Good news for haters; Samsung no longer believes in 3D TV

[Anthony P]

Originally Posted by Damage Inc.

I'm speaking of 3D in general being a default technology, which it is not at this time, far from it in fact.

I don't know if it is or not, but if it is not then it is obviously getting there

The time in which people go "Oh, that was still in 2D was it?".

that happened with me and a few friends this summer, we were deciding on what film to watch in the theatre and one of the choices was eliminated since it was only 2D

The time when kids have to be told that there was a time when there was no 3D and most films were 2D, even in the presence of 3D-technology.

that won't happen when something becomes a default technology, but many years later at least 6 or 7 and that would depend on your definition of a kid (my 6 year old and older nieces and nephews know what a VHS is but I would guess my 3 year old niece does not) and "there was a time when there was no"

[AmrlKJaneway]

3D isn't getting close to default technology.

Yes, okay, in TV's it is. You can hardly find a new TV without the feature. But for content, no. Default technology is like colour. You could say all films have it, and there are a handful released each year in B&W.

For now, only a handful of movies are released each year in 3D. If it was default, it would be like Damage Inc. says, and people would be surprised if it was in 2D.

Most people avoid 3D showings, unlike us. This is evident by dwindling ticket sales. Ticket sales and content sales are down, TV sales are up.

But it will be default a few years after glasses-free is perfected, which is probably a while off. But those pesky glasses really don't suit the mainstream. Especially active, which gives the best visuals, but also the biggest headaches for some.

3D is great, but a long way from mainstream. This period will be seen as another fad, like the 50's or 80's, and the future of glasses-free will stick around just like colour did, because it didn't take extra "effort" on the viewers behalf to enjoy.

[Anthony P]

Originally Posted by AmrlKJaneway

Yes, okay, in TV's it is. You can hardly find a new TV without the feature. But for content, no. Default technology is like colour. You could say all films have it, and there are a handful released each year in B&W.

For now, only a handful of movies are released each year in 3D. If it was default, it would be like Damage Inc. says, and people would be surprised if it was in 2D.

you must have big hands by my count there was/will be over 40 this year. And I have already pointed out that my friends were surprised that TDKR was not 3D

Most people avoid 3D showings, unlike us. This is evident by dwindling ticket sales. Ticket sales and content sales are down, TV sales are up.

back it up, show me what % of people avoid 3d?

[EricJ]

Originally Posted by AmrlKJaneway

For now, only a handful of movies are released each year in 3D. If it was default, it would be like Damage Inc. says, and people would be surprised if it was in 2D.

Never mind TDKR, I can count almost five times in this past year that I've looked at Blu announcements and said "Hey, wait, why aren't we getting the Blu3D versions of Expendables 2, Alvin 3, and Mission Impossible: Ghost Protocol?....Oh, what, really? "

(If that sounds vaguely familiar, think back to all those years of early-DVD fans starting petitions for Warner to finally release "the widescreen version of GWTW" that they were apparently sitting on.)

[AmrlKJaneway]

Originally Posted by Anthony P

you must have big hands by my count there was/will be over 40 this year. And I have already pointed out that my friends were surprised that TDKR was not 3D


back it up, show me what % of people avoid 3d?

Okay, in 2009 80% of Avatar's ticket sales were 3D.

Brave and The Avengers did between 30-40% n 3D. Okay, and this is ticket sales too. At my local theater 3D movies are twice as expensive as 2D movies. This is abnormal, so I'll assume that most places 2D is 75% of 3D ticket cost.

So let's work out the amount of people. We'll be generous and use 40%, times that by 75% and get; 30%.

So 70% of people avoid 3D showings. And everyone I personally know does as well.

I'm no hater... I've just been reading a lot of bad news this year. And my kids don't like 3D, even though it is aimed at them!

[Blu-Dog]

Originally Posted by AmrlKJaneway

So 70% of people avoid 3D showings. And everyone I personally know does as well.

I'm no hater... I've just been reading a lot of bad news this year. And my kids don't like 3D, even though it is aimed at them!

Unlike the so-called "format war" between HD-DVD and Blu-Ray, the introduction of 3-D doesn't have the all-in, one side or the other finality that forces some kind of final option.

There is an audience that will lean towards 3-D, but so far, it has only been a segment, and is now distinctly a smaller part of the total audience.

From personal experience, in a major media market here in the US, most people avoid 3-D. Younger audiences don't like the price premiums unless the film is a sure-fire "must-see", and most women over 25, people who wear prescription glasses, and older audiences shun it altogether.

While the segment for animated kid movies and fantasy spectacles can make good box office receipts, those films have but a segment of the audience - and spending $25 for a pair of tickets means that film must be pretty important on the list of things to do.

3-D has been pushed as a pretty obvioius money-grab, at precisely the wrong part of the economic cycle to start snatching wallets. If it ever does go mainstream, it will be quite a while.

[Anthony P]

Originally Posted by AmrlKJaneway

Okay, in 2009 80% of Avatar's ticket sales were 3D.

Brave and The Avengers did between 30-40% n 3D. Okay, and this is ticket sales too. At my local theater 3D movies are twice as expensive as 2D movies. This is abnormal, so I'll assume that most places 2D is 75% of 3D ticket cost.

So let's work out the amount of people. We'll be generous and use 40%, times that by 75% and get; 30%.

So 70% of people avoid 3D showings. And everyone I personally know does as well.

I'm no hater... I've just been reading a lot of bad news this year. And my kids don't like 3D, even though it is aimed at them!

1) links to the % for the films (just asking because everything I read, that was a bit early on) had the Avengers at over 50% of tickets sold were 3D.

2) Second nothing past that point of this is ticket sales makes sense since you later say let's assume there is 75% difference in prices and reduce the 40% to 30% to get 70% avoid 3D. How do you know how many saw the 2D because it was cheaper and they could not afford 3D? how many went there and , unfortunately for them, the 3D was sold out so they decided to watch the 2D? Neither of which would be “avoiding” it

3) you can't use Avatar, when it came out it was the only 3D film in theatres, so it was easy to watch it in 3D if someone wanted to for most of its run, today there are many 3d films in the same theatre and so the 3D projections are much more limited.

[Will21st]

Originally Posted by Damage Inc.

I'm not speaking of the current 3D-PRODUCT being mainstream or whatever.
I'm speaking of 3D in general being a default technology, which it is not at this time, far from it in fact.
And I mean really to the point where balance of 3D and 2D is basically the other way around from today's balance.
The time in which people go "Oh, that was still in 2D was it?".
snip

Wow,that's not an extremely high expectation at all from 3D,is it??

By your measure,HD and Surround Sound are also flops because they are also not the norm? You don't really expect a tech that's been around for maybe 7 years to be default? LOL.

Be a bit more realistic,please.

[Blu-Dog]

Originally Posted by Will21st

By your measure,HD and Surround Sound are also flops because they are also not the norm? You don't really expect a tech that's been around for maybe 7 years to be default? LOL.

"Flop" isn't what he's describing; he's talking about a niche, something quite different. Broadcast and audio standards are defaults, even if they aren't utilized - all devices sold into the market for playback take them into account.

If they don't, they're considered "below standard". For example, I have two of Pioneer's 84txSi receivers, which do not decode Dolby TruHD or DTS MA HD. By utilizing playback equipment that decodes those codecs and sends them to the receivers, I am now at standard, but those standards are still not the default - virtually every recording still has the old standards, which they meet, available for playback.

But receivers incorporating the new standards are the default. Does everyone use the new audio standards? Probably not - many people have no idea what they are, nor do they care. But the manufacturers do, and now the content producers have learned to put the new codecs as the default on their discs - making the new codecs the default.

While television manufacturers have 3D as a default feature nowadays, for the most part, it is not the default for every user to wear glasses to see 3D content. Nor are most releases, by default, 3D. With the overwhelming majority of televisions in use being 2D (remember, over 17 million were sold in the United States alone in the year before 3D was announced), it will be a long time before the televisions and the glasses become the viewing norm.

Originally Posted by Will21st

Be a bit more realistic,please.

Do you think that it is realistic to assume that most viewers will go to 3D as the default in the foreseeable future? I'm now using three televisions - a 70" Sony, a 60" Kuro, and a 52" Sony - and my friends, family, and visitors are astounded by the quality of these devices.

If they all disappeared in a puff of smoke and I had to replace them, I'd definitely be getting a 3D capable television, but I wouldn't be purchasing enough glasses for all the people who come over for the Super Bowl, or all the kids who watch the animated marvels on the holidays during visits.

I may not even use them myself, as like many other people with prescription glasses, I hate wearing two sets of spectacles at one time to see 3D (and my astigmatism, a very mild and common condition, makes it a strain after an hour or so anyway). It's not something that I would avoid - I just wouldn't seek it out as a default.

3D is nice, for those who like it, but being enamored with it doesn't make it popular. It's present, that's about it. There's a market for it, but it doesn't own the market, not by a long shot - and it will probably never be, not in its current iteration. And that's realistic.

[Jack_Ryder_2012]

Its funny on the net there are so many haters yet while IRL i show off my 3dtv to anyone and they are amazed by the quality, and alot of them remember the red and blue glasses and headaches and say "wow so thats what 3d really looks like" So not everybody *****es and i think the *****ing towards 3d is dumb when it really is just another option. its not a format war like hd dvd and blu ray its another part of blu ray,If you dont have the money to watch it dont but let those of us who do have the money to spend buy it. I still watch 2d also and probably always will i have almost 100 2d blu rays, so i dont diss either. You dont have to buy it and you dont have to trash it either

[Blu-Dog]

Originally Posted by Jack_Ryder_2012

Its funny on the net there are so many haters yet while IRL i show off my 3dtv to anyone and they are amazed by the quality, and alot of them remember the red and blue glasses and headaches and say "wow so thats what 3d really looks like" So not everybody *****es and i think the *****ing towards 3d is dumb when it really is just another option. its not a format war like hd dvd and blu ray its another part of blu ray,If you dont have the money to watch it dont but let those of us who do have the money to spend buy it. I still watch 2d also and probably always will i have almost 100 2d blu rays, so i dont diss either. You dont have to buy it and you dont have to trash it either

In a world where you either have to bow down to 3D, or you're trashing it, the format is more like a religion than a way to watch television. Money is not the only reason 3D isn't the default (check out my home theater pics for example), so it's better to explore the real reasons people have reticence or concern about the current iteration of 3D.

I just saw a 4K LG television, which at 84 inches, was a passive 3D set. Without question, it is far superior to just about anything out there today, at least in terms of pixel size and clarity of content. It's pretty obvious that it's where television will be headed, eventually. And it's running about $17,000.

If someone was to come up to me and say if I didn't like it, because I couldn't afford it, I'd laugh in his face. The same applies to anybody telling me that I don't have 3D because I can't afford an Insignia 42" Black Friday Special 3D set for $600. It doesn't have anything to do with money.

If you like the current iteration of 3D, enjoy it! It's not some reality TV popularity contest where people vote, man, just relax. It's not for everybody, and if you look at it objectively, you'll know why.

[Anthony P]

Originally Posted by Blu-Dog

Do you think that it is realistic to assume that most viewers will go to 3D as the default in the foreseeable future?

depends what you mean by foreseeable. since the word tends to have two definitions. In business we usually talk about a 3 year or 5 year plan since it is assumed that you can't really plan much longer than that so if you are asking if 3D wil l be the default in homes in the next 3-5 years then my answer is no. Like you pointed out later, people tend to think of a TV as a long term purchase and so in 3-5 years there will still be a lot of people that use their old TVs and don't watch 3D.

If on the other hand we go with the real definition as in is it reasonable to think that there will be a day when it is the default, my answer will be yes, it might be as soon as in 5 years but in 10 or 20 years then I will consider it obvious that it will be the case. It is like colour TVs and HDTVs no one bought them over night and people kept their old Tvs for as long as they could but today even if someone wanted to they could not go to a store and buy a brand new black and white CRT.

[Blu-Dog]

Originally Posted by Anthony P

depends what you mean by foreseeable. since the word tends to have two definitions. In business we usually talk about a 3 year or 5 year plan since it is assumed that you can't really plan much longer than that so if you are asking if 3D wil l be the default in homes in the next 3-5 years then my answer is no. Like you pointed out later, people tend to think of a TV as a long term purchase and so in 3-5 years there will still be a lot of people that use their old TVs and don't watch 3D.

i mean "foreseeable" in the classic product cycle: Producer-Reseller-Consumer, and for consumer products, that no longer exceeds three years. Winners do it in 18 months or less, but let's be generous.

It's not moving to the forefront in three years, and will remain moribund. It's had its chance, to resounding yawns after the Avatar flash in the pan.

Originally Posted by Anthony P

If on the other hand we go with the real definition as in is it reasonable to think that there will be a day when it is the default, my answer will be yes, it might be as soon as in 5 years but in 10 or 20 years then I will consider it obvious that it will be the case. It is like colour TVs and HDTVs no one bought them over night and people kept their old Tvs for as long as they could but today even if someone wanted to they could not go to a store and buy a brand new black and white CRT.

The technology will have to undergo a radical change, first: You shouldn't have to "dress the consumer" to use the technology. Moving to color television didn't require special goggles. Whether or not the glasses are electric or not, this problem is not going to be resolved as long as the technology requires the consumer to modify their vision with a mechanical aid simply to view it.

There is no parallel with sound in movies, or color television, or any other of the wrong examples I've seen. Until 3-D is visible with passive, non-mechanical aids, it will be a niche. For some, this is fine.

[Anthony P]

Originally Posted by Blu-Dog

i mean "foreseeable" in the classic product cycle: Producer-Reseller-Consumer, and for consumer products, that no longer exceeds three years. Winners do it in 18 months or less, but let's be generous.

It's not moving to the forefront in three years, and will remain moribund. It's had its chance, to resounding yawns after the Avatar flash in the pan.

come on man, seriously? name me one technology where it became the default tech in under 3 years. Even DVD that was one of the fastest adopted techs ever took a lot longer than that. Do you think people moved from horse and buggy to cars in under a handful of years? mobile phones (car phones) came out in the 40's and true cell phones (that one could have on themselves) in the 70's. The wizard of Oz came out in 1939, in the 60's many films (like a hard day’s night) were still shot in B&W. The first flat panel displays came out in the 60's and the first flat panel TVs in in the 90's. Even today more music is sold world wide on CD then as digital files (digital files have around 30% of sales).


I will make it easy for you name me one new tech that became the default (where I mean50%+1 percent of people use it and not some of the insane conditions like no kid has any idea that a world before it existed) in under 18 month and I will give this to you.

The technology will have to undergo a radical change, first: You shouldn't have to "dress the consumer" to use the technology. Moving to color television didn't require special goggles. Whether or not the glasses are electric or not, this problem is not going to be resolved as long as the technology requires the consumer to modify their vision with a mechanical aid simply to view it.

that is your assumption, you have no proof of that. And it does not make sense. Someone earlier talked of the Avengers, http://business.financialpost.com/20...lion-in-debut/ 52% of people paid extra for 3D that means most people (at least from the ones that saw it) did not only not mind paying more but definitely did not mind wearing the glasses. Now for a ticket, not only is the price difference small but you have to buy a ticket, so many people don't care about the $, but if someone has , for example a 70" TV that they are happy with, it is much harder to throw it out and spend over 1000$for a new TV when it is working well and the person is happy with everything else about it.

[Blu-Dog]

Originally Posted by Anthony P

come on man, seriously? name me one technology where it became the default tech in under 3 years.

Cellular mobile phone technology. In the late 1980's, Motorola briefly energized the mobile phone market with compact radio telephones for cars; this was not the cellular phone technology we know today, but a variant on radio technology used by emergency responders. With the advent of cellular radio broadcast, radio telephone disappeared in less than a year. It became the default almost immediately. Radio phones where the only game in town as recently as 1990; by 1993, you couldn't use one - no carriers.

Microwave ovens over toaster ovens. There was a huge market for kitchen countertop toaster ovens, which died when microwave ovens hit the market. This happened in less than three years. You can still find a toaster oven, if you look.

VHS over Betamax. Sony took one of the fastest falls of any format with their reluctance to license out the Beta format. It's a classic example of how not to try to restrict a technology, which was at the same time that IBM ate Apple's lunch...

IBM XT over Apple. Again, a closed platform was knocked to the floor in less than three years by an open platform. Apple would not license either Apple II or Macintosh technology, where IBM and Intel were eager to do so. Despite a vastly inferior video and operating system platform, the IBM XT and AT platform took over the market within three years (1981 to 1984).

Originally Posted by Anthony P

Even DVD that was one of the fastest adopted techs ever took a lot longer than that. Do you think people moved from horse and buggy to cars in under a handful of years?

That is a completely different scenario. That technology required a huge, non-centralized infrastructure base, which took a long time to develop. It was not something that required a wall plug that everyone owned already.

Originally Posted by Anthony P

mobile phones (car phones) came out in the 40's and true cell phones (that one could have on themselves) in the 70's.

Those were not "cell phones", as previously mentioned. They did not have the same connection to the land-line phone system as true cellular technology, though they were independent of the land line system, at least nominally.

Originally Posted by Anthony P

The wizard of Oz came out in 1939, in the 60's many films (like a hard day’s night) were still shot in B&W.

But black&white was not the default by that time; the preference was color. Adoption was slow due to cost, both for theater projection and film stock. Yes, making it the default took time, I'll grant that

Originally Posted by Anthony P

The first flat panel displays came out in the 60's and the first flat panel TVs in in the 90's. Even today more music is sold world wide on CD then as digital files (digital files have around 30% of sales).

I have yet to buy a digital download - and I haven't listened to a CD in over seven years. Everything is immediately ripped to lossless digital format, though I don't know if this is a default. I do notice that very few cars have the "CD Visor Carrier" any more...

Originally Posted by Anthony P

I will make it easy for you name me one new tech that became the default (where I mean50%+1 percent of people use it and not some of the insane conditions like no kid has any idea that a world before it existed) in under 18 month and I will give this to you.

i named a few examples above - there are many others. When I say "default" I mean that when a consumer has a choice between two existing formats or devices, they will pay for the new format or device instead of choosing the existing device. It doesn't mean they throw away the old device; they just don't get another of the old style.

Originally Posted by Anthony P

that is your assumption, you have no proof of that. And it does not make sense. Someone earlier talked of the Avengers, http://business.financialpost.com/20...lion-in-debut/ 52% of people paid extra for 3D that means most people (at least from the ones that saw it) did not only not mind paying more but definitely did not mind wearing the glasses.

Here, we are discussing a subset of a market base, under conditions that may or may not define the default. What was the target audience? What viewing options did the venue provide? Was 3D an option for every movie released during the same period? As a percentage of the total potential audience, what was the percentage of 3D viewers? By no means does that define a default, or even a preference for the format, but a far more restricted audience of comic book films, by Marvel, during that period.

Originally Posted by Anthony P

Now for a ticket, not only is the price difference small but you have to buy a ticket, so many people don't care about the $, but if someone has , for example a 70" TV that they are happy with, it is much harder to throw it out and spend over 1000$for a new TV when it is working well and the person is happy with everything else about it.

The device is only part of the format. To define 3D as a default, or non-default, you not only have to define the device, but its use. Is 3D content selected for viewing in all, or most cases? Will all potential viewers be provided with glasses? Does the broadcast media use 3D for all, or most programming?

If I purchase a new set, it will be 3D capable, ironically by default. More important is how it will be used - by default - and how I fund that viewing, not just if I purchase it. Consumer use is far more complex than that.

[Anthony P]

Originally Posted by Blu-Dog

Microwave ovens over toaster ovens. There was a huge market for kitchen countertop toaster ovens, which died when microwave ovens hit the market. This happened in less than three years. You can still find a toaster oven, if you look.

I still know people that don't have microwaves and toaster ovens are readily available, so I ma not sure of your point. Now a lot of people that I know have both, for the simple reason that they are for different jobs. I use my toaster oven to cook food ( for example to cook a bit of meat for a snack, or making toast) since it is good for that, I use a microwave for heating stuff up (i..e left over) since it is good for that. They really have completely different uses.

VHS over Betamax. Sony took one of the fastest falls of any format with their reluctance to license out the Beta format. It's a classic example of how not to try to restrict a technology, which was at the same time that IBM ate Apple's lunch...

IBM XT over Apple. Again, a closed platform was knocked to the floor in less than three years by an open platform. Apple would not license either Apple II or Macintosh technology, where IBM and Intel were eager to do so. Despite a vastly inferior video and operating system platform, the IBM XT and AT platform took over the market within three years (1981 to 1984).

but these are competing techs, I never said a tech might disappear in 2-3 years (and even then beta lasted a long time and Apple and macs still exist). I can't see how that has anything to do with it.

That is a completely different scenario. That technology required a huge, non-centralized infrastructure base, which took a long time to develop. It was not something that required a wall plug that everyone owned already.

?

Cellular mobile phone technology. In the late 1980's, Motorola briefly energized the mobile phone market with compact radio telephones for cars; this was not the cellular phone technology we know today, but a variant on radio technology used by emergency responders. With the advent of cellular radio broadcast, radio telephone disappeared in less than a year. It became the default almost immediately. Radio phones where the only game in town as recently as 1990; by 1993, you couldn't use one - no carriers.

Those were not "cell phones", as previously mentioned. They did not have the same connection to the land-line phone system as true cellular technology, though they were independent of the land line system, at least nominally.

I am not sure what you mean, http://www.corp.att.com/attlabs/repu.../46mobile.html

Originally Posted by ATT inovations

June 17, 1946 - A driver in St. Louis, Mo., pulled out a handset from under his car's dashboard, placed a phone call and made history. It was the first mobile telephone call.
A team including Alton Dickieson and D. Mitchell from Bell Labs and future AT&T CEO H.I. Romnes, worked more than a decade to achieve this feat. By 1948, wireless telephone service was available in almost 100 cities and highway corridors.

so I don't know how this is more "independent of the land line system, at least nominally" than what we have today (now are the phones much smaller and cheaper and more capable, for sure, is the network more wide spread and more capable and cheaper to use, that is true as well)

But black&white was not the default by that time; the preference was color. Adoption was slow due to cost, both for theater projection and film stock. Yes, making it the default took time, I'll grant that

depends what you mean by default or preference but yeah by the early 60's colour had started to catch on but there was all of the 40's and 50's for it to do so.

i named a few examples above - there are many others.

yeah, but they are not very good, you decided to write off the 40's-90's of mobile phoning and you are now pretending that the 90's was less then 18 months. Two were format wars and decided just because a competitor’s product was not as well received that you will pretend the competing tech became default, you decided that even though toaster ovens are still available (something you admitted but downplayed) that microwaves are the default.

When I say "default" I mean that when a consumer has a choice between two existing formats or devices, they will pay for the new format or device instead of choosing the existing device. It doesn't mean they throw away the old device; they just don't get another of the old style.

OK

Here, we are discussing a subset of a market base, under conditions that may or may not define the default. What was the target audience? What viewing options did the venue provide? Was 3D an option for every movie released during the same period? As a percentage of the total potential audience, what was the percentage of 3D viewers? By no means does that define a default, or even a preference for the format, but a far more restricted audience of comic book films, by Marvel, during that period.

First of alll Avengers was the biggest blockbuster released this year so I think it is a bit of a joke that you are pretending that it is niche. Instead of trying to dismiss it, why don't you try and find something that might fit a different niche and show us their results that are much different. Second, obviously if a film is only shown in 2D you can't gouge interest in 3D, but with a 3D film there is always the choice (and I know someone will come here and say, the 2D was not in the room they wanted, or in the theatre they wanted or at the time they wanted, and that it would apply to many people that chose 3D but in the end those people decided on 3D and not 2D).

Here we have how many people were willing to spend $ (and more of it) for 3D and how many for 2D, a simple raton. Is it perfect? no, since someone might have preferred 3D but not been able to afford it, or someone else might have wanted 3D but it was sold out.
[/quote]

If I purchase a new set, it will be 3D capable, ironically by default. More important is how it will be used - by default - and how I fund that viewing, not just if I purchase it. Consumer use is far more complex than that.

agree, but that is where I think ticket sales or movie sales show consumer intent (i.e. like I pointed out with Avengers and Prometheus, 3D sales were roughly the same as DVD) do you think the guy will go to see a film in 3D, buy the 3D BD but then at home decide "I won't watch it in 3D" when he gets a TV? do you think it is default with bigger TVs because no one cares for it?

As for glasses (mentioned a bit earlier by you) , you are thinking way too simplistically. I don't have extra glasses for my TV and computer, but today, my BIL bought a 3D display and two pairs of glasses, next time if he comes here and it is decided that we watch something in 3D he can bring over his own glasses. Yes, many people don't have 3D at home yet, but as the numbers grow there might be a day when you can have your super bowl party because people will bring their own.

[Blu-Dog]

Originally Posted by Anthony P

I still know people that don't have microwaves and toaster ovens are readily available, so I ma not sure of your point. Now a lot of people that I know have both, for the simple reason that they are for different jobs. I use my toaster oven to cook food ( for example to cook a bit of meat for a snack, or making toast) since it is good for that, I use a microwave for heating stuff up (i..e left over) since it is good for that. They really have completely different uses.

Toaster ovens are not the defauit technology, at least here in the United States. I am talking about default, primary application technology, not secondary niche technology. It's not a value/merit statement.

Originally Posted by Anthony P

but these are competing techs, I never said a tech might disappear in 2-3 years (and even then beta lasted a long time and Apple and macs still exist). I can't see how that has anything to do with it.

Apple/Mac, again, is not the default computing technology in use today. Market penetration is about 3%; in business applications, it hovers near 1%. Again, this is not a value judgement.

Originally Posted by Anthony P

?

Again, moving from the horse and buggy era to automobiles was a massive infrastructure change. Perhaps the largest in the modern era. It took a long time, with more than one technology and engineering leap.

Originally Posted by Anthony P

I am not sure what you mean, http://www.corp.att.com/attlabs/repu.../46mobile.html

Not much detail there, but if you read it carefully, you will see a marked difference between radio/telephone technology and cellular technology. The page does not discuss the timeline for cellular distribution and adoption, only that field trials began in 1978. Once proven, the concept made rapid adoption, and immediately became the default.

Originally Posted by Anthony P

so I don't know how this is more "independent of the land line system, at least nominally" than what we have today (now are the phones much smaller and cheaper and more capable, for sure, is the network more wide spread and more capable and cheaper to use, that is true as well)

You need a more detailed source of information about this - no point in going into it here - but radio/telephone was very different, and far inferior, to cellular technology. It was just different, that's all. For example, it was not practical to use it while in motion...

Originally Posted by Anthony P

depends what you mean by default or preference but yeah by the early 60's colour had started to catch on but there was all of the 40's and 50's for it to do so.

There was far less consumer control of market forces then.

Originally Posted by Anthony P

yeah, but they are not very good, you decided to write off the 40's-90's of mobile phoning and you are now pretending that the 90's was less then 18 months.

Not at all. Radio/telephone technology forced the caller to reach a defined base station, lock in a signal of defined strength, obtain a channel for sole use, and then use that channel to access a single line connected to a phone system. Based on the need for defined signal strength, the phone set had to remain stationary. Setting up a call took up to a couple of minutes, and frequently required multiple attempts at getting a dedicated line - they were in heavy use. A buddy of mine, working as a dispatched computer and printer tech (this was in the early 80's) had one of these, and while it worked, it was a chore. He received a page on a standard pager, then called back on the phone. Not easy.

As soon as it could be dumped, it was, no looking back. The move was virtually overnight.

Originally Posted by Anthony P

Two were format wars and decided just because a competitor’s product was not as well received that you will pretend the competing tech became default, you decided that even though toaster ovens are still available (something you admitted but downplayed) that microwaves are the default.

This seems to bother you. "Not as well received' means it lost out on being what people choose as a default. Why does this fact irritate you? A niche product is not a "loser', nor are those that choose not to use it "haters", a very weak and inaccurate term. It's used like "apostate", very subjective and assumptive.

Originally Posted by Anthony P

First of alll Avengers was the biggest blockbuster released this year so I think it is a bit of a joke that you are pretending that it is niche.

Want to see a real joke?
http://boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=avengers11.htm

Box office numbers up the wazoo - and none of it broken out by 3D vs non- 3
D. Best kept secret in Hollywood.

So how do you figure out what number to divide into total revenue to find out how many actual tickets were sold. $5 per ticket? $10? $20? Some mix of that number? If the number is $15, that means that about 41 million tickets were sold. Impressive. That means just over 11% of the population of the United States saw that film, at the theaters in this country.

I'm calling BS on that number. I'm sure it was significant - that millions enjoyed it (I watched it on Blu just yesterday, for maybe the third time) but that just strikes me as an unrealistic number. Either the majority of views was in 2D and MORE people saw it, or the majority of views was in 3D, at exorbitant prices, and far LESS people saw it, or the numbers have been fudged by some press flack wearing a press card in his hatband and shouting this Hot News Flash into his microphone and hoping nobody checks his sources. I'm betting on Door #3.

Originally Posted by Anthony P

Instead of trying to dismiss it, why don't you try and find something that might fit a different niche and show us their results that are much different. [

Why? Statstics in this industry are a mess, filled with smoke and mirrors, and slanted for pre-determined outcomes. Look at the list of 3-D "blockbusters" - Avatar, Avengers, then a blank stare. On such thin gruel a dominant technology is not based. 3D is a niche, and as long as people want to see it, and can fund it, it will exist. More power to them.

Originally Posted by Anthony P

Second, obviously if a film is only shown in 2D you can't gouge interest in 3D, but with a 3D film there is always the choice (and I know someone will come here and say, the 2D was not in the room they wanted, or in the theatre they wanted or at the time they wanted, and that it would apply to many people that chose 3D but in the end those people decided on 3D and not 2D).

Here we have how many people were willing to spend $ (and more of it) for 3D and how many for 2D, a simple raton. Is it perfect? no, since someone might have preferred 3D but not been able to afford it, or someone else might have wanted 3D but it was sold out.

Or, maybe, nobody tracked the numbers worth a damn and the whole farrago is a house of cards. One of the cutest box office tricks was to arbitrarily allocate ticket sales in a multiplex to the "hottest movie" no matter what ticket you actually bought. After all, theaters get a different cut for different movies, quite often, including all kinds of bonuses for advertising costs, etc. It's a nasty game.

Originally Posted by Anthony P

agree, but that is where I think ticket sales or movie sales show consumer intent (i.e. like I pointed out with Avengers and Prometheus, 3D sales were roughly the same as DVD) do you think the guy will go to see a film in 3D, buy the 3D BD but then at home decide "I won't watch it in 3D" when he gets a TV? do you think it is default with bigger TVs because no one cares for it?

Want to know a secret? That's EXACTLY what I did. The extras came in the 3D version of Prometheus, so I spent the extra $4 and got it. Never took the 3D version off the spindle. I hope the 3D fans stop talking about haters...it's so juvenile.

Originally Posted by Anthony P

As for glasses (mentioned a bit earlier by you) , you are thinking way too simplistically. I don't have extra glasses for my TV and computer, but today, my BIL bought a 3D display and two pairs of glasses, next time if he comes here and it is decided that we watch something in 3D he can bring over his own glasses. Yes, many people don't have 3D at home yet, but as the numbers grow there might be a day when you can have your super bowl party because people will bring their own.

Sounds ridiculous, pardon me. When I go to visit, I'll bring a bottle of wine, but not an opener. I'll bring a snack, but not a bowl to put it in. I'll eat some barbecue, but I don't bring my own tongs to turn the food, or a plate to put it on, or napkins. I'll even use the toilet, but I don't bring my own toilet paper. I'll listen to the host's music, and sit on his chairs, but it will be his music, and his chairs. Even if I use his computer to look something up, I'll use his mouse, unless it's a trackball, in which case I won't use the computer at all, it's jinxed.

If this technology is so stilted and crippled that it requires that level of sharing just to watch content, it's hamstrung out of the starting gate. Which it is. It's also the reason that I expect a sea-change in the near future - I just saw the LG 4K 84" screen, which is a passive 3D unit utilizing dirt-cheap glasses, and comes with a half dozen of those. At that point, it may become a viable technology, but for now, it is a niche, and will remain one for the foreseeable future.

[Jsmith82]

Originally Posted by Blu-Dog

I'll use his mouse, unless it's a trackball, in which case I won't use the computer at all, it's jinxed.

That was funny

You guys are great, internetz for the win! More! MORE I SAY!!

Should I contribute? Maybe I should.. As an obsessed fan of the format, I've gone from the CONVERT ALL THE THINGS stage into a stage of solid appreciation for good 3D, but only for certain movies. One year ago had somebody asked me if everything should go 3D I would have said hell yes, but really there is no need for it and the majority of the market doesn't really want it - I see no point in it. News in 3D? Why? When we pop in a 3D flick, it's an event IE "Hey, come on over, let's all get together and watch blablabla in 3D tonight". When the movies over, glasses are off, and on to whatever else.

The good news is though there is a market 3d, there are people out there paying to see movies, buying TV's, buying BR3D movies - I can understand those who simply don't like the format but bashing for the sake of it is pretty pointless, which is where a lot of these topics end up: "3D is going to fail because it's stupid"....

Where there is money to be made, there will be a product to sell - thus far studios are making justified profits for their time therefore as long as they keep their pockets lined green with the likes of middle class dummies like myself, heh :P, I personally don't feel the format is going to go away for quite sometime and avid users don't have much to worry about. If anything we'll probably see it develop along side the rest of your at home viewing technology though (and this is opinion) I don't think you will ever see it take the front lines period. Passive 3D at home is a great example of this development, I have an LG47in Cinema 3dTV and I love it. Light weight cheap glasses, no batteries, hell they even sell clip on frames for people with glasses to wear over their glasses for comfort. It only took a couple years to get out of 4 digit pricing and into 3 digit reasonable pricing.

With the roster of 3d movies on the schedule for the next years to come and the advancement of at home viewing technology, I say to anyone who is a fan of the format: kick your feet up and lean on back, lots more to come.

This of course has nothing to do with your debate Blu and Anthony, more addressing the general discussion of the topic.

I am enjoying reading through your back and forth discussion, learning a lot in the process if that's any consolation...

[Anthony P]

Originally Posted by Blu-Dog

Toaster ovens are not the defauit technology, at least here in the United States. I am talking about default, primary application technology, not secondary niche technology. It's not a value/merit statement.


Apple/Mac, again, is not the default computing technology in use today. Market penetration is about 3%; in business applications, it hovers near 1%. Again, this is not a value judgement.

most of the info you posted here is wrong, but to stay on topic, I did not call them the default technology. You defined default as "I mean that when a consumer has a choice between two existing formats or devices, they will pay for the new format or device instead of choosing the existing device." since people are still choosing to buy toaster ovens and macs over microwaves and PCs that means that PC and microwave ovens don't support your definition of default.

Again, moving from the horse and buggy era to automobiles was a massive infrastructure change. Perhaps the largest in the modern era. It took a long time, with more than one technology and engineering leap.

I get what you said, but it does not make sense. Roads have existed for hundreds and thousands of years (some of the roads that people drive on in Europe were built by the Romans, in old Montreal they still have the coblestone roads that were there way before cars), any place someone used a horse and buggy they could have used a car. Now today some people that I know might get into their cars and drive from Montreal to Florida for a winter break, and so infrastructure for an electric car is hard but back then people did not go that far they were mostly in their neighbourhoods/towns.

And it further does not make sense because everything needs infrastructure. You can't use it as an excuse for one tech and dismiss it for an other. Look at 3D, why do most theatres have some rooms that can support 3D while others can'
t? because it costs an arm and a leg to change a room and make it 3D ready (you need an engineer to make all the calculations, you need a new and much more expensive silver screen, you need a new 3D projector) so they can't afford to change all the equipment in one shot. For home, not only does something need to be shot in 3D (and so new filming equipment) but you also don't have many people that know how to use it, and once, like the world cup, it is shot in 3D then you need to send it to the broadcaster that needs equipment that can handle 3D. Then the broadcaster needs to send the 3D for "distribution", for OTA the infrastructure has not been made available yet and even when ATSC adds 3D to the specs that would mean that all the TV stations will need to change their equipment for 3d, for cable/sat company theuy added 3D signal but they don’t have the infrastructure with all the extra BW needed to send 3D.

Not much detail there, but if you read it carefully, you will see a marked difference between radio/telephone technology and cellular technology. The page does not discuss the timeline for cellular distribution and adoption, only that field trials began in 1978. Once proven, the concept made rapid adoption, and immediately became the default.

You need a more detailed source of information about this - no point in going into it here - but radio/telephone was very different, and far inferior, to cellular technology. It was just different, that's all. For example, it was not practical to use it while in motion...

Not at all. Radio/telephone technology forced the caller to reach a defined base station, lock in a signal of defined strength, obtain a channel for sole use, and then use that channel to access a single line connected to a phone system. Based on the need for defined signal strength, the phone set had to remain stationary. Setting up a call took up to a couple of minutes, and frequently required multiple attempts at getting a dedicated line - they were in heavy use. A buddy of mine, working as a dispatched computer and printer tech (this was in the early 80's) had one of these, and while it worked, it was a chore. He received a page on a standard pager, then called back on the phone. Not easy.

Lol, did you read the link? In the 40's it was installed on highways, do you think cars are stationary while driving?

Yes the technology has evolved a lot since then but everything evolves (is a modern car the same as one of the 40’s?). We don’t use the term cell for the early mobile phones because the coverage area of a single antenna was very large, but in order to shrink the phones and be able to handle more people they moved to much less powerful transceivers that worked on a much smaller area and so talked of small cells for each antenna.

The issue is that when you talk general (mobile phoning, PCs , cars....) then there is no difference between the 40’s and today, now if you go specific ( cars today have electric starters instead of cranks.... DOS, windows 3, windows 95, 98, NT, 2000, XP....8) then it does not make sense to discuss cellular since it ios not a single technology and it is constantly evolving (like saying computers), you had analogue cells in the 80’s, in the 90’s you got the first digital cell networks (CDMA and TDMA) and they evolved CDMA->1xrtt ->wcdma... TDMA->GSM-> GPRS....

As soon as it could be dumped, it was, no looking back. The move was virtually overnight.

Not at all, maybe to some braindead consumer it looked that way. But I worked in this field and the change is relatively fast because telco’s can’t afford to keep outdated networks working, but it is always many years of simultaneous networks (older and newer) it is never more than one generation but they tend to start in metropolitan areas (since the extra BW is needed there most) and over the years spread out to rural areas, once it is cross country then a few years later they make the old tech obsolete because most people don’t keep their phones for long.

There was far less consumer control of market forces then.

?

This seems to bother you. "Not as well received' means it lost out on being what people choose as a default. Why does this fact irritate you? A niche product is not a "loser', nor are those that choose not to use it "haters", a very weak and inaccurate term. It's used like "apostate", very subjective and assumptive.

It does not bug me, it is just that you have no idea what you are talking about. You defined default as being

Why do you believe I am bothered? The issue is that you miss the point. VCR is the tech, computers are the tech, Beta/VHS and mac/PC, are just different formats that in simple terms do the same job. Let me go differently, we had CD and then we had SACD and DVD-A (high end audio disks) none of them became the default, many people decided to stay with CD while others decided to move to low end MP3 but very few people chose either of them. You can’t show high end audio became the default when most people did not choose any of them. With Microwaves and toaster ovens you are making a similar but different mistake, they have different uses, no one will make a hamburger or toast in a microwave and people don’t boil water or thaw stuff in a toaster oven. Maybe you believe that no one that you know has a toaster oven, but I know a lot of people in the US that do. Let me ask you this, if for many decades no one is buying toaster oven, then why is there many pages on walmart.com http://www.walmart.com/search/search...=false&ic=16_0
But if you search for a VHS player, http://www.walmart.com/search/search...d=3944_1060825
You have some combo players but not any players that are just VHS.

Want to see a real joke?
http://boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=avengers11.htm

Box office numbers up the wazoo - and none of it broken out by 3D vs non- 3
D. Best kept secret in Hollywood.

Why would there be, is there brake down on how many people went to the bathroom during the film? What time people went to see the movie? What state/area people saw the films?.... If one is not hell bent on trying to find stupid excuses, you would realize that the site compares revenues of different movies, there is no brake down of individual movies for people that want to see something else (like in this case who went to see 3D and who did not or who went to see it out west or east or centre....). In the end all they do is gather $/week for the country/world and then compare it top different films.

So how do you figure out what number to divide into total revenue to find out how many actual tickets were sold. $5 per ticket? $10? $20? Some mix of that number? If the number is $15, that means that about 41 million tickets were sold. Impressive. That means just over 11% of the population of the United States saw that film, at the theaters in this country.

I'm calling BS on that number. I'm sure it was significant - that millions enjoyed it (I watched it on Blu just yesterday, for maybe the third time) but that just strikes me as an unrealistic number. Either the majority of views was in 2D and MORE people saw it, or the majority of views was in 3D, at exorbitant prices, and far LESS people saw it, or the numbers have been fudged by some press flack wearing a press card in his hatband and shouting this Hot News Flash into his microphone and hoping nobody checks his sources. I'm betting on Door #3.

You call BS on all numbers since they constantly disprove your delusional assumptions. You also mentioned that your hatred is not because “you can’t afford it” but then you are constantly making an issue of the $ like stupid comments of “exorbitant prices”, if you want to know how many people saw it in 3D and how many in 2D then you can just go back to the link I posted that had that information 52% of the people saw it in 3D.

Why? Statstics in this industry are a mess, filled with smoke and mirrors, and slanted for pre-determined outcomes. Look at the list of 3-D "blockbusters" - Avatar, Avengers, then a blank stare. On such thin gruel a dominant technology is not based. 3D is a niche, and as long as people want to see it, and can fund it, it will exist. More power to them.

Lol man, so you never heard of the #4 top grosser Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part 2 or the #5 Transformers: Dark of the Moon they were also shown in 3D. The only one missing is Titanic which is #2 and for some reason Paramount decided to spend millions to convert it to 3D and send it back to the theatres and before that it had revenue of $1.843 billion and now it is at $2,185 Billion.

Or, maybe, nobody tracked the numbers worth a damn and the whole farrago is a house of cards. One of the cutest box office tricks was to arbitrarily allocate ticket sales in a multiplex to the "hottest movie" no matter what ticket you actually bought. After all, theaters get a different cut for different movies, quite often, including all kinds of bonuses for advertising costs, etc. It's a nasty game.

Lol, you don’t know much of how it works. A theatre pays the studio based on sales, that is why ticket sales and $ are tracked so closely. In the opening week the studio gets 100$, so if you paid 10$ +tax the studio gets the 10$, if you paid 5$ or 20$ it gets that, as the weeks go by the studio gets a smaller and smaller share. So no, what you say is only in your imagination.

Want to know a secret? That's EXACTLY what I did. The extras came in the 3D version of Prometheus, so I spent the extra $4 and got it. Never took the 3D version off the spindle. I hope the 3D fans stop talking about haters...it's so juvenile.

If this technology is so stilted and crippled that it requires that level of sharing just to watch content, it's hamstrung out of the starting gate

How is someone using their own glasses sharing? And honestly, having such a fear of sharing is not healthy.

[Blu-Dog]

I'll split up my response, this is getting big.

Originally Posted by Anthony P

most of the info you posted here is wrong, but to stay on topic, I did not call them the default technology. You defined default as "I mean that when a consumer has a choice between two existing formats or devices, they will pay for the new format or device instead of choosing the existing device." since people are still choosing to buy toaster ovens and macs over microwaves and PCs that means that PC and microwave ovens don't support your definition of default.

"Default" does not mean "rule". It implies an option. There is no need to get this deep into semantics. Based on an option, the default for heating food is a microwave. An option is some other device. Same with 3D.

Originally Posted by Anthony P

I get what you said, but it does not make sense. Roads have existed for hundreds and thousands of years (some of the roads that people drive on in Europe were built by the Romans, in old Montreal they still have the coblestone roads that were there way before cars), any place someone used a horse and buggy they could have used a car. Now today some people that I know might get into their cars and drive from Montreal to Florida for a winter break, and so infrastructure for an electric car is hard but back then people did not go that far they were mostly in their neighbourhoods/towns.

As a young lieutenant, Dwight Eisenhower was tasked with crossing the United States by gasoline powered vehicles in the 1920's. It took him several months. From that experience, he reported that an interstate highway system was required - powered vehicles could never flourish on the network of dirt roads in America. It's a fascinating story. You should look it up.

Originally Posted by Anthony P

And it further does not make sense because everything needs infrastructure. You can't use it as an excuse for one tech and dismiss it for an other. Look at 3D, why do most theatres have some rooms that can support 3D while others can'
t? because it costs an arm and a leg to change a room and make it 3D ready (you need an engineer to make all the calculations, you need a new and much more expensive silver screen, you need a new 3D projector) so they can't afford to change all the equipment in one shot. For home, not only does something need to be shot in 3D (and so new filming equipment) but you also don't have many people that know how to use it, and once, like the world cup, it is shot in 3D then you need to send it to the broadcaster that needs equipment that can handle 3D. Then the broadcaster needs to send the 3D for "distribution", for OTA the infrastructure has not been made available yet and even when ATSC adds 3D to the specs that would mean that all the TV stations will need to change their equipment for 3d, for cable/sat company theuy added 3D signal but they don’t have the infrastructure with all the extra BW needed to send 3D.

This "if you build it, they will come" notion is nice, but it is not borne out by reality. Many parallel factors are involved in spending money on the infrastructure, including the public's desire for wearing glasses in the current iteration. There is also the increased production costs for the content - it's just not worth it, not yet. Those who stampeded the technology hoped to foster interest through a few "blockbuster" films, which worked for a moment, for a few movies, then went limp.

To change theaters, broadcast technologies, and viewer accoutrements (the glasses) is all dependent on this technology working at optimum in its current iteration, and the technology is evolving all the time. Even worse, the technology dismisses as obsolescent (as opposed to "obsolete" - apparently, many people don't understand these terms) the current 2D technology base, with no apparent backward compatibility. That was not a technical decision; it was a commercial one, to spark purchase of new televisions. See the recent financial reports for Sony, Samsung, and Sharp to see how that effort fell flat. The whole rollout is fraught with very bad decisions, and stands as a textbook example of the hubris of manufacturers and producers.

Broadcasters aren't falling for it.

Originally Posted by Anthony P

Lol, did you read the link? In the 40's it was installed on highways, do you think cars are stationary while driving?

They were stationary while using radio-telephones, they were stationary when picking up food at "drive-through" fast food restaurant windows, and they're stationary when drivers get out to pee. Do you actually know how this technology worked, or have you ever use a radio-telephone?

Originally Posted by Anthony P

Yes the technology has evolved a lot since then but everything evolves (is a modern car the same as one of the 40’s?). We don’t use the term cell for the early mobile phones because the coverage area of a single antenna was very large, but in order to shrink the phones and be able to handle more people they moved to much less powerful transceivers that worked on a much smaller area and so talked of small cells for each antenna.

I think we better drop this as a topic, because you simply don't know what you're talking about. These were radios that connected to a telephone system, which used multiple antennas connected to switching systems. The very earliest versions used human operators, until they found ways to multiplex the signal at the base station to eliminate crosstalk at give each handset its own line (in the early days, you'd call the operator, who would give you a radio frequency to use, you'd select it, then the operator gave you a line for that frequency and dialed the number for you).

Even a diminished signal could drop a call, so the car would remain parked (cars can be parked, as you surely know), the signal verified as strong and unwavering, and the call initiated. The basic concept of cell technology is that the handset is identified in the system, and all towers are interconnected and told the handset's identity and signal strength - and the separate towers "hand off" the signal receipt and delivery, somethat that the old system could not do. So you don't drive around switching towers. Some guys would park, and then line up special antennas to keep the signal strength high, especially in hilly country or in dense urban areas with lots of high buildings.

With cellular, it was worth the infrastructure cost to build more towers - you got more bang for your buck.