A recent survey by retrevo.com suggests a rather unwelcoming outlook for the future of the 3D TV market.
3D TV sales have failed to explode or to meet electronic retailers’ targets as people become increasingly disillusioned with the technology and the hassle of wearing and buying 3D glasses.
The survey claimed that only 22 per cent planned to purchase a 3D TV with a further 23 per cent saying they’d purchase a 3D TV if it was much cheaper.
However, 55 per cent said they wouldn’t buy a 3D TV even if the cost was slightly more than that of an ordinary 2D TV.
When questioned why 3D TVs were not appealing enough, 30 per cent blamed the need to wear 3D glasses, whilst 40 per cent said it was down to a lack of 3D programmes currently available to justify the purchase.
The findings in these surveys appear to be strengthened by the universally poor end of year reports from the major electronics companies such as Sony or Panasonic.
It was not so long ago that these major manufacturers sought to cash in on the 3D ‘boom’ that accompanied the overwhelmingly successful 3D release of Avatar which grossed more than $2bn globally.
However the immediate outlook for 3D TV looks bleak as people’s interest has begun to evaporate.
A series of 3D cinema flops and a lack of home 3D content have seen people revert their attention back to the more traditional 2D HD TV set up.
For now it seems many people just see 3D as a gimmick rather than a must have piece of technology…
I don’t see the point in paying extra or bothering to go and watch a film in 3D which is only done for the sake of it. The odd flying football or monster coming out the screen is not worth it. It most certainly CAN be considered a 3D flop when individuals choose to go and see the film in 2D and miss out on the odd gimick. Watching a film in 3D rarely provides a positive experience worth paying an extra charge for except when it is used to full effect, for instance, in Avatar.
Content is surely a major issue. It’s either not there or you need to pay a premium subscription to a satellite / cable provider to get what there is. I think that Hollywaood made a big mistake by not aggressively pushing out the big 3D films on DVD / Blu-Ray. Avatar 3D was offered on an exclusive basis to Panasonic – it should have gone to everyone and been widely available at retail. Consumers need to feel that there is plenty of good content before their interest levels will rise – games too.
On the glasses side (30% of consumers say it’s a barrier)it does seem that passive technology will help. Consumers are voting with their wallets for passive over active – as shown by recent panel shipment figures showing that passive is growing much more quickly than active.If your only experience of 3D TV is with active glasses it is no wonder that you see this as an issue. Clunky, expensive and a general pain to use..
I would have thought 22% of a market the size of the TV market is quite a substantial figure and well worth targeting.
The one point that is increasingly frustrating to read is the line “3D Cinema flops” – the flops are films and not related to whether the film is 3D or not. Any standard 2D film that flops doesn’t get commented on as a 2D flop – I don’t understand what the relevance is. Some films flop, some don’t – we’re all surely agreed that 3D can’t save a bad film and they should flop, the same as any other unworthy film. It doesn’t mean the death of film (2D, 3D or otherwise).
I doubt the major electronic companies such as Sony, Panasonic and Sharp would share your view that 22 per cent of the market is substantial enough to justify all the resources they have been pumping into 3D TV technology recently, with all three companies reporting significant losses this year which they have attributed mostly to their TV divisions. Evidently they have not experienced the sort of success they were hoping for when pushing the 3D market and have started scaling back production in many areas.
As to your other point, in my opinion, the relevance of a “3D Cinema flop” is that a lot of the time films are originally shot in 2D and then converted into 3D (unlike Avatar which was shot using 3D cameras), and then are released simultaneously in both 2D and 3D. 3D cinema flops have occurred when people choose to see the 2D version rather than the 3D version. So 3D has failed to provide any particular box-office boost with people opting out of having a 3D experience. In my opinion this can be regarded as a 3D cinema flop regardless of whether the actual film was or not. A lot of the time people are not overly impressed with the 3D version of a film and would prefer to watch it in 2D rather than a gimmicky 3D version.