Quote:
Originally Posted by Blu-Dog
There is no way to quantify "doing fine", "doing well", or "significant gains". That's actually advertising talk, and isn't a way to measure progress, or market penetration.
It's not even based on a perceived notion. Brick and mortar sales locations don't even bother to set up a 3D section any more, nor do they tout sales of glasses, or any other 3D accoutrements. I don't see demos of 3D equipment any longer, anywhere.
If you're going to measure any sort of acceptance and toss in quantifiers like "Q1" and "Q2", it's probably better to put the actual numbers in, if they're available. It's a pretty powerful claim that 3D "is the only home video format for movies that is doing well", which I find odd, and which again has no measuring points.
The game, whatever it is, isn't changing at all. Real infrastructure changes are needed to support high definition - be it 2K 3D, 4K, or 4K 3D. The real driver for the 3D format was television manufacturers, not content producers or broadcasters.
At 6% of households even capable of seeing this stuff, even niche marketers are not funding any changes in production. Do you think anyone is willing to invest in some fraction of 6%, and expect a return? It's not "early in the game", since the game has not even started, and nobody has even bought any tickets.
|
Ay 6 percent. most households did not have color tv, but it was less than two years after that all prime time network shows were in color. (1966)
And actually, it was only one year after that most prime time network shows were in color. (1965)
Most people still had only black and white sets for years after that.
But color tv set sales steadily increased until more people were buying color sets than black and white sets (in 1972).