CEA admits 3DTV sales are sluggish worldwide, but popular in UK

CEA admits 3DTV sales are sluggish worldwide, but popular in UK.

[newsimage]http://static.rankone.nl/images_posts/2010/09/Yjdq0R.jpg[/newsimage]The Consumer Electronics Association (CEA) admitted the sale of 3D high-definition TVs has been sluggish so far, but that's because mass consumer adoption and a lack of content has held the growing technology back.

Read the full article here: [http://www.myce.com/news/cea-admits-3dtv-sales-are-sluggish-worldwide-but-popular-in-uk-34135/](http://www.myce.com/news/cea-admits-3dtv-sales-are-sluggish-worldwide-but-popular-in-uk-34135/)

Please note that the reactions from the complete site will be synched below.

It’s more popular here in the UK because you can get 3D broadcasts now via satellite.

Some of the bars and clubs now show 3D football matches (soccer) in an effort to draw in customers.


If the cost between a regular hdtv and a 3d hdtv becomes marginal, it’ll probably become a feature in all tv’s at some point in the future. Which would mean everyone would have it whether they use it or not.

I like that they’re trying to develop 3d tv that doesn’t need glasses. I guess I don’t see myself wanting to wear glass all the time to watch tv, so it holds more promised.

anyways I see it like the add mentions 3rd bluray players… eventually everything sold will be 3D supported, its just a matter of how much content will people really want for them.

Like Wombler there must be a reason the UK is seeing increased sales. He said 3D broadcasts are now via satellite. But it can also be due to other reasons such as lower costs in both the TV itself and with various TV service providers (like Comcast, U-Verse, etc). Here in the USA there is a significant difference in cost between a HD TV versus a 3D TV, some as much as $1000. The additional cost of the 3D glasses (some provide a 2 pairs as a bundle but having a family 4 pairs are really needed) is another large deterrent. All 3D TVs are LEDs which since they are the most recent technology are also the most expensive over LCDs and Plasma. Unless one also has a 3d Blue-ray player and can get a good selection of blue-ray 3D movies at a reasonable cost the only other source is satellite or cable supplied. What is a joke with these are that most service starts at $35/month with additional fees for channel boxes, remote controls, and DVR. Now that most people have converted over to or will soon to a digital TV from the old analog TVs one would think that HD is an automatic given but it is not it is an additional fee of $10/month. This is like the phone company continuing to charge you for touch tone dialing over pulse. So if they do broadcast 3D programming will it be free or again will an addition charge be applied? I think this is a major reason many Americans are reluctant to jump into 3D. America has become the county of hidden additional fees – for airlines, telephones, and even TV Service providers.

Other hindrances include wafting for the next generation 3D set which does not require glasses, OLED screens for better contrast ratios (thinner, lighter, more energy efficient) and larger less expensive TV screens 50 inches or larger.

I don’t see much of a price penalty for 3D in the USA. Right now, mostly only the higher end displays have 3D, but the prices are not much different from last year’s prices for similar 2D models. It may seem like you’re spending more for 3D but actually you’re spending more for a newer, better display.

I’m in the process of buying a new display. It’ll have 3D but that’s not why I’m buying it. I’ll buy it because it’s the best choice for image quality.