A survey of 4,199 Britons conducted by YouGov for Deloitte has found that only 89 of them are planning to upgrade to 3D TV within the next year. Unsurprisingly, it’s the younger generation who are most interested with those aged between 25 – 34 most likely to be planning to buy a set. Even so, only 5% of that age range are upgrading.
According to the survey there is very little interest in any future purchases of technology including Sky, Internet TV’s or Personal Video Recorders. Paul Lee, Deloitte’s media director, said:
It is remarkable how conservative people’s predictions for their own technology spending habits over the coming year were, They didn’t have to commit to buying anything during the research and yet still predicted very little spend on TV products moving forward. Belts have tightened after the economic downturn and with little understanding of what lies ahead, consumers are still being cautious.
The survey goes against sales figures from John Lewis who said that last month, 15% of the televisions sold were 3D units.
Source: Telegraph
aerobes
I’d certainly like to experience 3D but as a concept it doesn’t particularly pique my interest. I’m more than willing to wait and see how things pan out and by the time it’s deemed to be either a success or a failure (or possibly even niche), It might be within an affordable range.
ico
Only 3D I’ll consider picking up next year is the 3DS.
If TV 3D tech is like any other new tech (and I have no reason to suspect it won’t be) then if you wait 6+ months then the prices will drop significantly. I’m in no rush to wear silly glasses in front of the TV and get massive migraines!
Zephyre
All you guys complaining about the price, you can get a 40″ Samsung for £800 from Richer Sounds http://www.richersounds.com/product/3d-tv/samsung/le40c750/sams-le40c750 . I wasn’t planning on buying one this year, but if prices continue to fall this fast, then when I do finally upgrade my 4 year old 32″ telly, looks like 3D will be a no brainer
hazelam
why is it so many people have such an issue with wearing glasses?
most of my day when i’m awake is spent wearing glasses, why do people have such an issue wearing them just for watching 3d?
i thought wearing glasses had lost it’s stigma years ago.
uber-BARBIE
its not the wearing of glasses matey its the cost of the buggers per head. it wont take off,people cant afford it these days.a few things will get released for em then itll slowly die out.theres already a drop in 3d movies being watched at the cinema. people just wont shell out for it.
hazelam
i dunno, some people just seem to have a problem with the concept of wearing glasses.
is the active shutter method of 3d the only one available? because i know the polarisation method means much cheaper glasses.
the thing is with 3d, i just don’t see non glasses 3d being practical for tvs, delivering an different image to each eye when they’re just a couple of inches apart and at least six feet away, for a big tv, just doesn’t seem like something that can be done effectively.
you have to be very precise, which means the user can’t move or lose the effect, and who sits perfectly still when they’re gaming or watching tv?
until we get some sort of full 3d and not just two images, one for each eye, then glasses might be needed for 3d.
like that sony spinning mirror 3d thing.
http://www.zath.co.uk/sony-create-star-wars-esque-360%C2%B0-3d-holographic-display-prototype/
something like that but not with full 360 view, just limit the view to half the device so you halve the number of images needed, but even that would be beyond the ability of any current gen machine to render , not if you want more than just a single figure.
DJ-Katy
There’s a few differences between wearing glasses for vision and glasses for watching 3D Hazel:
1. You have to put them on and take them off every time you sit in front of the TV
2. You can’t see anything else when you’re wearing them
3. It makes you look stupid (presumably this problem will go away when it becomes the social norm)
4. If you’re playing local multiplayer it’s completely unsocial
5. They give some people migraines
yogdog
I went to watch avatar for a friends birthday party, in 3d, and I got an incredibly bad migraine from the film.
kevatron400
I agree with a couple of your points Katy, but how is wearing glasses for local multiplayer unsocial? Do you mean if only one person has glasses and the others don’t?
Erroneus
Britons… it sounds like a topping for tomato soup :P
I expect to pick up 3DS in 2011, I doubt there will be money and room for a new tv before 2012.
aerobes
Hahaha! Your first line creased me up, classic! :D
I really want a 3DS too but a 3DTV is quite a stretch for the foreseeable future considering I’m still paying for my 1080p set.
Erroneus
That’s the problem for me. I have a fairly old 32″ 720p TV, which is decent, but any new TV would be a huge upgrade, so every time I see a new TV, it’s itching in my fingers to buy one.
But I really should wait until I have a bigger place, I can only just fit my 32″ in here, so a huge 50″ plasma would be kind a silly :)
uber-BARBIE
It wont take off all this 3d lark. they tried it in the 80s and died out. now they doin exact same thing. itll die out b4 it even gets going you mark my words. for a start the tvs are expensive and most people of all ages are forced to upgrade to hd,now they bring out 3d,come on now.And the thing with the glasses per head is expensive for a family.what are the a hundred sheets a piece?
ok rich people will get it but 3d tvs in a home are guna be a few and far between just like hd tvs were 5 years ago.Still have to wear them damn glasses thats what bugs me out.its the 80s repeating itself.
Gaztee
This 3D is a marked improvement on what we had in the 80’S. Once the technology takes off then the price of the sets, glasses etc will come down to more reasonable levels!! Apprently the technology is doing quite well in the US of A, so its gonna be here for a while to come!
fattyuk
What’s the 80s got to do with anything? Lol…. Technology has come forward just slightly since then!
fattyuk
Ignore that post was mention for another reply.
kevatron400
Are you mental? In the 80s, 3D tech was still all Red/Blue or Red/Green! Right?
fattyuk
From Experiencing 3D tv myself in the form of games/films and football.
This certainly is no gimmick and will be investing in a tv myself some time next year when the prices have dropped slightly
Owendarko
Not this again! Jeez…why is it the people who diss 3D believe EVERYONE shouldn’t like it! and all this ‘i don’t wanna wear glasses’ is getting ooooollllldddd.
I personally believe that more then 2% will get it too! Looks like it’s the ‘cool’ thing to be negative about it!
Foxhound_Solid
As ive said before…come KZ3 I am buying a 3DHDTV fo sho!
DJ-Katy
Ok I’ve been mulling over this during the day and here are my thoughts.
Remember the resistance in the move from terrestrial to satellite and cable?
Remember the resistance in the move from VHS to DVD?
Remember the resistance in the move from analogue to digital TV?
Remember the resistance in the move from 4:3 to widescreen?
Remember the resistance in the move from SD to HD?
Remember the resistance in the move from DVD to Bluray?
All new formats require a couple of things to evolve:
1. Content
2. Cheap availability of playback device
However, there is an interesting trend in the chronologically listed events above that has been broken by 3DTV. In the list above, each successive technology was adopted by the general public faster than the previous one, requiring less years to achieve mass penetration in the home, less time to produce content and less time for prices to fall.
3D bucks the trend. According to the surveys (even the ones that state a 7% uptake in the next 12 months), 3D is going to have a much lower first year uptake than any of the above except the move to satellite and cable in the early 90s.
Although price is a factor in the short-term, along with the economic climate, I think there are a few reasons why the surveys have produced such low rates:
1. ‘Upgrade fatigue’ as its called in the industry: the syndrome of people getting fed up of having to upgrade their wares all the time, and eventually reaching a point where they are satisfied with what they’ve got. We’re rapidly approaching this point with PCs (witness massive sales declines in all areas; Intel have just reported a big reduction in profits on their CPU business as one example) and the cellphone curve is only 18-24 months behind that. A perfect example is the upgrade fatigue from Windows XP – the mainstream says, my PC works, why upgrade?
2. People are suspicious that the technology will actually be any good and catch on. They remember previous attempts at 3D and they have heard mumblings about it on and off in the press for many, many years.
3. Regardless of what early adopters say, I also still believe that the mainstream simply don’t want to have to wear special glasses every time they watch TV.
4. Unlike digital TV, HD, DVDs and Blurays, there is a significant population of individuals who cannot take advantage of 3D technology.
5. People just don’t see the need for it. 3D is not easily demonstrable to those who aren’t already interested. You can’t show it in TV commercials and you can’t shove it in a shop window. When a prospect with an SD TV walks past a shop and sees an HD TV, the difference in quality is immediately apparent. 3D just doesn’t have the same advertising channels available to it as the other technologies, and is more likely going to be spread by people viewing at their friends’ houses.
DJ-Katy
I should add, the case for 3D is much more arguable for video games where a large portion of the content is based in a 3D environment that one travels through. However, for TV, I absolutely fail to see how my enjoyment of House, Top Gear, the news, all the documentaries I watch and most movies will be improved by 3D. It has very limited application in TV broadcasts, mostly sports and action movies.
Now, how many of the general public are going to upgrade to 3DTV just for video games? Really? Not many I’ll bet.