Submitted by
Users who Dugg This
BeShirtHappy
13462 Followers
quickdigger
5219 Followers
Russ Palmer
6830 Followers
Peter Parker
1288 Followers
gorgeoussand
8411 Followers
I am Anomaly
14748 Followers
turbomoses
3 Followers
alamala - back in action
5097 Followers
swashbucklerJun 28, 2010
I can confirm...it is a gimmick. Unless they can come up with technology that doesn't require glasses then I see little mileage in 3D
jordantneffJun 30, 2010
People wear glasses all the time to be able to see. Even more people wear glasses every day to keep the sun out of their eyes. But all of the sudden glasses are horrible and dorky and you can't wear them for 2 hours to spice up an otherwise possibly mediocre movie experience?
Also, you can't confirm s**t right now. Get back to me in 5 years, if 3D is gone and no one cares about it anymore THEN you can call it a gimmick.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
sdphostJun 30, 2010
I don't understand the bitching either, it seems people are just angry that their HDTV they spent all their money on are being replaced by the shiny new toy and they must bash it so they feel good about their purchases.
3D is as much of a gimmick as HD, its a reason to get you to buy a new TV, 3D is actually pretty cool when used right and theres plenty of examples of that. I like 3D, the problem with me is not wearing glasses but all the stuff I need to buy to be able to experience it. But hey guess what, I can wait and I don't have to bash the new technology just because its not quite ready...I mean I didn't bash Plasma TVs ten years ago because they burned in after some use and say HD was nothing but a gimmick.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
jordantneffJun 30, 2010
I feel pretty much the same sdphost. From what I've seen 3D tvs are kinda cool, and if anything else they're pushing back the prices of regular HDTVs so people who still haven't upgraded now have a more affordable selection. So really everyone wins. Also, I don't have the cash for a 3D tv now, but in 2 years they'll probably be affordable enough to pick one up, and from the displays I've tried in stores the picture is actually better than the 3D in theaters.
johntotherescueJun 30, 2010
the glasses suck because they add a tint to whatever you're watching and they cost one hundred and f**king fifty dollars. oh and plus people that have 20/20 vision like myself would rather not have to deal with the bulls**t. along with that its making movie companies lazy. they don't care about script anymore, they know they will make money as long as they make their bulls**t in 3d.
jordantneffJun 30, 2010
@johntotherescue
So you bitch when you have to put sunglasses on too? I have 20/20 vision as well and putting on a pair of glasses for 2 hours is not an inconvenience at all. Also, bitching about the price of very new tech is just dumb. HDTVs were even more expensive when they first came out and now they're very affordable. Also, you're just using 3D as a scapegoat for "making movie companies lazy". If you've been watching movies for the past 20 years, the past decade especially, you'll realize that 3D is not to blame. So many s**t movies have been coming out way before 3D and it's just the latest thing that the dumbass h**lywood companies are latching onto. Getting rid of 3D won't make their s**tty decisions go away. Thinking it will is just dumb and wishful thinking.
doomesticJun 30, 2010
Plenty of 3D TVs out there that don't need glasses. They do suffer from a slim viewing angle though.
jordantneffJun 30, 2010
Where can I purchase one? Link me, because I've only seen announcements and videos or blogs about the TVs from CES.
sniperJun 30, 2010
What people don't understand about the whole 3D glasses thing is that they also cost $200 dollars. That starts to add up if you have people over.
jordantneffJun 30, 2010
Within 2 years they'll be half that price, and when the 3D TVs that don't require glasses are on the market the prices will plummet from there. It's not even half a year old tech yet, so of course things will be expensive.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
pingsmothJun 30, 2010
Nintendo's got the 3DS, which is pretty sweet from everything I've heard.
gsny88Jun 30, 2010
Seen one movie in 3D and haven't shelled out the extra $8 since. As of now, its not worth the price increase.
muffinmonkJun 30, 2010
Which one did you see? There are 2 that were worth it: How to Train your Dragon and Avatar.
glacius99Jul 2, 2010
That is an opinion, just like his.. Personally I've forked out money for Avatar and Toy Story 3.. I won't be doing it again, just not worth the extra $$..
gsny88Jun 30, 2010
Avatar was an exceptional b/c that cinematography was especially designed to utilize 3-D instead of an add-on. How to Train Your Dragon was an great movie regardless of 3D. I saw Clash of the Titans, which is definitely a s**t movie to begin with, but its worse when you paid extra money to watch a s**t movie that's your face the entire time. My point is, 3D does not make movies any better, so its not worth more money.
murrdpirateJun 30, 2010
Avatar was indeed exceptional because they filmed it for 3D. If 3D is actually here to stay, then all 3D movies will be made that way and better. Saying that 3D sucks because some 3D movies suck is like saying in 1970 that the idea of the Japanese making cars sucks.
fordsvt1Jun 30, 2010
$8 extra? Ouch.... it's an extra $2.50 here for 3D movies. $8 more would be more than the cost of a 3D IMAX viewing here.
hollismbJun 30, 2010
Maybe he went with his family.
barcardiJun 30, 2010
Is this because people are buying TVs that just happen to be 3D enabled or because they are buying TVs for 3D? The article does not really say.
sdphostJun 30, 2010
Its because all new TVs are 3D enabled however you can say the same thing about HD, go to any store and the most of your choices are HDTVs so its not about people actually choosing HD just that they are HD enabled.
sodajimJun 30, 2010
Not every new tv is 3D enabled. Only their top models are. Like Sony for instance, has like 9 new models this year and only 1 is 3d ready. Samsung has 8 models this year and only 3 are 3d ready. And since they are their top models they are the most expensive so you have to choose to buy a 3d tv and shell out the cash for it.
japbcoJun 30, 2010
current 3d tech with the glasses isnt viable for people who wear glasses like me :(
shingoexJun 30, 2010
It's easy to subliminally bloat the total revenue, especially when said electronics are so expensive. I'd rather compare total sales figures for units sold...
Closed AccountJun 30, 2010
I figure Betamax and HD-DVD made more than $55 million as well.
Closed AccountJun 30, 2010
Woah, only 55 million?
Quick digging I did for past TV sales lead me to this 2008 article, http://visitbulgaria.info/sharp-forecasts-100-million-lcd-flat-panel-tv-sales-annually, 100 million at 900 bucks, 90 billion in sales. That's only for Sharp.
This sounds like propaganda. I don't need 3D TV. High Def is good enough for me.
zvoidxJun 30, 2010
That's what Sony calls "Tuesday".
imallvol7Jun 30, 2010
I may be wrong, but $55 million, while a big number, doesn't seem like very much . That's what American's have spent total on 3D enabled equipment? That includes Blu Ray, glasses, DVD, TV's, may be even PS3's? I wonder how much profit it has brought in. Seems to me like that article is sugar coating some less than stellar results.
boulderbumJun 30, 2010
I agree. I also suspect that some people are buying a lot of "3D" equipment without caring too much about 3D capabilities. For example, most of the high-end TVs you can buy nowadays are 3D capable. Are buyers in the market for 3D, or just high end?
I myself bought a 3D capable A/V receiver recently, but I have neither the Blu Ray player nor the TV to actually watch 3D.
Right now, I'm not even convinced 3D is going to catch on anytime soon. I tried looking for active shutter 3D movies on Amazon, for example, and I still can't figure out how to buy one! To my knowledge, there are only about three 3D movies out right now, and they're all cartoons.
versatilierJun 30, 2010
55 million is nothing. Significantly less than microsoft brings in annually for xbl subscriptions
falserJun 30, 2010
Anything under a Billion doesn't sound like a whole any more.
sdphostJun 30, 2010
I don't understand the bitching, it seems people are just angry that their HDTV they spent all their money on are being replaced by the shiny new toy and they must bash it so they feel good about their purchases.
3D is as much of a gimmick as HD, its a reason to get you to buy a new TV, 3D is actually pretty cool when used right and theres plenty of examples of that. I like 3D, the problem with me is not wearing glasses but all the stuff I need to buy to be able to experience it. But hey guess what, I can wait and I don't have to bash the new technology just because its not quite ready...I mean I didn't bash Plasma TVs ten years ago because they burned in after some use and say HD was nothing but a gimmick.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
giveerJun 30, 2010
Dude... Copy and paste in the same thread? Really?
johntotherescueJun 30, 2010
nice copy and paste mr. 3d salesman
shingoexJun 30, 2010
I know I'm angry that HDTV has FINALLY become the mainstream, and it's supposedly being replaced by overly-expensive, yet-to-be-proven-in-consumer-homes technology this quickly. It makes no sense, logically. I'm going to pass until, like HDTV, 3D TV becomes reasonably priced, which won't be for several years. At that point, for all we know, 3DTV may be long gone as far as consumer acceptance.
murrdpirateJun 30, 2010
Why does 3D TV make you angry? If you bought your HDTV, why do you prefer the manufacturers keep making HDTVs?
shingoexJun 30, 2010
You should read my first statement again, very slowly. Maybe it'll seep in.
murrdpirateJun 30, 2010
I just read it again. Still don't see it. Maybe you could explain.
shingoexJun 30, 2010
HDTVs have only now become affordable, and consumers have just now adopted them into the mainstream, only to have 3DTV replace them already? I just recently got my HDTV, and I'm not about to replace it anytime soon with a 3DTV that costs 5 times as much.
It would be like having Blu-Ray replaced with something overly expensive just as consumers adopt it as a mainstream format.
murrdpirateJun 30, 2010
But it's not like 3DTV is going to immediately replace HDTV. You said you waited for HDTVs to get cheap before you bought one. It's not like your old TV stopped working. I don't see why 3DTV will be any different.
giveerJun 30, 2010
I'm not a crazed out fan either way - mind you I did have the luxury of viewing and using a 3D television along with a 3D camera a couple weeks ago, and while it certainly was a neat moment, the home 3D technology front has a HELL of a long way to go before I buy into it:
Positioning of the viewer needed to be way -Way- more specific, certain shades would translate better than others, a TV that isn't gigantic gets detracted by *actual* 3d objects that surround the smaller TV.. and so on....
giveerJun 30, 2010
Wait... I wasn't expecting to get any thumb-ups on that comment, but a thumbs DOWN? My time on this Earth didn't appeal to you? Do you not believe my uninteresting story? More guns? More girls? what?
bigbunny1999Jun 30, 2010
bah, my TV is "3D capable" but it being "3D capable" did not affect my purchasing it. So I am guessing that the 55 million number is misleading. Not to mention that 55 million is not that large a number when compared to the market (as others have noted)
muffinmonkJun 30, 2010
Well, if we give an example price, say 3000 dollars, what would be 55 million divided by 3000? That's about 18333 units sold. I'd say it could pick up speed.
shingoexJun 30, 2010
I can buy 6-7 nice HDTVs for that price.
barryigginsJun 30, 2010
coitus
TheDigitalNinjaJun 30, 2010
How the hell is niki alliance still spamming digg? Can't we ban their urls?
zvoidxJun 30, 2010
They'll have to take my flat screen TV from my cold, dead two-dimensional hands.
muffinmonkJun 30, 2010
Hey flat Stanley.
andrewdbJun 30, 2010
Buried as spam.
wreckageJun 30, 2010
I think Avatar and Up have proven that people like 3D.
I've played World of Warcraft in 3D and it's pretty cool. I can't wait to try the Nintendo 3DS.
boulderbumJun 30, 2010
Neither Avatar nor Up are available for 3D TVs yet, ironically.
gmyoungbloodjrJun 30, 2010
So what? They sold like 55 of these things?
zijoudJun 30, 2010
Honestly 55 million sounds like a drop in the bucket compared to the multi-trillion economy we're living in...
amusedtodeathJun 30, 2010
I wish Hollywood would take half the money they're spending on the 3D bulls**t and spend it on developing great stories instead.
The reason I go to the movies is to see great stories and characters that give me a break from my real life. Turning every film into Captain f**king Eo does not improve that experience.
shingoexJun 30, 2010
There are plenty of great unique stories out there, but they're always a risk. The general consumer likes familiarity, and an oddball title is always a risk for a studio.
murrdpirateJun 30, 2010
If it's just about the story to you, why not just read books?
shingoexJun 30, 2010
IF the tech that Nintendo is bringing to the table with its 3DS is any indication for the near future, I'm going to wait for "no glasses" 3D TVs.
neotechniJun 30, 2010
It's not. Even Nintendo admits the biggest flaw is that the user must sit in a very small bubble directly in front of it.
And Hideo Kojima has complained it makes his eyes tired, and we may not get that MGS3 remake because of it.
shingoexJun 30, 2010
Who's to say this won't advance in a few years? Remember how old-school 3D used to be?
yourmanstanJun 30, 2010
gimmick = a marketing tactic that adds little/no value
$55million for electronics is a big piece? average consumer spent $794 on electronics last year. at $55M, that's maybe 30 cents per consumer.
not that i plan on buying any 3d equipment anytime soon - buried for being total crap.
superherofiveJun 30, 2010
Honestly, who cares about 3D? 3D movies were a gimmick when it was first created back in the early 1900s. Sounds to me like the entertainment industry is out of good ideas. Much like remaking EVERY old movie ever made, they're taking a technology that has been around for over 100 years and adding a slight new spin to it and a price tag.
Do something new and original, world!Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
mstrebeJun 30, 2010
So, for perspective, all 3D equipment sold to date is equal to 1/30th of the revenue Apple made from the iPhone 4 last weekend.
murrdpirateJun 30, 2010
I don't understand why so many people dislike 3D. I absolutely love movies, but I basically see their two dimensional presentation as a limitation. I think the ideal way to experience a story is to experience it as close as possible to an actual experience. Isn't that what movies offer over books? You can see and hear the story instead of just imagining it.
So if you see 3D as a gimmick, is it because you don't think 3D will ever be done right, or because you don't think it's even preferable to see a movie in three dimensions? I honestly don't understand either position. I'd think that anyone who saw Avatar would at least see that there is potential and I don't see how 2D could be preferable to 3D.
Closed AccountJun 30, 2010
wanna bet the people who bought these things are the same people asking for "help" with their home loans? the same people with no jobs and yet own ipod, iphone, jordan's, etc....Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
neotechniJun 30, 2010
So much for no one wanting 3D
davidinbostonJun 30, 2010
By 2015, 3D TV's will be available in the $800 range, especially sale models, and there'll be significantly more 3D programming available.
davidinbostonJun 30, 2010
Is The TV Industry Ripping Consumes Off? http://digg.com/d31Te5j
fordsvt1Jun 30, 2010
That's about what Blizzard/Activision makes in a couple of weeks selling WoW subscriptions.
A friend's family owns an electronics/furniture retailing franchise that does $50 million in gross revenue per year, and they've only got a half dozen stores in a small corner of the world.
$55 million is really just a start. How does it compare to HDTV adoption rates at the same point in its life cycle?
murrdpirateJun 30, 2010
But it's not like 3DTV is going to immediately replace HDTV. You said you waited for HDTVs to get cheap before you bought one. It's not like your old TV stopped working. I don't see why 3DTV will be any different.