|
LCD TVs outsell plasmas 8 to 1 globally
|
|
The following comments relate to this news article:
article published on 23 May, 2008
According to data compiled by research firm DisplaySearch,, global LCD TV sales outsold plasma TV sales by a huge 8-to-1 margin for the Q1 2008 and that gap doesn't seem to be getting any smaller anytime soon.
Over 21 million LCD TVs were sold during the timeframe compared to a measly 2.8 million plasma sets, says the report.
The total number of TVs sold during the period was 46.1 ... [ read the full article ]
Please read the original article before posting your comments.
|
Member
|
23. May 2008 @ 03:55 |
Link to this message
|
|
I think this was a more interesting format war, and one with the consumer getting the beneffit from
|
|
Advertisement
|
|
|
|
Senior Member
2 product reviews
|
23. May 2008 @ 08:18 |
Link to this message
|
|
well what do you expect when you see about 8 LCDs in a store while theres only 1 plasma. this is no surprise really, they market LCDS ways more. its a shame really.
|
Senior Member
4 product reviews
|
23. May 2008 @ 09:26 |
Link to this message
|
I think its the fact that plasma display production has been in a slump latly.
however plasma's life expectancy, and word of mouth by representatives. has left plasma technology with a bad name.
|
|
lxfactor
Senior Member
|
23. May 2008 @ 09:30 |
Link to this message
|
|
well you want a tv that will last 30 years?
or one that last forever
|
Senior Member
4 product reviews
|
23. May 2008 @ 10:03 |
Link to this message
|
Originally posted by lxfactor:
well you want a tv that will last 30 years?
or one that last forever
thats just it. thats a common misunderstanding lcd can last 30 years but most won't. the backlight will fail before 30 years for most lcd sets.
|
|
A_Klingon
Moderator
|
23. May 2008 @ 10:38 |
Link to this message
|
Originally posted by lxfactor:
well you want a tv that will last 30 years?
or one that last forever
What in heaven's name would lead you to believe you'll ever live long enough to see either?
|
Junior Member
|
23. May 2008 @ 11:16 |
Link to this message
|
Originally posted by DXR88:
I think its the fact that plasma display production has been in a slump latly.
however plasma's life expectancy, and word of mouth by representatives. has left plasma technology with a bad name.
at first plasmas only lasted 20000 hours but now they last 60 000 wich matches lcd's life, but those first models gave plasma a bad name, most ppl say buy that lcd and they don't even know what they talking about
i mean they do burn when u leave paused or something, but if ur going out or something, turn off your tv!!
|
Senior Member
4 product reviews
|
23. May 2008 @ 11:53 |
Link to this message
|
|
Sorry,chaos_zzz. i was refering to the early models as it started a negative trend toward plasma's
|
|
BludRayne
Junior Member
|
23. May 2008 @ 12:25 |
Link to this message
|
|
Why would you even want to keep a tv for 30 years?
|
|
pirkster
Member
|
23. May 2008 @ 12:33 |
Link to this message
|
Originally posted by DXR88:
Sorry,chaos_zzz. i was refering to the early models as it started a negative trend toward plasma's
That wasn't the main factor.
The largest factor was price. Plasma had by far the best picture, yet also carried the highest price tag.
LCD was always more accessible on price, to both manufacturers and consumers.
Now that the quality gap has closed since LCDs have gotten better, and the price gap has closed - plasmas are now only marginally more expensive for a marginally better picture.
Even though they're now somewhat comparable, LCD was able to attract customers and manufacturers sooner. There aren't as many plasma manufacturers compared to LCD manufacturers because of the higher startup costs. Therefore, there are many more LCDs available to the market. Had it been the other way around and it less expensive for plasma, the bandwagon would have been turned in the other direction and you would have seen a huge gap in favor of plasma. It's all about the cost to manufacturers, which infuences price to customers.
I just feel sorry for all the folks that bought inferior rear projection sets, who felt they had to jump to HD first and went with the cheapest cost sets available at the time.
|
|
lxhotboy
Senior Member
|
23. May 2008 @ 16:00 |
Link to this message
|
|
I have been looking at the LCD and plasmas alot lately. I did notice also that they sale a lot more lcd's than plasma. In my local walmart they had about 20 or more lcd and 1 plasma. I also noticed, while comparing two 50 in phillips, that the plasma picture was the clearest and cripist picture of the two as well as being better than every other lcd brand walmart had. Are plasma's really better picture wise or what? I wll probably still buy a LCD.
|
|
lynchGOP
Suspended permanently
|
23. May 2008 @ 17:08 |
Link to this message
|
Quote:
Originally posted by DXR88:
I think its the fact that plasma display production has been in a slump latly.
however plasma's life expectancy, and word of mouth by representatives. has left plasma technology with a bad name.
at first plasmas only lasted 20000 hours but now they last 60 000 wich matches lcd's life, but those first models gave plasma a bad name, most ppl say buy that lcd and they don't even know what they talking about
i mean they do burn when u leave paused or something, but if ur going out or something, turn off your tv!!
Plasmas consume more power compared with LCD. LCDs are brighter and sharper than plasma (negligibly so I might add but sharper none-the-less). LCD are less expensive tit for tat and will become even less in the future as it's a technology that is mass produced daily for the home computer. Plasmas are nice but LCDs have blacker blacks in general............except the Kuro which IF YOU WANT HD 1080 then you must pop 5 grand for their smallest available model @ 50". Most aren't willing to pay that.
|
Senior Member
5 product reviews
|
23. May 2008 @ 17:12 |
Link to this message
|
Originally posted by pirkster:
That wasn't the main factor.
The largest factor was price. Plasma had by far the best picture, yet also carried the highest price tag.
LCD was always more accessible on price, to both manufacturers and consumers.
Now that the quality gap has closed since LCDs have gotten better, and the price gap has closed - plasmas are now only marginally more expensive for a marginally better picture.
Even though they're now somewhat comparable, LCD was able to attract customers and manufacturers sooner. There aren't as many plasma manufacturers compared to LCD manufacturers because of the higher startup costs. Therefore, there are many more LCDs available to the market. Had it been the other way around and it less expensive for plasma, the bandwagon would have been turned in the other direction and you would have seen a huge gap in favor of plasma. It's all about the cost to manufacturers, which infuences price to customers.
I just feel sorry for all the folks that bought inferior rear projection sets, who felt they had to jump to HD first and went with the cheapest cost sets available at the time.
Actually it is Plasma TV's that are less expensive and as far as I know it always has been. I work in Audio Visual Sales. A 50" Panasonic Full HD Plasma retails for about $3,000, where a 52" Sony or Samsung Full HD LCD TV will be around the $4,500 mark (Australian $$).
This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 23. May 2008 @ 18:34
|
|
CNDLG
Junior Member
|
23. May 2008 @ 17:46 |
Link to this message
|
Personally i would like to know more numbers within specific sizes of TV. Lets face it most LCD sales are probably in the 15-37 inch range where there are little or no plasmas available!! And someone said they are sorry for people who bought rear projections? Just like LCD or plasma there are crap rear projection and great rear projection. You show me where i can buy a 60" LCD or Plasma in 1080p with the brightness, contrast, and response of my Sony 60A2000 SXRD AND at a resonable price!
|
AfterDawn Addict
1 product review
|
23. May 2008 @ 22:21 |
Link to this message
|
|
Has anyone (brave enough) told MysticE this yet ?
|
|
atomicxl
Suspended due to non-functional email address
|
23. May 2008 @ 22:33 |
Link to this message
|
Thats gotta be a crushing blow to plasma makers, although they likely already knew of this. Interesting that total HD > total SD tv sales and that one type of HDTV almost equals total SDTV sales.
|
|
ripxrush
Junior Member
|
24. May 2008 @ 01:57 |
Link to this message
|
I agree this is a more interesting format war with no major losers if your "format" doesn't win you still have a t.v. that will show your HD format choice! The 1st plasmas & there short life span did give them a bad name! but really how long did you keep your old t.v. before you replaced it with that new HD t.v. you have? mine was prolly 7 years old! i still have 1 left but i want an HD within 5 years!Plasmas still use more power per inch than LCD's, have to be handled a LOT more carefully! generate more heat, but they do have better contrast but LCD is Quickly catching up on that too & them selves are getting even more energy efficient!
|
|
eggbert52
Member
|
24. May 2008 @ 02:52 |
Link to this message
|
Seriously, if totally lowball profits and say that for every plasma they turn an average profit of $200...the industry would be worth 560 million in profit.
No company that I know of is going to leave an industry that is making them $560 million and keep in mind I'm lowballing the crap out of it.
With cheap labor it's probably more like 50% of each set minimum.
Plasma lovers are safe for some time to come. Heck, minidisc is still around with the IPod outselling it 100,000 to 1.
|
|
abncp
Newbie
|
24. May 2008 @ 06:55 |
Link to this message
|
Originally posted by CNDLG:
Personally i would like to know more numbers within specific sizes of TV. Lets face it most LCD sales are probably in the 15-37 inch range where there are little or no plasmas available!!
The most popular size for flat panels is the 40-44" size. - in this range, LCD is the winner. "Last fall LCDs outsold plasmas in the sweet spot of the market--40-to-44-inch panels--for the first time ever, according to DisplaySearch." http://tech.msn.com/products/article...mentid=5222404
|
|
Xian
Senior Member
|
24. May 2008 @ 08:54 |
Link to this message
|
I still prefer plasma, and at least one manufacturer has went the other way. Panasonic has dropped LCD over Plasma except for a few small screen sizes.
To my perception, the contrast is much better on plasma. They seem to be the closest in viewing quality to the old CRT sets. In a dark scene it is especially noticeable and I can see many details that are missed on an LCD display. They also seem to have a better viewing angle since the colors start washing out the greater the angle. I also see some small amount of motion blur even on the 120hz sets on fast moving scenes, which is absent on the plasma. I want the best possible picture quality when viewing, and even though LCD is narrowing the gap, Plasma still has the edge in my opinion.
|
Senior Member
2 product reviews
|
24. May 2008 @ 09:31 |
Link to this message
|
I prefer plasmas as well. I own one and I personally like the picture better than LCDs.Its all about preference though. Fortunately for me, I dont see one side or the other losing. This is a totally different scenario than Bluray DVD /HD DVD was. There would be no reason to stop production because unlike formats you are not hampered by what data you can view or listen to on either. As long as some people are buying plasmas and theres a market they will be around.
|
|
jedimind
Newbie
|
26. May 2008 @ 18:49 |
Link to this message
|
Originally posted by CNDLG:
Personally i would like to know more numbers within specific sizes of TV. Lets face it most LCD sales are probably in the 15-37 inch range where there are little or no plasmas available!! And someone said they are sorry for people who bought rear projections? Just like LCD or plasma there are crap rear projection and great rear projection. You show me where i can buy a 60" LCD or Plasma in 1080p with the brightness, contrast, and response of my Sony 60A2000 SXRD AND at a resonable price!
Here you go... http://www.olevia.com/en-us/Products/2Series/265TFHDLCDHDTV.aspx
|
|
Docarut
Newbie
|
26. May 2008 @ 18:59 |
Link to this message
|
I agree there are merits to both types. I remember seeing article on Afterdawn awhile ago about Laser TV. Would be cheaper and better picture than LCD and Plasm. Here is link about upcoming Laser TV from Mitsubishi:
http://www.engadget.com/2008/01/08/mitsubishi-laser-tv-unveiled/
This technology may be the future soon.
|
|
leady
Suspended due to non-functional email address
|
27. May 2008 @ 07:40 |
Link to this message
|
|
Are you really sure that you want to keep a tv for 30 yrs?
I just care about the price and the definition.
This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 27. May 2008 @ 07:42
|
|
Advertisement
|
|
|
AfterDawn Addict
1 product review
|
27. May 2008 @ 20:01 |
Link to this message
|
|
Hey MysticE has not chimed in yet !?
"The flimsier the product,the higher the price"
Ferengi 82nd rule of aqusition
 |
