Example Situation
Price Points stick but specs and performance increases
If James thinks the 3D Tvs at approx £2000 will not be selling that well then I disagree with that, why well because they have been selling well the past 5 years even though performance and specs continue to improve as does value. Secondly by judging enthausiam of people on other forums and looking to understand that the 3D hype wagon still isnt in full flow and will be building in many ways through 2010. Furthermore the impact PS3 will have in 3D gaming and 3D Blu Ray could be a large part of its success. Thats the PS3 according to mr millar wasnt HDMI 1.3 and how wrong he was on that one but would he listen to others, err no.
Oh not this again. I said the original ps3 wasnt 100% hdmi 1.3 because it didnt support HD bitstreaming, which is 100% correct. it couldnt do it in software and it couldnt do it in hardware because the silicon images Si9132 didnt support it, while the Si9134 did. you can argue the toss all you like, what i said was not incorrect. what was it you said to me in that thread? "
HDMI 1.3 This is one reason PS3 can support 7.1 Multichannel Audio...".
I'll use your own quote for this reply "...and how wrong was he on that one but would he listen to others, err no."
Now, how many people told me i was wrong?
http://forums.overclockers.co.uk/sh...5&highlight=hdmi+username_james.miller&page=2 two, and one of them was you...and that's because neither of you were willing to listen. Yeah, i really got put in my place. Dont take it down that road Latte. You seem to be progressing ever further in to your own little sony bubble and you seem to want to go to any length to have an argument these days,
even as far as to 'quote' articles written about the ps3's hardware before it was released, before it was even finalised, as proof. Even as far as dragging up old arguments, forgetting you were the one who got it wrong..
Honestly, you
never used to be like this, so what's changed? you seem incapable of listening to reason, of understanding there are far more people who dont spend the sort of money you would on kit than those that do, you even seem incapable of holding a decent discussion when anybody challenges you. why? what are you actually achieving?
My email is in trust if you want you want to continue this argument.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Clever Marketing
One point to put forward and relating to the Panasonic model is that even for people not interested in 3D they are still interested in purchasing the 3D model. Why well because of its enchanced specifications and performance even with 2D images, they ensure the model with 3D also has extra benifits in performance to all owners.
Therefore £2000 for a top end model that will rival what even more expensive Kuro sets from Pioneer cost the last couple of years is going to be available but now also including many other features like USB recording, networking and internet service. All this is being seen as a good thing and reasons for people to upgrade to and not just the 3D aspect. The 3D is a bonus and as shown in Panasonics range the next model down is only approx £200 cheaper but drops some performance regards the new phospers that will also benifit 2D yet it does not feature the 3D capabilities, so what model is situated better to sell bettter?
People spending money at that end of the scale will
tend to buy the best they can get for that money. That isnt always the case, of course, but i believe that is generally correct. so yes, in that [isolated] case, the 3d set is the better priced and will be the most popular.
....however.
That isnt the issue, or the point people are trying to make. You have forgotten about the £1000 screen, that offers what, 70% of the performance of the top end screen for example. What happens in that case? well, most people will opt for the £1000 screen as proven by panasonic and pioneer. So what about a £1000 2d screen vs a £2000 3d screen? well, thats a tough decision. or is it? what if people [generally] dont want to spend that sort of money on a screen? if they dont want to spend it, they wont. simples.
So you are left with a £2k screen that yes, i believe, will not sell anywhere near as well as it would if it were half the price. You could easily say 'well, thats obvious duh' but thats the point isnt it? if people didnt care, had the money to spend, had been saving up or whatever, then it would sell just as well at £2k, or £4k. I've already said that yes there is a market for it, and yes MANY people will be interested in it, but a quick uptake? i dont believe that, and you can feel free to try to prove otherwise, but we will see.
Demise of Pioneer TVs
As for Pioneer their prices were much higher, not just a little compared to Panasonic and if anything Pioneer failed because Pansonic produced a TV that in the average buyers opinion wasnt much worse.
We all know know their prices were much higher - £2k IS much higher than £1k for a tv screen for a lot of people. in fact, forgive me for stating the obvious, but its
double the price and thats even the cost for a one of the better kuros. believe it or not that is a huge factor for a lot of people. And yes, we both agree that panasonic were seen as not
far off the pioneers - that again is a point ive already made and this will ring true in the future also. Obviously This particular point isnt relevant when comparing a 2d screen to a 3d screen and that is fair enough. it all comes back to what people are prepared to pay......
....perhaps a poll would be an interesting idea. It would give a [somewhat skewed] look at what people are willing to pay for a display, but it would still give us an idea at least for the technical and semi-tech minded folk that visit theses forums.
just an idea
Panasonic could simply manufacture cheaper in more quantity, advertise more and had a much larger budget to work with.
I doubt that, i cant find anything to substantiate those claims. could they produce enough panels to meet demand, if they couldnt could they afford to expand to meet those demands? if panasonic had the readies, the capacity, to do so, they they'd have a killer display at just about every price point and there arent many companies who can boast of doing that in their respective markets with the possible except of Ati, being in the position they are currently in. Even then, that has more to do with the competitions failings [nvidia] than it does their own capabilities - they might have the cards, but they cant meet demand - just look at all the 4850's and 4870's on preorder. If they could meet those demands, they would absolutely run away with it.
Panasonic have never done this.
The questions that needs answered is does a 40-50" TV with 3D in the home work?
Seating distance is key and this wont work for everyones household.
This is unknown at present. They arent stupid though, they know the optimum viewing distances, so they'll either play it one of two ways.
1) they'll cater for the majority who sit further away than ideal and if there is a position where it works best, they'll have this in mind.
2) they'll say screw the public and produce sets where the 3d works best at the optimum distances, in which case a lot of people wont be happy.
In truth, i dont know how much distance will affect the 3dnesss, if it does at all. But i know that ideally for 3d, i believe you'd need something that filled a good portion of your vision to experience it at it's best...which doesnt imo doesnt look good for people using 32-40" tv's in the average sized living room.
