NPD states that an aversion to 3D glasses and their price is hampering adption. Do you agree? (1 Viewer)

[Ronald Epstein]

Awareness of 3D TVs and Blu-ray Players Grows, According to The NPD Group PORT WASHINGTON, NEW YORK, April 11, 2011 – Within six months, consumers awareness levels of 3D TVs and Blu-ray players has grown significantly, according to leading market research company The NPD Group's 3D 360º Monitor (Feb. 2011). Consumers aware of 3D LCD TVs went from 28 percent in September 2010 to 36 percent in February 2011. 3D plasma TV awareness jumped from 21 percent to 32 percent, and 3D Blu-ray players went from 15 percent to 26 percent.

With awareness of the technology also comes awareness of some of the inhibitors to making the switch to 3D. Two of the major pain points for consumers are still the price of the TV and the need to wear glasses. According to the report, price and glasses are becoming more of an issue for a greater percentage of consumers.

"Concerns about price and an aversion to 3D glasses both saw relative increases as inhibitors to adopting 3D televisions," said Ross Rubin, executive director of industry analysis at The NPD Group. "However, as prices and price premiums for 3D TV decline, glasses are becoming a more prominent inhibitor, and are poised to overtake price."

The price gap between 2D and 3D TVs, while still significant, has come down considerably in the past year.

Average Selling Price for 2D and 3D LCD and Plasma TVs February 2010 February 2011 2D LCD $594 $511 3D LCD $2,683 $1,705 2D Plasma $878 $603 3D Plasma $2,948 $1,214 Source: The NPD Group/Retail Tracking Service There are some obstacles the industry is working to overcome. For example, the percentage of consumers citing a lack of content as an inhibitor decreased slightly from the monitor's first wave to the second wave. Sixty-eight percent of consumers interested in 3D TV identified Blu-ray movies as far and away the most popular type of content they were looking forward to using with their TVs, with slightly less than 40 percent expressing interest in sports and cable or satellite programming.

"Both movies and sports were important content drivers in the HD transition," said Rubin. "However, while feature films provided a large library of content that could be readily converted to HD, there wasn't packaged media that delivered on the promise of the entertainment experience as Blu-ray now provides for 3D."

The NPD Group - 900 West Shore Road - Port Washington, NY 11050 - www.npd.com

 

[Carlo_M]

Agree.


I'm in the market for a 40"-46" bedroom LED TV and am looking at getting a 3D capable one just to "hedge my bets" but chances are I won't be watching 3D content on it much, if at all. I'm not planning on buying the glasses at the original point of sale. I'll buy them when I need them (i.e. compelling 3D content I just absolutely have to see).

 

[Adam Gregorich]

Originally Posted by Carlo Medina .

I also think things are going to get confusing for consumers with the launch of the passive glasses 3D displays.

 

[Jim Mcc]

3D will be a flop if they cannot get rid of the glasses.

 

[Brian W.]

Originally Posted by Jim Mcc

3D will be a flop if they cannot get rid of the glasses.

I totally agree. But several companies (including Apple) do have patents pending for 3-D that does not require glasses.

 

[Phoebus]

Also the consumer isn't used to active glasses in the cinema. (It's been over a decade since I've used active shutter glasses in a cinema.) How can you sell expensive tech when the consumer often doesnt recognise the benefit over passive glasses? Not the easiest things to test drive to build consumer awareness and confidence.


I'm using an Optoma projector 3D conversion box rather than a TV and such boxes are proving so popular as to be unavailable in some territories. Thus I imagine that the "right" new tech may not have penetrated the market yet, which I'm not entirely convinced means passive or zero spectacles 3d.


I probably have zero interest in purchasing a 3D TV set, but 3D friendly PC/etc monitors that can double up as 3D bluray screens would strike me as useful to get if priced attractively.


To be honest, blu-ray itself is a bit too new for many consumers content with dvd, certainly among some folk over 50 whom I'm chatting to, many of whom are ardent lifelong movie or music fans. Even I had to stumble upon lossless sound quality - nobody could adequately explain THAT to me in advance.

3d blu-ray is even newer tech, equally tricky to sell - particularly without product people have the love and respect for to pay upfront for, such as Avatar, to tip the balance.


But..


when you consider than the first commercially available 3d bluray - Cloudy with a Chance of Meatballs - only came out June of last year, it's pretty obvious we're in the realms of fledgling technology here. Once we have access to a greater range hardware solutions, then 3d bluray "software" is only likely to increase in popularity.

 

[Adam Gregorich]

Originally Posted by Kevin Collins

Looks like Samsung might be responding to the NPD report...


They just recently announced that their 3D active shutter glasses will come down in prices from $130 to $50 beginning on 5/1 and all of it 3DTV sets will be bundled with two pairs of glasses. Of course, LG already is charging $10 per pair for its RealD-compatible Theater 3D glasses while Vizio has pairs on its website for $29.99 or two for $44.99.

At least the price is coming down... Now if their could just be a standard...

First of all its a complete rip that Vizio is trying to get $30 for a pair of passive glasses that I could get for a buck at my local theater. The Samsung announcement is a little more interesting. Its great that they are bundling 2 pr or glasses with each display. I wonder if that is in the box, or will they just give you the starter set (2 glasses and a bundled movie)? Or are they no longer going to be bundling 3D Dreamworks titles?

 

[Towergrove]

Originally Posted by Jim Mcc

3D will be a flop if they cannot get rid of the glasses.

I dont think so. People spend extra money at the theater to see a film in 3D. What are they wearing.... Glasses. They do need to drop the prices on the active shutters. That would be a big help.


Most people know when you are going to see a 3D film you are going to be wearing glasses.

 

[Towergrove]

Originally Posted by Kevin Collins

Looks like Samsung might be responding to the NPD report...


They just recently announced that their 3D active shutter glasses will come down in prices from $130 to $50 beginning on 5/1 and all of it 3DTV sets will be bundled with two pairs of glasses. Of course, LG already is charging $10 per pair for its RealD-compatible Theater 3D glasses while Vizio has pairs on its website for $29.99 or two for $44.99.

At least the price is coming down... Now if their could just be a standard...





LG showing their 3D glasses prices advantage...

Are the LGs full 1080p? I thought they were only half resolution??

 

[Adam Gregorich]

Originally Posted by Towergrove
Are the LGs full 1080p? I thought they were only half resolution??

They are 1080P in 2D, 540 in 3D.

I was in LA when they had their launch event and Kevin EK (one of our reviews) and I went to check them out. The decrease in resolution was very noticeable. It reminded me of my first DVD player (before progressive scan). They had some very biased demo displays comparing active shutter vs passive glasses TVs. At the booth demonstrating the lack of flicker on the passive glasses they stacked the deck by embedding hidden fluorescent bulbs in the side walls around the display. Other than the first 5 seconds when they are syncing with the display I have never noticed flicker on my Panasonic glasses.

For home use I say active glasses all the way and get a plasma if you want the best picture. I can see using the passive displays in a bar or public setting where you want lots of glasses and might lose some.

 

[Brian McHale]

I certainly think that the price of glasses (and other hardware), along with having to use glasses at all, are big factors why 3D hasn't been catching on. However, the lack of a standard might be the biggest reason. Why can't industry ever seem to grasp that competing standards mean that the entire niche suffers? Not only is there no standard, but older glasses might not work with newer TVs.


Obviously, the ideal situation would be to not need glasses at all. However, I suspect it will be several years before that becomes a serious competitor.


I am shocked that anyone is surprised that home 3D hasn't really caught on yet. The industry hasn't gotten their act together, the technology is not mature and adoption is too expensive.

 

[Adam Gregorich]

Even though there is no standard, you can still get universal glasses. I just don't see any of the stores pushing them.