(…and two reasons I might be wrong)
Since the Consumer Electronics Show back in January 2010 we’ve all been inundated with announcements suggesting 3D will quickly move from the cinema to our TV at home. 3D viewing isn’t new – stereoscopy was patented as early as 1838, and 3D has hyped time and time again, most notably in the 1950’s. The consumer electronics industry is trying to recreate the success of HD, now for 3D, based on the cinematic revival of 3D of recent years.
And indeed, since January, many 3D TVs were brought to market, TV networks and programs in 3D are about to be broadcast, and most notably, the world cup is now broadcast in 3D, and there’s still more to come. Some consider 3D much more important to consumers than the HD transition. So why, despite all these rosy predictions, do I believe that 3D TV will not take off nearly as quickly, if at all? Why am I betting against the experts on this one?
First, don’t get me wrong – I love 3D. I loved Avatar, and over the years, have seen a bunch of 3D movies. I’ll always prefer to watch a movie in 3D format if it exists. One of my favorites in 3D was an IMAX 3D version of Beowulf (if you get a chance to see it, do – it makes a pretty good movie so much better and is a great experience overall). Anyway, let’s go back to why I think 3D won’t be as successful in entering our home like HD did before it.
Well, there are two categories of reasons. The first category stems from basic differences between the “home environment” and the “cinema environment” where 3D is obviously successful. The second category includes other environmental factors that affect this technology adoption lifecycle.
Clearly the home environment itself is changing. Many people these days have dedicated areas for watching movies / playing console games – home theaters. A complete home theater, aside from a large TV display and a surround sound system, can become a dark environment isolated from the world, with comfortable chairs or sofas. Such an environment is almost perfect for 3D – so it’s not these environments that I consider different from the cinema environment. However, most TVs are not in such environments. In most cases, TVs are not in a home theater even if the display might be large and flat – it is a very different viewing environment than the cinema.
Here are the differences that I think will affect the success of 3D in the home:
- THE GLASSES – these are most likely going to be required for the 5-10 years for multiple viewers in the home. The way to avoid glasses would be to have a very limited “sweet spot” for viewing or extremely expensive screens. That’s why the Nintendo 3DS will be able to have 3D without glasses – small screen, small “sweet spot” (aka autostereoscopy) . But for TVs that would be viewed by more than one person in one location, glasses will be required, whether expensive active glasses, or inexpensive passive glasses (both would deliver reasonable 3D results). Why is this a problem? Well, in the cinema, you put glasses on for about 2 hours, then you take them off. At home, unless you are watching movies straight through, you will have to put on and take off glasses every time you begin watching. A bit of a drag.
- It gets worse – people often MULTI-TASK when watching TV. As opposed to the cinema, where they are mostly “committed” to watching a movie, at home, they “snack” on TV. They might watch a program, flip channels, use a smartphone, tablet, netbook, or laptop with them while they are watching TV. They may go back & forth between watching TV and other activities – either simultaneously or intermittently. All this is very inconvenient with 3D glasses on, and the experience isn’t the same. It just doesn’t work to put them on and off all the time.
- At home, there’s usually AMBIENT LIGHT – this is extremely distracting for 3D viewing. Hence, much less enjoyable.
- SITTING upright – have you ever watched TV lying down, at an angle with the TV, or in other ways, not looked at it when your eyes are perfectly horizontal? Well, with 3D, that wouldn’t work. Same for when you walk around to get some snacks or a cold one.
- DISTANCE to the TV – when the eyes watch things in the physical world, the focusing distance of the eyes changes depending on what they are viewing. However, when watching anything displayed on a screen, the eyes are focusing on a fixed object, the screen itself. This is less of a problem for 2D content. However, with 3D content, this is fooling the brain too much. It turns out that home environments cannot nearly recreate the comfortable viewing distance and immersive experience of the cinema, and it would mean discomfort for many people.
- VISION – About 5-10% of people will have permanent problems watching 3D, causing all sorts of discomforts. While in the cinematic experience, this might affect them alone, for a household, this might be reason enough not to get a 3D TV set.
The other issues mostly concern the technology adoption lifecycle:
- AGAIN? Haven’t we just purchased a new TV? Many people, and practically all early adopters and most early majority have already upgraded their TV sets to HD. This implies they have modern and relatively reliable TV sets that have a healthy lifespan of 5-10 years. They just made the investment in them. Almost everybody but the very early adopters will stick with these in a “wait and see” pattern before upgrading. Most TV purchases these days are powered by late majority of the population or second/third sets in the home. These will unlikely be the first to adopt 3D.
- Lack of COMPELLING EVENT – For HDTV, there was a compelling event, the United States was reclaiming analog spectrum and forced broadcasters to shut down analog broadcast, forcing everybody to buy a new TV or a converter box. What’s the compelling event for 3D TV? That’s right! There is none. Avatar and other great cinematic 3D experiences are not a compelling event for the home 3D – they’re a compelling event to get out of the home and into the cinema.
- COST – while a new 3D TV is not significantly more expensive than a non-3D HD model these days, the cost of the surrounding changes are. You might need a new game console, Blu-ray disc player, or set-top-box from your TV provider. You might need a new receiver to switch the HDMI 1.4a signal, you might need new HDMI 1.4a capable cabling, and you will certainly need glasses that are often at extra cost. Bottom line, it will cost you much more than the TV to get 3D.
- COMPLEXITY – setting up the home 3D environment is far from simple, especially if you already have an existing home theater system and other peripherals. This will be daunting for anybody except professional installers and cutting-edge early adopters/enthusiasts.
- STANDARDS still not perfect. It’s great that HDMI 1.4a is there, but that isn’t enough. There are still several different ways to broadcast 3D signals. Mind you, none of them are full HD (or even 1080i) for each eye. How the signal is packaged has impact on quality. All the relevant equipment in the home is affected by this – the TV, the receiver, the disc player, the game console, and the set-top-box. Therefore, if you buy something today, it may not work tomorrow… Yikes. Add to this that there are no standard glasses – Samsung glasses will not work with a Sony TV, for instance. This implies for active glasses (which are expected to be the overwhelming majority required), you will most certainly need to buy as many pairs of glasses as there are possible viewers…
- Lack of CONTENT – This is often cited as the leading Catch-22 reason. No content à no 3D TV sets get purchased. No 3D TVs get purchased à No content. The industry can create more content. Lots of movies, programs, and live events are being shot originally and edited in 3D these days – so more content and broadcasts will actually arrive. The real question here, is whether it will be enough to overcome all the other obstacles mentioned earlier?
Why it might work?
Here are two reasons I might be wrong:
- People get GENUINELY EXCITED about 3D. There’s a “wow” effect. Amazingly, even with the low-quality red/blue glasses you get people running around to get them in order to watch some popular TV programs that toys around with the concept. I see some going to great efforts to watch IMAX DVDs that have 3D viewing.
People tend to go "ga ga" about 3D - Finally, really COMPELLING CONTENT – one “minor” thing might change the outcome of all of this. Supposing, for instance, top reality TV shows begin to be broadcast continuously in 3D. If, for instance, American Idol gets broadcast consistently in 3D (real 3D – not red/blue glasses), people might simply get sucked in, and go get a new 3D TV. If you saw a terrific U2 concert in 3D, you can imagine how nice American Idol might be in 3D…
These could be very important – people have this irrational tendency to go “ga ga” about 3D. When I told a few folks at dinner that I’m going to publish this blog post, they told me “What?! Are you crazy? Of course 3D is going to be successful!” They also said that if any more programming moves to 3D, they’ll run to replace their TV set at any cost.
Bottom line
As you can see, 3D TV might happen, but I’m betting against it – at least for now. It has quite a bit stacked up against it. Can the few “outs” it has and the will and power of the industry make it happen? Perhaps. But when I see analysts predicting between 31% and 39% of TVs sold in 2014 will be 3D TVs (that’s between 83 and 88 million units each year), I kinda think those numbers are at least two years later. I think it will be slower, quite a bit slower.
While most industry analysts predict 3D TV will take off, I can’t say I’m completely alone on this. For instance, Mike Elgan explains why 3D will fail in 2010 and Serdar Yegulalp also questions whether 3D TV is really ready. Both are excellent reads for those interested in more of the technical details and the historic evolution of 3D, which I have omitted. But we are now the outliers. Time will tell who is right on this one.
What do you think?
Great blog Tal, looking forward to reading more!
Interesting reading. It’s worth mentioning that progress is already being made with regards to removing the need for glasses.
Microsoft is working on a technology that actually TRACKS the people in the room. It then adjusts the 3D view according to the persons location in the room and where his eyeballs are. So no matter where you are in the room, you get the benefits as if you were sitted right in front of the screen, thus – no glasses are needed.
The downside – it is currently able to track up to 2 people at once, so don’t plan on getting all the family in front of Avatar in the near future. Ofcourse, this will change in the future.
On the other hand – I think I’m one of those 5-10% people who can’t see 3D anyway so what’s the point :).
Forgot: link to article:
http://dvice.com/archives/2010/06/microsofts-fanc.php
I totally agree. I haven’t been following the 3D debate or predictions closely but I’m very surprised that analysts are predicting such huge growth. I guess the issue is that the general public hasn’t lived with a 3D TV yet. Once the early adopters have and they start to spread the word, maybe the rest of us (and the analysts) will learn that 3D is only practical as a one-off “event” rather than an everyday experience.
Mark Kermode (http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/markkermode/), a movie critic in the UK, is very vocal about 3D being a gimmick, created by the industry to generate more revenue from the same content. It adds very little to the experience in his opinion (http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/markkermode/2009/12/come_in_number_3d_your_time_is.html). I enjoy the 3D experience but in my opinion, it doesn’t add enough to the expereince to justify the premium we have to pay to see a 3D movie at the cinema and definitely not enough to justify the cost of bringing it into the home.
If 3D ever takes off, it will most likely be because it will be “forced down people’s throats”. For example, you will only be able to get interesting content in 3D or a 3D home viewing set-up will be as cheap and easy as a 2D set-up (but you will likely pay a premium for the content). And it’s in the industry’s best interests to have this happen.
Great article!
Another aspect that merits a mention is not just the technology maturity but the potential impact it has on the social nature of shared TV viewing.
How does a glasses-based model affect social interactions between viewers? Families will need glasses for each person — and to invite friends over for the game, you’ll need to specify they BYOG or prepare in advance. Glasses also reduce the natural eye-contact and related nuances for interaction that are so critical to socialization around TV viewing.
On the pro side, I think every problem is an opportunity for innovation. I’d be interested in seeing how technologies like context-awareness and gestural input are leveraged in this space to enhance experiences.
There is also health considoration that was not propely investigated yet
English:
http://www.audioholics.com/news/editorials/warning-3d-video-hazardous-to-your-health/
Hebrew:
http://www.vgames.co.il/article/11230.html
you may say that its the same as cellular phones , but I think that the immediate negative affects of 3D movies for some of the people will make the differnece ….
Google’s not a real company. It’s a house of cards.
~Steve Ballmer
I think 3D is the future. We just need Apple to bring it in iPad. The sale of iPad shows the inclination of people towards personal entertainment rather than family tv viewing.
Let me know how many times in an year you have friends watching tv together that you would need extra glasses. How many times people in same family would disagree to watch the same show or a movie?
The point is that starting of 3D from large TVs may not be the right strategy. But once it starts from Nintendo DS to iPad and then to larger TVs.
But one prime point of 3D view would be our very own industry. CellPhones aka Smartphones. Touchpad has been the recent breakthrough in smartphones. I think the next breakthrough or selling point would be a 3D smartphone.
Huge success of “Avatar” alone is enough to show that 3D might take off soon enough. The movie made almost $3 billion gross becoming #1 of all times. And that is on 3D hype alone (plot is out of question here, by itself it’s a very poor sci-fi story).
Now multi-billion dollar pie is the incentive strong enough for all industries involved to push it forward. And once movie industry picks up on it, everything TV-related will catch up as it always did.
Add to that strong support from such a monster as Sony (read – all related hardware, Sony pictures, video games), and we can see where it will be going soon. Sony’s Playstation 3 already has built-in capability to play 3D blu-ray movies and games.
As for the cost, it’s already dropping to the affordable limits: once enough content is available, anyone considering a new TV-set might see the price of only 1.5 times higher to be reasonable to get 3D option “just in case”.
And don’t forget that people will continue to buy most of those electronics accessories disregarding the 3D, so adding one more cool feature once its price becomes less steep would not be a tough decision to make.
3D TV or not TV…
I lately watched one of the Soccer game of the world cup on 3D and it was an amazing experience.
My expectation that the 3D culture will keep accelerating within the Game Consoles which with the Microsoft Netal and PS3 Move we are making another more step to the “new era” of user experience.
there are also many discussions on 3D tablets.
Anyway, great article Tal and thanks for sharing your thoughts.
Good post Tal. And as if by coincidence, a report was published today by Informa on the future of 3D.
Full link is here: http://www.fiercetelecom.com/press_releases/global-3d-tv-forecasts-summary
But here are the highlights, as gleaned from Fierce IPTV:
A little bit of good news, and a little bit of bad news on the 3D TV front.
Informa says it believes 3D TV viewing will continue to expand around the world with North America–specifically the U.S.–leading the charge.
The bad news? The charge won’t be a very big one for the moment.
Informa says it expects just 8.7 million U.S. households to be active 3D TV viewers by the end of 2015, about 7 percent of the U.S. market; Japan (2 million households), the U.K. (1.6 million) and Korea (1.5 million) making up the remainder of the Big Four.
Worldwide 3D TV penetration is forecast at just 1.6 percent by 2015.
The research company, in its “Global 3DTV Forecast” looked at 53 countries and said take up in the Asia-Pacific region and in Western Europe would “gain steam” in the next couple of years, increasingly making up a larger portion of a market that “will be far from mature by 2015.”
Digital cable is expected to outpace IPTV uptake of 3D, Informa said, accounting for some 47 percent of active 3D households by 2015, up from the current 38 percent.
DTH homes will see higher 3D TV penetration (3.7 percent by 2015) than other platforms because DTH operators–who have been promoting 3D TV more aggressively–need it to help differentiate themselves from other platforms with advanced TV services to counter the triple-play bundles and true VoD offered by cable and IPTV operators.
IPTV will be some way behind cable and DTH in its active 3D TV household numbers, with a forecast of 3 million by end-2015. The U.S. will provide 766,000 of this total, followed by France (426,000) and Japan (418,000).
Thanks to all for encouraging me to continue…
Also, thanks for all the additional information and perspectives.
A few specific comments thus far:
Oded – Thanks for updated info. I think it will take 5-10 years for multi-viewer autostereoscopy to mature to be usable in the cost-conscious home environment. It’s like the Microsoft Surface is great multi-touch technology, but still priced at $10,000 it isn’t a common home coffee table.
Yaniv – Thanks for the very interesting read with more details about the dangers, particularly for kids under 7. Be aware that if anybody reads the warnings provided with the 3D TVs being shipped these days, they would think they are going into brain, eye, and open heart surgery, all at once.
Gautam – I think Apple might ultimately make 3D work. Just like they’ve made online music work commercially, smart phones/PDA, and tablets. They have a talent to take something that didn’t work well enough before, perhaps years earlier, and make it work after “figuring it out” better. So they might – but I highly doubt the iPad will have 3D capabilities in the next 30 months, which are critical in this technology lifecycle. The Nintendo 3DS, on the other hand, will be a hit. Also home 3D gaming consoles will be, due to health risks, probably for games targeted at teenagers and young adults. I agree that some 3D autostereoscopy capable smartphones will emerge (not many), and I further predict they will fail miserably.
Vlad – yes, but if 3D isn’t used, it will languish. Just because people buy a feature, doesn’t mean it becomes successful. If, over time, the extra cost isn’t justified or the price doesn’t drop to become marginal, it will not take off. But as I said, people are totally excited about 3D – it has that going for it. Will see if it is enough.
John – Thanks for the very current new info and predictions. Informa basically strongly supports my conclusions. Those numbers are minuscule compared to the majority of estimates. 1.6% by 2015 vs. 31-38% by 2014… this represents a very niche market.
Thanks again to everybody for contributing to a lively discussion.
I agree that adoption may be incremental. But I believe it will be driven strongly by (1) immersive video games and (2) sporting events, both of which will push serious enthusiasts to adopt. And there are a lot of these people! I don’t think human to human social interaction and eye contact are important considerations, at least for these types of content, because of the inherent focus required. For these, the pluses will outweigh the minuses.
The reasons why YES –
There are already prototypes of 3D TV which can be watched WITHOUT glasses (which are also not healthy).
The PORNO Ind started to produce 3D movies
The SPORT ind started to transmit programs in 3D
The TV VENDORS need new revenue
The GAMES Ind is producing already 3D Console
Remember when M-sof CEO said that iPhone will become a niche products
When Digital CEO said – no way each person will get a work-station.
3D is fun and excitement
The infrastructure companies love it as it uses more bandwidth and the operators / service providers will pay more.
Currently it will be THE differentiator between TV on your Mobile and TV at home.
TNX
Kaul
A really nice well balanced blog post.
I still have a CRT standard resolution TV and I am in no rush to upgrade to HD, let alone 3D!
I agree that today 3D is more of a cinema experience, but it seems that 3D is finally coming of age. I wonder how well 3D will translate into TV, gaming and computing and your excellent blog post does point out some issues with it.
Will it be just a wow factor that will slowly fade away or will it actually add beneficial reasons to watching TV, playing games and day-to-day computing?
Avatar was specifically done with 3D in mind and was an excellent movie with great effects, but there are many films that are just converted from 2D to 3D and in my mind the 3D experience is poor, and it detracted from the overall viewing experience.
I think if content is simply converted from 2D to 3D, the viewing experience will be a hit and miss affair. Content creators will need to completely rethink how to approach the viewing experience and need to understand what works well and what doesn’t work well in 3D.
So therefore, for me personally, I am in no rush to get the 3D experience in my home and I will wait how it all pans out. Maybe in 5-10 years time all TVs will come with 3D technology, I mean you are hard pushed to find a non-HD TV these days in the shops, but does that mean people will actually watch content in 3D every day whether it is TV, gaming or computing?
Some more responses to the great discussion:
Samuel – games will be nice in 3D. The question is how will people feel after a few hours of hard-core gaming in 3D. So far, the longest people are exposed to 3D has been around 2 hours, and this has been with cinematic distances.
Jacob – yeah, I saw 3D TVs that do not require glasses, even for multiple viewers, but the technology is likely to remain too expensive for home distribution for at least 3 years, and probably much longer. The manufacturers realized this and decided to push ahead with glasses. I do quote all these experts that have said what later seemed to be nonsense, and I am expecting I might be wrong. 3D as currently broadcast actually doesn’t require more bandwidth – just a regular HD channel. There is no standard to broadcast it at higher resolution than about half that of HD 1080i, and it is not full HD to each eye. Blu-ray and game consoles can support higher resolution 3D. Gaming can be big – probably more important than the others you are mentioning, IMHO.
Brian – thanks. I don’t think day-to-day computing will benefit from 3D in the near future. Some applications, perhaps. They can begin to emerge now with 3D on laptops and LCD screens as well as 3D-enabled graphic cards. I think this will slowly grow over time after. I did see some content auto-converted from 2D and it was “okay”. Not stellar, for sure.
The key thing for me was whether 3D will create a buying rush, and increase the overall business in the industry by creating demand by consumers, reducing upgrade times, and increasing margins. If neither of these happen, then 3D has not lived up to the hype. For sure, the number of 3D TVs will rise in the next few years, but the question is whether it will be 1.6% of sets or 30%+ is critical. Also the question is whether this will generate more business / faster turnaround.
Thanks again for all comments!
i think the technical world is in consensus that the hype is greater than the promise. i believe the key to adoption here are two:
– live sports
– gaming
the more immediate near term of internet connected TVs is probably a more important consideration if you are about to buy a TV (waiting for my old TV to die any day now – so a relevant consideration..)
3D TV can be another option of viewing experience. As long as you can choose between 2D and 3D mode, you have the choice when to select the 3D option and be forced to use to the glasses for that period of time. 3D TV technology without the need for glasses will evolve and will become more affordable. New technologies under development may even introduce more advanced 3D feel and experience (laser based). Like any new technology for mass market, it takes time to reach meaningful share, but I believe that 3D TV will catch a decent market share during the next few years.
For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled.
Richard Feynman (1918 – 1988)
The future of 3D adoption will depend on a few things like cost, accessibility, simplicity and acceptability.
Technology-wise, I tend to think that we’re at the start of a slow adoption curve. Closer to 1.6% than 30% (but not too low), but will grow if/when the technology is easier to use and more accessible to the general public, as well as cost declines.
Content will be a key driver also, so if or when sports or movies become ubiquitous in 3D is likely to drive us to that tipping point, if technology allows easy adoption. I don’t see any “3D-ray” disc coming out yet?
Some more responses to recent comments and some more information:
Arik – I agree that net-connecting TVs, by any means, is highly desired, and while there are many ways to do it, technically, no approach yet is dominant. This will be a very interesting domain. I think it’s much more important than 3D TV, frankly.
Andrew – 3D Blu-ray discs are coming out, actually, and more will come out this year.
NEW INFORMATION:
Marco van Hylckama Vlieg (what a name!) shares in a nice blog post some great early adopter experiences with 3D TV at home – mostly regarding gaming. It sounds very promising, however, he points out that the GLASSES and QUALITY are an issue. I do believe that both the glasses and the relatively poor quality of non-disc based programming to be more than a short term nuisance and actually stay with us for the next 3 (critical) years, at least. In any case, it’s a good read for anybody catching this discussion: http://bit.ly/ccZCt5.
More optimistic research came out suggesting the relatively rapid adoption that I am predicting will not happen as planned: http://bit.ly/brzEM6.
I saw several guides on how to get 3D TV in home and national 3D demo days being set up – all trying to push the technology at us.
Finally, some more pragmatic reports suggesting 3D laptops will face an uphill battle: http://bit.ly/dl5dBg. And also, I saw another blog entry with similar thoughts to those expressed here: http://bit.ly/dndOXz.
I think that’s it for now. Working on my next blog post about eReaders… planned out next week.
Practically, I’m moving house in the next week or so and will need to buy a new TV. Right now, not inclined to go 3D. May not push the boat too far on new HD TV, but I think it’ll take three year at least before it really hits the tipping point. Mind you, predicting that point is the challenge.
More discussion about the topic with interesting links.
I enjoyed reading your insights and thank you for sharing them with us. My next door neighbor is a VP at Comcast and he and I frequently discuss new technology. He has a 3-D TV and I was able to expericence it when he showed me the first ever 3-D broadcast of the Masters on ESPN. It was amazing, however if you don’t have glasses on, it just looks like an out-of-focus image. I agree with your points as to why it won’t succeed in penetrating the market like HD will.
I enjoyed the analysis and the comments on 3D TV. I think 3D is in very starting stage. With time as the economy recovers and grows, 3D TV will pick up quickly. In home it has few difficuties as discussed in the analysis. But eventually most programs will move to 3D formats. As the games, advertisements will move to 3D formats quickly and the kids/teenagers will adopt the 3D TV quickly, it could grow in future. 3D TV will not fail, but may take some time to be matured.
I am intersted to know how the 3D TV is affecting Amdocs? Can anybody through some light on this ?
Uttam, anything that affects service providers, whether they are mobile operators, wireline providers, broadband, cable, or satelite providers, interest us. If they need to roll this technology out, they need to manage that process operationalize it, and monetize it. Therefore, it interests us what are the specifics about the technology that make it, in any way, different than anything they have done before. Also, it matters for us how much they will invest and on what, and how likely they are to maintain those investments. That said, this analysis is my personal opinion and does not necessarily reflect the strategy of Amdocs.
Very interesting – I read word by work and agree with all the above till today morning when I got the following link to YouTube clip
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cb6k-8hhGQ8&feature=player_embedded
and later watched to related clips – the 3D look live and MRKT people make wonderful job with this tecnologis however as you said this is not HOME devices
Thanks for posting! I really enjoyed the report. I’ve already bookmarked this article.
Great information – you write it very cleanly. I am very lucky to get these tips from you.
Superb experience shared.
Quick update: Looks like 3D is still suffering – even in Theaters (my post was about 3D TV – not theaters). It’s looking more like a “curiosity” and a nice-to-have “special effect”. Saw this article describing the in-theater issues. Also, a number of bad productions of 3D have been hurting it (shot in 2D and then converted to 3D).
Another update: If 3D TV is just a feature, and the TVs really don’t cost any more than non-3D TV, of course we’ll have 3D at home, but will we use it? Samsung is now selling a 50″ 3D TV set for less than $1,000. For other manufacturers, while not so extreme, it’s still a $300+ premium over non-3D set.
Interesting arguments although I think in some form or fashion 3D TV is here to stay.
So Toshiba is apparently the first to come out, next week, with a commercial consumer-oriented 3D TV that doesn’t require glasses. Looking forward to seeing how well this works. It helps, but it doesn’t solve all the issues I discuss.
It’s also worth seeing this video showing the 3D TV technologies that will not use glasses – as demonstrated in CeBIT in March this year.
I gauge people’s “curiosity and adoption” of technology via the Costco (a large US wholesale club store) Experience. Last night, I surveyed the electronics floor and by George – practically all of the major brands (Samsung, Panasonic, Sony and LG) HAVE demo units! The units were playing clips from last year’s FIFA World Cup, NFL, a few movies and Console Games. There sure was a LOT of curiosity and interest in one model (a Sony bundle) that practically sold out! I also checked the Blu-Ray section for 3D titles and there were at least 3 dozen available. And online (as the so called Black Friday Event approaches) – many bundles are being offered as well as a string of annoucements of Blu-Ray 3D titles and PS3 3D Game titles.
Will 3D TV take-off?
Yes I believe it will. I even think it will become a standard “Feature” of HDTVs along with Internet Apps. And full adoption will depend on how attractive the prices will drop and more importantly how fast content and broadcast providers will be able to provide 3D content. And lastly – how technology will evolve to ditch the use of 3D Glasses (which could be a tall and expensive order – or just give us technology that will just use regular 3D blue/green glasses)
Even the PC Desktop is going 3D too with 3D Graphics Kits now available from nVidia and AMD/ATI.
Check out also this new post titled “3D TV Sales Get Failing Grade So Far” including the relevant discussion.
Tal
Another dire prediction by Roger Ebert regarding the future of 3D TV titled no less than “Why 3D doesn’t work and never will. Case closed.” I am not sure I’d buy this completely, however. It does describe in greater depth a couple of the issues I raised. That said, it might be disproved over time. Citing evolution as something really preventing humans from watching this man-made 3D is equivalent to citing evolution as a reason why practically any technology might be challenged. Still, interesting and relevant barrier, if not insurmountable.
A very interesting and new Samsung-funded research proves that 3D TVs have more impact on fatigue and are disliked by the viewers vs. 2D viewing – worth reading.
Another leading research by NPD showing both a decline in sales of 3D TV, but also a decline in intent to buy. Two reasons cited – the glasses and the price. The only category with intent growing is the portable gaming platforms, such as the Nintendo 3DS. Completely supports all conclusions above.
Well, this prediction is moving forward. Lots of 3D TVs were sold since I wrote this, but certainly, not something most people are using. Now, one of the main reasons is going away – ESPN 3D sports: http://list.palmer.net/iem/link.php?M=548028&N=1958&L=2138&F=H