LG Drops 3D & 10000+ sign petition to restore it

[ryanmcv]

Originally Posted by ckenisell

Do you guys think that it's possible that LG is "hearing" us, but haven't had time to implement it back into their TVs?

I mean, I don't know how much additional cost it adds to their TVs in order to include the 3D feature. Is it a different processor? Is it additional boards? I won't even pretend to know. But you have to add that cost and multiply it times the number of TVs they produce. If they believe that cost is greater than the amount they are losing by not having the feature, they'll bring it back.

Let's be realistic: Out of the 18,000 people that signed that petition, how many would be buying a TV over the next year? And of those, how many would have really purchased an LG vs any of the other numerous brands out there? It's a small number.

Is the added cost of implementing 3D less than the amount of profit that would be made solely because the feature is there? Only LG would be able to calculate that risk based on their current numbers.

Now, let's say that they HAVE ran those numbers and HAVE determined that they are losing money by not including the feature. How long would it take their engineers to reimplement the feature? What is the product development timeline from conception to market? 2 years? 3 years?

The decision to remove 3D from their TV line was made long ago. And it's not going to be added in the same model year as when they determine that they want it back.

I can't answer all of your questions, but it's quite obvious that passive 3D is very cheap to implement. The B6 and C6 OLEDs were always the same price -- the only differences were flat/curved screen and non-3D/yes 3D. Passive 3D is nothing more than a thin layer of film (also called the film-type patterned retarder) placed over a display. Some minimal tweaks to the TV's software are required for it to recognize and properly display 3D content, but passive 3D certainly doesn't require a more powerful processor compared to what's in 4K TVs today. My edge-lit LG LCD TV from 2012 can display 3D beautifully, and I'm positive that its processor pales in comparison to what will be included in LG's 2018 TVs.

So no, I don't think the removal of 3D had anything to do with manufacturing costs.

[GreatGreg]

Originally Posted by ryanmcv

I can't answer all of your questions, but it's quite obvious that passive 3D is very cheap to implement. The B6 and C6 OLEDs were always the same price -- the only differences were flat/curved screen and non-3D/yes 3D. Passive 3D is nothing more than a thin layer of film (also called the film-type patterned retarder) placed over a display. Some minimal tweaks to the TV's software are required for it to recognize and properly display 3D content, but passive 3D certainly doesn't require a more powerful processor compared to what's in 4K TVs today.

There are other factors too such as testing and yield. It is not as simple as flipping a switch and 3D is enabled.

In fact, it is sometimes the case where features are actually present in TV sets that are simply disabled or not allowed to turn on.

However, it doesn't seem to be the case here with 3D sets. One larger issue is the public indifference to 3D. That, and the fact that people who love 3D already have a set.

If you ask your average viewer, even if they own a 3D set, they will hardly ever use it. Part of it may be because they have to charge their glasses, or they don't have enough. Another reason may just be that many North Americans don't see the appeal to 3D anymore.

It's hard to say.

Over time however, we may see more people come out of the woodwork who miss 3D once it's been gone a few years. Also, if Cameron can pull a rabbit out of a hat again for the third time, we may have public interest again in 3D.

The technology is there, it's just no longer in vogue. I heard that the PIP feature has also been removed from many modern TV sets.

[ckenisell]

That's exactly my point. If it's cheap to implement, test and manufacture and so many of us are asking for it, why not just add the feature back?

Something tells me that it's a combination of 2 things: Cost of implementation and lack of actual interest.

[film11]

Originally Posted by ckenisell

That's exactly my point. If it's cheap to implement, test and manufacture and so many of us are asking for it, why not just add the feature back?

Something tells me that it's a combination of 2 things: Cost of implementation and lack of actual interest.

And, of course to push 4K.

[ryanmcv]

Originally Posted by film11

And, of course to push 4K.

That is likely the biggest factor. LG is busy marketing and pushing 4K/HDR/Dolby Vision and a bunch of other terms that the general public has never heard of. 3D is just one more thing that the consumer has to learn about, remember, and find content to use. Why muddy the water with something that most people don't seem to have an interest in?

That being said, I still don't understand why they can't keep 3D available on their ultra high-end sets like the G7, which is arguably targeted directly towards more tech-savvy and knowledgeable AV consumers.

[doctor_who]

Originally Posted by film11

And, of course to push 4K.

Nobody who likes 3D is abandoning it for 4K. There weren’t enough people interested in 3D at home, period.

It still makes no sense to me that it’s not on the premium tvs at the very least, so hopefully it gets added back onto the occasional set soon.

[8traxrule]

Given how little the average consumer cares about picture quality (they can't even tell the difference between DVD and Blu-Ray), I doubt that 4K will set the world on fire any more than 3D- and as someone who DOES care about quality I prefer 3D MUCH more than 4K the way they are now.

When I've written to electronics companies I've said that I will NEVER pay a 4-figure or higher price for any future TV that can't display 3D. In fact if I'm forced in the future to buy a 2D-only display, I'll likely buy it used.

[presidentevil3d]

I always thought when the big manufacturers ditched 3D that a cheaper company like cello/ vestel/ UMC or even Hisense might then take the opportunity to be the only supplier of 3D sets.

Hisense do reasonable TV's, vestel can vary...they did some dire ones for Panasonic a few years back (48-CX400 3d and 4k) , but if a bit money was put into it, surely it could do well

[presidentevil3d]

Originally Posted by ryanmcv

That is likely the biggest factor. LG is busy marketing and pushing 4K/HDR/Dolby Vision and a bunch of other terms that the general public has never heard of. 3D is just one more thing that the consumer has to learn about, remember, and find content to use. Why muddy the water with something that most people don't seem to have an interest in?

That being said, I still don't understand why they can't keep 3D available on their ultra high-end sets like the G7, which is arguably targeted directly towards more tech-savvy and knowledgeable AV consumers.

I think this too, they want to say HDR and 4K is the only way to watch tv, a 'new sensation'

so by removing the old tech they are forcing peoples hand.

practically I don t think any more than a small group will watch content good enough for 4k anyway.

3D was a strength and a selling point to a niche market and still would be, very frustrating when they persist with dire operating systems (android on sony), woefully unreliable HDMI/ARC connections for sound

[wildbill722]

Four things:

1. Lg got a lot of returns on its panels due to vignetting and vertical bars; don't know if they tried to fix this by trying to brighten up the screen with no filter.

2. No interest, IN THE OPINION OF THE MOVIE INDUSTRY, looking at sales of 3d blu rays, and therefore the weighing of cost vs. sales leading to an ulitimatum to lg that the distributors won't cater to 3d sales any longer

3. They fell for the trojan horse of samsung and vizio who realized lg OWNED the 3d technology, and lg fell for the ruse. And politics potentially Korea vs. Japan

4. 4k tv and its interaction with the movie theaters and industry