Hold On To Your Wallets, 3D TVs Are Going To Be Getting Cheaper

A little bit of pricing news out of CES: LG told Dow Jones Newswires that their 3D TVs will be getting cheaper by 20% this year, as “production costs have been dropping with improved technology.”

“Prices for 3-D TVs will definitely go down this year as our production costs have been dropping with improved technology,” Skott Ahn, LG’s chief technology officer and president, told Dow Jones Newswires in an interview at the Consumer Electronics Show in Las Vegas. “More affordable prices and better content are the key in raising customer interests in 3D TVs.”

Ahn also said LG is in talks with various Hollywood firms in order to get more 3-D content.

LG’s strategy comes as television manufacturers recalibrate their expectations for sets that contain the technology. Many had expected excitement around 3-D televisions to spark consumer interest and sales. That hasn’t materialized yet.

3D stuff makes me feel like barfing, so I’m perhaps not its target demographic.

Are you really into 3D TV? Or is this just a passing fad? Will a 20% markdown sell you on this technology?

TECH SHOW: LG Electronics To Cut 3D TV Price Premium By 20% [WSJ]


Edit Your Comment

  1. poco says:

    Will they still be irritating and pointless?

  2. thrashanddestroy says:

    Shocking! New consumer technology prices falling in their second year? Unheard of!

    • Scuba Steve says:

      Technically 2010 was their second year. Was hoping to get one, but maybe in the 3rd or 4th year.

      • daveSH says:

        Excuse me, 2010 was their FIRST year (introduced at the CES last year and weren’t really available till this summer).

  3. Alvis says:

    If only I cared about 3D 20% more…

  4. Dragro says:

    Unless Netflix starts streaming in 3D I doubt I will ever buy one.

  5. tbiscuit360 says:

    Need an option in the poll “Waiting for later 3D tv generations” or something to that effect

    • Alvis says:

      Also “Blind in one eye; what’s this 3D you’re talking about?”

    • dangermike says:

      I would have voted for “I don’t give two hoots” or anything of a similar nature. I also prefer plain old two channel audio to all these surround sound systems they’ve been pushing for years. I find that sounds coming from wrong direction (e.g., not the screen) are distracting and disruption to my sense of immersion. Similarly, I don’t see how this 3D hoopla is supposed to make movies any more enjoyable.

  6. SinDex says:

    I want a 3D TV but only to be used for 2D.

    No really. The logic behind it is if it can show the 3D with the highest image quality, it should be able to handle standard ‘2D’ in as sharp a quality.

    • Ayanami says:

      This is true, the refresh rates of 3d tv’s are higher (usually at least 240Hz), and the response times usually under 1 ms. That being said I’ll probably still get a used DLP TV.

      • failurate says:

        DLP is dead to me. If it is not bulbs, it is blown capacitors or dead color engines. F that dead ass technology.

        Bitter Samsung HLS-5679WX owner. I thought I had pulled the old end around on what is the endless money pit that is DLP technology by getting an LED lit unit. Well, the LED’s are still strong but it has blown a few capacitors and now the picture is garbage. Very short life for what was an expensive TV.

      • Rachacha says:

        And with refresh rates above 60Hz, the TV is simply “making up” the content that is displayed on the screen. Standard OTA, DVD, BluRay & streaming content is at a refresh rate of 60Hz. The result of 120Hz or 240Hz or higher interpolated images is an image that tends to look very plasticy and fake (because it is).

  7. Outrun1986 says:

    How about I am keeping my CRT because I don’t really care.

  8. r586 says:

    I jut wish I could get an HDTV I could view premium cable channels without a cable box

    whatever happened to the cablecard?

    • Wawa says:

      Most people want DVRs. TVs with integral cablecard slots died a slow death. Get whatever your cable co is renting. OR you can buy a HD Tivo w/ dual tuners – both of which are cablecard enabled.

    • Rachacha says:

      The cable companies killed the cable card. They had a few in stock to meet regulatory requirements, killed all of the features (no on screen guide) and did not inform their CSRs about the fact that they had them so they rarely had to give them out so the cable companies were free to rent the higher priced STBs.

  9. PLATTWORX says:

    I know a half dozen people who got plasma or lcd tv’s this holiday season (including me). Not a single one even looked at 3D. What content? Why pay more? To wear funny glasses and get dizzy?

    They will drop below LCD to get rid of them and fade away.

    • dangermike says:

      That was my thought when I saw the headline. It’s just a case of supply exceeding demand. I don’t know anyone who cares about these things. Their existence in the marketplace looks like it is to try to continue the sales momentum television manufacturers had with the conversion to HDTV’s. But now that it is more or less done and the economy is in the dumps, overall television sales in for a chilly few years.

  10. dush says:

    How about a plain old, regular old fashioned 60″ HD plasma tv without the 3D gimmick?

  11. frank64 says:

    I don’t think I would ever pay more than $20 extra for a 3D TV. The manufactures where really hoping it would take off though.

  12. Audiyoda28 says:

    The only reason I want one is they are the best HDTV’s on the market. Looking at a 2D Panasonic Viera plasma right next to a 3D Panasonic Viera plasma – when all other specs are the same – the 3D is the obvious better TV.

    • daveSH says:

      Not really. Panasonic made some changes to their top end plasmas for 3D that have made them somewhat inferior to their last year’s top end sets. (They had to use faster switching phosphors which ended up having some not so good side effects – “sparkling”).

      • Audiyoda28 says:

        Well, the two I saw side by side a week or so ago – the 3D looked much better with 2D content.

        • hobochangbar says:

          I’m inclined to heed the advice of CR when they caution in store display models as a reference point. (I’m assuming that’s what you were watching). Between the super bright lights at most stores and not knowing the image setting for each TV I can see the point. Not that it really helps any, now I don’t have any way to compare them.

          Maybe buy from a place that makes returns easy (Costco)?

  13. john says:

    I won’t buy one, but Samsung’s 3D LED TV can convert 2D signals into 3D on the fly. Not quite the same depth as dedicated 3D signal, but they are the only ones doing it. Still, it will fade into oblivion just like MySpace.

  14. XianZhuXuande says:

    … and still remain a silly money-grabbing consumer fad.

  15. raydee wandered off on a tangent and got lost says:

    Some video games are super-awesome in 3-D; I’d like to get a monitor that can support it without having to use tinted lenses, which gives me killer headaches. Polarized lenses? No problem.

    I haven’t tried shutter glasses, but if they weigh anything, I would probably find them uncomfortable.

    of course, when we have good-looking holographic projection working, I think that will probably bust the rest of the tech out of the water like, kablooey.

  16. Supes says:

    Won’t catch on till you don’t need glasses. Give it 2-3 years.

  17. working class Zer0 says:

    I can’t wait to see Bruno and Dr. Tongue in real 3-D.

  18. Dacker says:

    If it comes along for free, fine, but I’m not paying hundreds for a couple pair of glasses. 3D will not take off until it’s cheaper.

    I am encouraged by the announcement this week by Samsung and RealD about technology to enable home viewers to use the cheap polarizing glasses used in movie theaters.


    3D without glasses and still viewable across a wide viewing angle is still off in the future.

    • webweazel says:

      That’s the deal breaker for me. Heavy and super-mega-expensive glasses either wired “going to get a snack, anybody want anything? DOOOING!! OUCH!” or wireless that I would need to remember to keep charged up all the time vs. a-buck-a-pair cheap, lightweight glasses I could get in bulk from Amazon and toss on a shelf or in a box until needed? Ummmm, the choice is obvious.

  19. gman863 says:

    Two things that will jump start 3D TV sales:

    Gaming: Killing someone in virtual reality will be more fun when you can almost reach out and touch the blood.

    Porn: Feeling like you’re in the moneyshot with kazongas, beavers and one-eyed monsters jumping out in your face. If this sounds silly, consider the effect the sex industry had on boosting both VCRs and the Home PC/Internet boom.

  20. SG-Cleve says:

    Darn, now I will save less money by not buying one.

  21. shufflemoomin says:

    When it works, there’s much more content and the glasses aren’t needed, I’ll jump in. Until then, it ain’t happening for me.

  22. pawnblue says:

    I’ve heard Monster Cables are the best for supplying digital 3D video. Does anyone know of any better cables?

  23. mike says:

    Until I can watch 3D without glasses and from all viewing angles, I won’t be buying a 3D TV.

  24. dr_ting says:

    Nope, no 3D TV for me. Same reason why I don’t go to 3D movies, wearing 3D glasses over prescription glasses is just really annoying and weird feeling.

  25. damageinc says:

    In other news, everything else in the technology world will also be getting cheaper, just like it always does…

  26. VectorVictor says:

    Isn’t 20% the same projected percentage of people in the US that can’t see/use 3D because of side effects and/or eye astigmatism?

    Don’t see how 3D will “take off” when you’ve already lost 1/5th of your potential consumer base out of the gate.

    • Outrun1986 says:

      I have very bad astigmatism so that might be why I was extremely uncomfortable at the last 3D movie I went to see. I guarantee you that I am not going to one again.

  27. SonarTech52 says:

    The only reason (for now at least) that I’m liking the 3D TVs lowering prices, is hopefully it will help to drive down the prices of the non-3D TVs.

  28. HoneyB says:

    Ok… 3D for a motion sick capable person is not a good idea, even if i wasn’t, with glasses, having to wear uncomfortable glasses OVER them is just so not worth it to me. let me know when they start Hologram TVs, that i could get behind

    • SonarTech52 says:

      Yes! Hologram would be awesome.. Full holodeck is what I’ve wanted that as a kid.. to be able to walk around and see every angle…. ok sure, as a kid I’ve also wanted to look up skirts lol..

  29. daemonaquila says:

    And then, there will be those of us who will always look for the 2D theater version of the hot new 3D release, and will never allow 3D into their homes. I hope this ridiculous fad dies a fast and ugly death.

  30. nopirates says:

    at least 46″ and at most $600

    that’s my price point

    i’ll wait…..

  31. lunasdude says:

    I just ordered a new OPPO BDP-93 Blu-ray Disc Player with SACD & DVD-Audio! Oh yeah it also does 3D but I couldn’t care less.
    I wanted this player for all the awesomeness of the BR and SACD, DVD audio CD etc, and the 3D? Meh…
    Bought a new HDTV last year and I will NOT be upgrading anytime soon.

  32. TheGreySpectre says:

    I don’t care about the 3d aspect, but if it brings down the price on LED TVs more power to them.

    I am so tired of all this 3d stuff. I have seen it, and it does not add much to me, not to mention I don’t want to wear glasses while I watch TV.

  33. Froggmann says:

    Since my wife can’t see 3D anyway this doesn’t mean much to me but hopefully this means better and cheaper LCDs are coming in the new year.

  34. Andy S. says:

    I can’t wait until we have 3-D menus and 3-D spreadsheets and 3-D prints of photos. Maybe 3-D magazines and newspapers to revive a struggling industry.

  35. electrogruve says:

    Waiting for Holodeck technology.

  36. bbf says:

    What utter marketing BS. What it really means is: “We’ve failed at trying to gouge consumers by charging $1000 more for TV’s that cost us $10 in extra parts plus software modifications.”

    The only additional hardware that LCD TV makers had to add to their existing 120Hz LCD TV’s was an IR emitter to sync up the shutter glasses. Plasmas always had 600Hz refresh rates anyways, so also needed nothing but an IR emitter to be fitted as well.

    The PS3 has already shown that HDMI 1.3a spec’ed devices from 4 years ago just needed a SOFTWARE upgrade to output a 3D signal, so there were no changes needed in the HDMI interface hardware to support 3D on TV’s, just updated firmware.

    Also 3D LCD shutter glasses have been around forever for PC based 3D systems, and they should not cost $150 a pair. They should be less than $50 when manufactured in huge quantities.

    Face it, the manufacturers were caught by the recession when they rolled out their huge 3D money grab, and consumers were smart enough not pay the extra $$$ for a marketing person’s wet dream, charging big $$$ for something that costs the manufacturer almost nothing to implement.

    However, the glasses free or passive glasses 3D screens on the other hand actually require new panels to be manufactured and will cost manufacturers quite a bit to implement compared to the active shutter versions out now.