the visceral viewing experience for most of the content I've seen. I just don't see the value or wow factor that 3D brings to the table in its current format.
Someday technology will advance and 3D will be integrated into every screen. Standards will be deployed and the bulky and costly glasses will disappear. Content providers will figure out how to tell better stories with 3D that wouldn't have been possible before. And if that happens before I do my holiday shopping this year, I'll be on board. Given the low probability of that scenario, I'm going to pass for now. I expect many other consumers will as well.
Michael Gartenberg is a partner at Altimeter Group. His weblog can be found at gartenblog.net. Contact him at gartenberg AT gmail DOT com. Views expressed here are his own.
I tried it but it didn't blow me away. TV resolution will always get better so HD made sense. Look at a broadcast from the 50's and then from the 90's, the resolution got better. 3D is a novelty that doesn't improve quality it just makes it a more interesting experience. If they could make 3D glasses cheaper and make content that works on the HD TV's we already have then there might be a future.
I don't care for 3D, period. It's not something everyone in the general population wants to see and that is the problem. I see 3D movies and frankly I could care less for them. TV sets aside, movie picture quality hasn't changed that much over the years and movies on my television set look much better than anything I see at a theater, I only go because of the massive screen or I would just for the dvd release. 3D is just smoke and mirrors, it's old technology coming back from the grave to try and put life into a market which hasn't had really any innovation since HD and introducing wireless connectivity. 3D is only cool because the companies advertising their 3D products are telling us so. They are telling us it's the next best thing; the new frontier. They tell us that it's worth paying double or triple the price of a regular/stellar HD TV or DVD player. No thank you. Maybe it's just me but I don't see this going very far. You pretty much have to start with a clean slate to go 3D, and for what? New TV, glasses to watch the TV, DVD player with 3D capabilities... not worth it. To top it all off this is launching during a recession where people are trying to save, save, and save some more... makes not sense but hey, what do I know?
Anything the Black-Eyed Peas support, are involved with, like, or are otherwise associated with I want no fucking part of. Gadget or not.
With most disruptive technology shifts, it's usually the "experts" that don't think it's going to catch on outside a very niche market (television, radar, telephone, etc.) That being said, I can't see how a bunch of people are going to sit in their living rooms wearing special (expensive) glasses watching limited content for his on end. Also, are advertisers going to be willing to cough up the extra funds needed to create 3D commercials with little extra benefit to them? However this plays out, it's going to be interesting.
I did a search for the term "sports" in the article and came up empty...therefore I have no use for the review.
Funny how every person I hear poo-pooing 3D is not a sports fan.
I've said as much in the 3D camera thread. It ads almost nothing to the story. Moreover, not everything need be in the 3rd dimension.
I expect the idea is to immerse you in the movie itself but that's patently impossible for a grown person to do knowing you're just sitting on your arse.
Probably have better luck figuring out smell-a-vision.
I still think 3D is the future. Since it is the present for all of us with two functioning eyeballs. The 3D product is not compelling. Avatar in 3D IMAX is close. The Super Bowl Live in super-resolution 3D IMAX is closer (from a fairly static camera). 1st person video games on wall-sized screens are closer. Excellent hi-res, comfortable wearable screens, with pinpoint head tracking are closer still.
The current batch of 3D products and content are cheesy gimmicks. They'd save a bunch of money by just serving up cheap red-blue 3D versions of movies - at least that way we can all enjoy them on our existing set. And wait for something better.
Active shutter is fine with me, but the cost of it will be the downfall. Who wants to pay at least a hundred dollars a pop for these. Sony should have gone with RealD and make the polarize glasses the standard cause that would be a lot cheaper for consumer. Heck I got a couple of pairs laying around the house.
it's so expensive why don't they just offer lease program, obviously this technology won't last long?
Well of COURSE no one needs 3DTVs. The content isn't there, the price is high, and you pay extra for glasses. Makers are lowballing themselves to oblivion though, and they need to add even ambiguous features to pretend that their higher-end products are worth the premium cost.
At least it's not like the 240Hz 'smoothing' which makes movies uglier than they should be. I know it's supposed to be OK for some sports, but I fail to understand why electronics store employees would try to make their 'awesome' TVs play movies that look like crap in them.
Glasses are killers for me....I saw a few minutes of the World Cup in 3D @ Frys and it wasn't life changing for me. Wouldn't buy it as i would have to buy a 3D ready tv, 3d ready glasses and 3D service from Direct TV = Tons of money for small ROI
I thought that was a promotion of Matrix 4
The sports, track & field and Nascar demo I saw on the 3DTVs is amazing in my opinion (compared to animated movies which are just meh for me..). The real life things feel like your actually looking right at it. I think 3D has a lot of potential, probably not smart to buy every thing this early in the game, but in a few years when my 1080p needs upgrading I will consider 3D (it'll be around, and hopefully the glasses will be gone).
Well I guess I am in the minority here. Just purchased a Sony 55" HX800 listing at $3399. However, Sony had a special for $3059 and included the Sony 5.1 3D Home Theater System with BR 3D player, the IR Emitter and 2 pair of glasses. Should arrive end of this week. My 6 year old 50" Sony LCD projection unit no longer meets my quality needs and the HX800 HDTV quality is just great. For no additional cost, I have a complete home theater, all 3D capable and having seen some of the demos in 3D, will enjoy the result. Time marches on and you enjoy the new technology now or you live in the past waiting for something better to come along.
3D will fail, if for nothing else, the fact that there is no universal standard between TVs. You have to buy specific glasses to work with specific TVs. For example, you can't have a 3D movie watching party and have everyone invited bring their glasses from home because they simply won't work unless they own a similarly branded set.
In addition to that, it then handcuffs you to a particular brand. So what happens if/when you need to replace a second or third TV in your house (or even the original)? Well since you bought all the glasses and crap for let's say, a Sony, you are stuck having to buy another Sony for the den and the basemet unless you want to buy a whole additional set of glasses again. That is of course under the assumption that Sony doesn't change their 3D technology to something completely different in their next model line.
I completely and absolutely concur with the author of this article!
Michael, I totally agree and a few weeks ago wrote a post listing a dozen reasons 3D TV will NOT take off as planned http://bit.ly/8Z23q7.
What percentage of people are seriously interested in owning and using 3D displays and/or cameras? In what context? Movies? TV? Gaming? Consumer generated content? Sounds like a good topic for an Engadget survey. Break down by geographical region. Could be revealing...or disastrous for the 3d spinmeisters.
I ask this because I say meh to the whole idea of consumer-end 3D. Although I can see legitimate cases for commercial/professional/scientific/military uses. With the world still barely scratching the surface on HD adoption, why are we having 3d crammed down our throats?
My impression is that the whole 3D "craze" is being driven not by consumer interest, but instead by Asian manufacturers obsessed with one-upping each other; hoping to create a market where none exists. (Is there a hitherto secret demand for 3d in Asia we in the West are not being told about? Is the whole consumer push just an effort to defray costs for leading edge research which benefits professional product lines? Inquiring minds want to know.)
I'm some what impressed by 3D TV however I too find the glasses uncomfortable and the high cost of getting 3D is way too high for me. I'm waiting for 3D TV without glasses to be released and it will be interesting to see how well the Nintendo 3DS does when it's released as it will be 3D without glasses.
I'm not sure 3D TV will take off as much as people claim it will, well not for the next few years, they haven't even gotten HD TV sorted here in UK, you get like 40 odd channels in HD and even the programs on the channels don't all show in HD.
I like 3D in video games. That just makes sense to me. I dont know about 3D Television.