Flat panel TV prices are on the decline [update 1]
According to USA Today, the price of flat panel televisions have dropped 12 percent from January to May due to a lack of demand. There are two ways to react to that sentence, depending on what you emphasize:- The price of flat panel televisions have dropped 12 percent: And they will likely drop even lower during the fall and winter holidays. What better time to build your ultimate home theatre?
- ... due to a lack of demand: The adoption rate of flat panel televisions, which are predominantly HD TVs (and HD TVs are predominantly flat panels), has not been as high as once desired. Have consoles put too much emphasis on the HD era, which is still in its infancy?
See Also:
Top 10 HD myths
[via 1UP]
[update 1: the original picture decided to run away and not leave a note -- sad. Oh well, new picture is up.]
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
fwacce @ Jul 20th 2006 7:30PM
Flat panels are getting cheaper and Sony is releasing a system with Blu-Ray for only $600 so you won't have to spend $1000 on a BR player. The near future sure is looking great for the home theater enthusiast.
genericname @ Jul 20th 2006 7:30PM
Have consoles put too much emphasis on the HD era, which is still in its infancy?
There's no other way to do it, I believe. There are always victims in early adopters of new technology, but it innevitably means a larger installement base in the long run, and a more educated consumer.
I'm going to save for a few years though, in hopes that they'll release O-LED TVs. Mmmmm-MMM! Pretty lights.
SickNic @ Jul 20th 2006 7:37PM
This is good info. I'm in the market for a 32" LCD HDTV and the prices are just above my budget. I can "rough it" a few more months. I'll pick one up when there is a crazy sale going on this november. Black Friday FTW!!!
AoE @ Jul 20th 2006 7:45PM
"Have consoles put too much emphasis on the HD era, which is still in its infancy?"
Depends, should console manufacturers target exclusively technology popular the year they release, or plan for the future? Isn't a 5 year run about the average? HD may not be popular now, but let's check in again in 3-4 years and see where we're at...
Probot @ Jul 20th 2006 7:50PM
While I don't own an HDTV, and don't plan on getting one anytime soon, I don't think video game consoles should shy away from new technology just because the acceptance rate is low.
The original Xbox took a gamble by having a broadband-only console when penetration rates were still pretty low. The broadband requirement was necessary for online gaming to perform better.
It was a risk, but one worth taking. And, broadband rates did grow to much higher throughout the Xbox's lifespan. Xbox Live became the standout feature of that console. Today, as MS touts a 60% attatch rate, as opposed to the 10% from the original Xbox, there are more Xbox 360 users with Xbox Live than without it.
And now they're taking the same gamble with HDTV. Sony is also taking that risk, but their also betting that people will want higher quality movies with their new HDTVs. I don't know who will be successful, but there is certainly no reason to criticize a company for taking a calculated risk.
GSI @ Jul 20th 2006 8:03PM
WOW! Thank you Captain Obvious (USa Today)!
/end sarcasim
JRM @ Jul 20th 2006 8:10PM
I won't be buying a high definition TV until a real standard is established. no 720p, 1080p, LCD, LED, DLP Plasma.
or DVI, HDMI or other ways to deny my freedom to do what I want with my entertainment purchases.
Comstock @ Jul 20th 2006 8:10PM
I'm not entirely happy about next-gen pushing HD because I think HD TVs are just too expensive, but I think the next gen consoles are going to push me towards getting one in the long run. I really don't care about home theater. So in that sense, I suppose they are achieving their goal.
JJ @ Jul 20th 2006 8:17PM
well JRM to HDTV's credit, not all of those are standards but TV types (i.e Plasma, LCD, LED, CRT, etc)
and HDMI is really just DVI with integrated sound for simplicity sake but I think as far as standards go 480p-720p is the normal standard and 1080p is the upper eschelon.
Besides no matter what ya buy, you're always gonna regret it a few months later as something newer, sleeker and cheaper comes out. I know i did when i bought my 50" Sony HDTV.. as soon as i bought it, 3 months later there was a 57" for the same price =p
lolersticks @ Jul 20th 2006 8:22PM
I'm doing fine with my 21" dell LCD, thanks. I'm not buying a full-size HDTV until they get the whole HDCP thing straightened out. And by straightened out, I mean abolished with; the damned spec is almost communism.
Staticneuron @ Jul 20th 2006 8:25PM
"due to a lack of demand"
More along the lines of better technology and product production. This was a givin' seeing as how the unwritten goal for most of thes companies is to have a HDTV in 50% or more homes in america.
Ianc02 @ Jul 20th 2006 9:13PM
Was out shopping today for DS and 'cube software, saw a gorgeous 32 inch LCD HDTV for sale only 900gbp. I was very tempted but will hold off for another 6 months. I did not realise they had come down SO much over the past year here in the UK.
Danno @ Jul 20th 2006 11:07PM
It's because the HDLPs are so fucking cheap, duh.
Sure a flat panel *would* be nice, but if you've got the space, why spend *that* much extra money.
Ethan Thomas @ Jul 20th 2006 11:27PM
-Danno
True. Very True. Just this past weekend I bought a
Samsung 46" HD DLP TV with built in surround sound. I paid $1,400.00 for it. That same TV in a flat-screen was at the same store for $3,500.00. There was no way I was going to fork out that much extra cash for the same size TV. And this DLP doesn't take up that much room. Not nearly as much as the old-school rear-projection TV's do. Now the 360 games look amazing, as do movies. I think once the price starts to drop even more, HD will take off. The question to be answered is: Will Blu-ray be able to surpass HD before HD becomes the new standard? I don't think so, but hey, it's possible.
obo @ Jul 20th 2006 11:54PM
"releasing a system with Blu-Ray for only $600 so you won't have to spend $1000 on a BR player"
psst
it's a _computer_
subnet6 @ Jul 21st 2006 12:10AM
One thing that worries me is that I've noticed in the newspapaer ads at BestBuy and other electronics retailers, there has been a marked increase in EDTVs. Many of which are NOT EVEN widescreen. They are slowly but surely filling the "under 27 inch" space, replacing the standard 480i tubes.
The problem is that lots of people will be buying these TV's as they are new, they are digital and they are almost always under $500. They allow you to take advantage of your progressive scan DVD player and if you have digital cable, you get an improved picture.
If lots of people start buying these and they become the standard for entry level television, this could slow the eventual takeover of HD. Of course it won't stop it but it may slow it.
Remember, the digital broadcasting law that is set to go into effect in 2009 does not require broadcasts to be in HD. It only mandates that they be digital. If you have an EDTV, widescreen or otherwise you will be in complete compliance with the new standards.
Also, I don't know about other regions, but in my area there are only about 8-10 HD channels available on the upper tiers of our cable provider.
I think the true HD era will begin when more than 50% of the broadcast content is in HD (I recall reading somewhere that as of 2006 only about 6 percent of the broadcast content was available in HD). Only then will the masses be compelled to upgrade to an HDTV.
darryl @ Jul 21st 2006 12:22AM
Perhaps not as many people are buying electronics during spring/summer?
noob @ Jul 21st 2006 12:25AM
um I already have 2 LCD rear projection 1080i tvs and an LCD HDTV 1080i for my xbox360 and digital cable goodness.
GO HD OR GO HOME!
1080p on the other hand i don't think i will be getting, since cable networks most likely will never be 1080p, so 1080i is worth the investment.
pete @ Jul 21st 2006 2:00AM
Well the US is the main market for this sort of tv (The rest of the world really doesn't give a shit for the most part). And the US economy is also slowing down at the moment. Combine that with the fact that most people in America don't really give a shit about HD either.
When people have less money to spend why would they buy a tv that is not only expensive, but also confusing, and even more they would have to have other expensive equiptment in order to really get anything out of their purchase.
Unless you are a gamer or movie freak, and happen to have a fair bit of cash to blow there is absolutley no compelling reason to buy a HD set.
By the way, Corning, the worlds largest manufacturer of the glass used in this sort of tv has been giving a "sell" rating by Standard and Poor's recently, not a good sign for this "HD era" all the fanboys seem to want.
dsub @ Jul 21st 2006 2:15AM
the reason flat panels are failing to adopt is that...
A) A flat panel TV that actually runs at true HD resolutions (1280x720 or higher) is tough to come by and when you do com across one, they usually cost an arm and a leg. Also, plasma sets are at risk of burn in. I own a 42" plasma set and after one game on NCAA 2007, the score board is burned into the screen for the next 2-3 hours.
B) More and more people are opting for DLP/LCD projection sets. They are MUCH smaller than the old CRT sets, and in some cases, almost as small as a flat panel display. Also, you get MUCH more for your money.
For instance. A 42" Pioneer flat panel plasma display at best buy retails for $3500. It's actual resolution is only 1024x768 pixels, which is hardly true HD. For the same price, one can purchase a MASSIVE 65" Mitsubishi 1080p DLP Projection set, that's only about 2 feet deep, and has an actual resolution of 1920x1080. I'm sorry, but you'd be a damn fool to purchase the plasma over the DLP. DLP has NO RISK of screen burn, and it also offers a better picture, a larger screen, and a much lower price.
Had DLP or LCD projection technology been available 4 years ago when I bought my plasma, I never would have gone with it. Now, 4 years later, I am saving to buy a new TV. Don't get me wrong, the plasma is great, but the real deal and bang for your buck is in the DLP/LCD projection sets. End of story.
x23 @ Jul 21st 2006 4:52AM
"Don't get me wrong, the plasma is great, but the real deal and bang for your buck is in the DLP/LCD projection sets. End of story."
end of story? what about LCoS or SED? both of those look better than any existing mainstream technologies.
personally i'm digging SED more... but the LCoS sets i saw were pretty amazing. but who knows if SED will ever make it to market at this point in time.
save you all some time:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lcos
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SED-tv
niels @ Jul 21st 2006 7:49AM
ive been told to really experience HD you need a massive TV like 50", or bigger, and on regular size TVs up 40" the difference between current TV and HDTV is minimal.
do you really think people want to waste this much living room space just for a tv?
noob @ Jul 21st 2006 9:16AM
the only plasmas with the risk of burn in are the old ones. the 10th gen plasmas don't have any more burn in risk
Todd H. @ Jul 21st 2006 9:30AM
I bought a Sony Rear Projection 51" HDTV a year ago and couldn't be more happy. I got a great deal and the picture is great. Less problems with burn-in like plasmas, still possible but as long as your switch up your programming from TV to Games your fine.
For the picture quality you can't beat the price...Eventually I'll probably go with a projector, but I'll have to get a new house for that one, talk about an expensive upgrade...
Todd
http://www.proxbox360.com
Jason W @ Jul 21st 2006 9:33AM
I have 3 hdtvs. One is a small 17inch dell that is in my bedroom. It is good for nothing but watching tv in bed. I have a Samsung 32 inch tube that gives a great picture and some sweet black levels but have no dvi or hdmi. The Third is so sweet when you play the 360. Its a 42 inch DLP tv. The screen is bright and hudge and ready for the future. I was happy with the TV's I had until the 360 hit and had to take the 32 inch from the livingroom since I was spending all my time there and the wife was bitching about not getting to watch tv anymore. Once you go HD for games you dont go back.
tcc3 @ Jul 21st 2006 10:44AM
Niels, you've been misinformed. HD is a noticable difference, and you dont need a mega large screen. I have 36" HDTV and it is beautiful. Granted, a 13" tv probably doesnt matter much. But if youre shopping under 20" youre not in the market foran HDTV anyway.
Wenever I hear that little nugget it strikes me as sour grapes from the SD crowd.
Laxcat @ Jul 21st 2006 11:11AM
noob:
Alot of us are still holding out for 1080p despite cable networks. 95% of what my tv does is games or movies, and both will be all over 1080p. Plus as the line blurs more and more between the internet and cable solutions soon we'll download our tv and I'm sure 1080p options will be aplenty then.
To the issue tho, HD is still very much an elite market. And doing HD well is even more elite. It won't be popular until there are no SD tv's to buy.
Also its not so much the size of your tv that alows you to appreciate HD, but the size compared with the distance you normaly sit from it. The differences between a 30" hd tv and sdtv are not going to be that noticable at 15 feet. And even if it is to you and me, it won't be to our moms and grandmothers. And there's still alot more of them than us.
Will @ Jul 21st 2006 11:26AM
Can anybody tell me how well an Apple 23" Cinema display will work with a next gen game console? More specifically I am concerned about the 16ms. response time and the DVI limitation. Please.
SuicideNinja @ Jul 21st 2006 11:37AM
"Flat panels are getting cheaper and Sony is releasing a system with Blu-Ray for only $600"
Only $600? If only Bluray used something besides MPEG2 encoding (it supports other codecs but Sony wants to captilize more on their old worn-out codec).
Flat Panel > Next Gen movie format
They don't necessarily go hand-in-hand. There are other options. HDTVs are best for gaming anyway.
Dm @ Jul 21st 2006 11:46AM
I agree with pete. I've heard a news feed on AOTS a couple of months back that a large percentage of people who're bought HDTVs didn't know they had to get HD programming from their cable or satelite provider. They just thought it was like a regular TV where you simply hook it up without any change in their exsisting service.
Despite all the hype, I don't think we'll see High Definition era will really take off untill the prices are a lot more reasonable, and the technology becomes a lot more streamlined to the average joe.
Baboon @ Jul 21st 2006 12:23PM
I don't know about the rest of you, but as a PCS (poor college student), I am just happy to have a TV right now, let alone having the money (or space) to buy a new HDTV.
Rob Holiday @ Jul 21st 2006 1:24PM
Anyone buying a HDTV (Flap Panel/DLP/Projection) and not getting 1920x1280 resolution is just waisting their money. Most Plasma TV's are 1024x768. A 720p broadcast looks the same as 1080i broadcast on that res. I have a 60" Philips rear projection TV (1080 Res) and I can tell a big difference between Fox's 720p programming and ABC/CBS/NBC 1080i broadcasts. Especially sports (i.e. NFL Football). Philips offers a beautiful rear projection picture with a wide viewing angle, the only problem I have is convergence. The blue projector always needs adjusting.
ill trooper @ Jul 21st 2006 2:43PM
Apple display question:
It depends - since it only has DVI in, you can't hook up a 360 (or any componant-out device, but I'll use '360' in this example) to the Apple display - not without buying some sort of adaptor to make it an HD monitor (http://sewelldirect.com/gefen-hd-mate-23-apple-display.asp), or until Microsoft or someone makes a DVI-out for the 360.
Also, do you want to use it for computing as well as a gaming monitor? That Gefen box would make it so you could switch between the two.
The Dell 23" has various inputs and people on the net have posted all sorts of results with the 360 hooked up... It's a few hundred dollars cheaper, but it's also cheaper looking, design-wise. But if that's not important to you or if you think it looks fine, well, the Dell might not be a bad idea...
Personally, looks are important to me, so I own an Apple 23", it's great for computing and design, etc., but I mostly use it connected to my G5 Mac, so obviously not much gaming there.
I use it sometimes to play BF2 from my PC and it's not as fast as a CRT for response. For instance, it's harder to read people's names above their character during a fast left or right pan on-screen, like when you swing around to shoot someone behind you. It's a subtle thing but if you've gamed on both CRTs and LCDs you know what I'm talking about.
I would say if you already own the Apple display, maybe try the box linked to above. If you're thinking of buying something, and you're not planning on using it as a computer monitor, maybe consider what I did: I bought a 26" Toshiba LCD HDTV just for gaming, about $1100 and it's really nice for my set-up: sitting about 4 feet away from the screen in my gaming/computer room.
Will @ Jul 21st 2006 3:26PM
ill trooper--
Thanks for the response. I already have the 23" Apple display and only use it as a computer display. I want to wait until some sense can be made of the HD era before I commit to spending any serious money on a nice display. I really like my cinema display but am concerned that it has such a slow response time that a game console will not work properly.
Also, when I upgrade to an Inel Mac(MacBook Pro)will the Cinema display be able to handle a fast computer game?
Jay @ Jul 22nd 2006 11:01AM
Actaully I remember the genesis for this story a week or so ago. There is a surplus of LCD panels from the manufacturers. Prices will continue to drop until equillibrium.
Also, distance from and size of the screen will dictate the necessity of 1080p versus 720p. Personally, I haven't felt compelled by the HD image compared to my SVGA DLP projector (5yrs old) and 7' wide image from 15' back. Both look the same to me. The is a huge jump from SD to DVD to my eyes, but not so with HD. To each their own, but when I went looking to replace a 10-yr old 19' RCA CRT ... I came home waiting for the prices to make sense. And LCD or plasma don't impress. DLP or SED when the time comes.
FWIW, Jay
Mike @ Aug 3rd 2006 12:11PM
Well, from Canada, prices more expensive here for everything, bought a CRT 36" Samsung 5 years ago for about $800 and my couch is about 8' away from it, looks great, does the trick for me in terms of screen size and with little HD programming presently although more coming, why would I spend thousands of dollars on something more when most programs aren't even being delivered that way, and I don't play computer games and current DVD movies show excellent on this CRT? Doesn't make sense to this consumer presently at the prices shown. And I'm certainly not going from a 36" screen size to a 42" size, I want when HD programming becomes the norm, a 55" screen size, high def, excellent quality like a what I have now for no more than $2000. Think I'll wait for the new 56" Samsung that uses LED technology and see what this looks like but I'm sure it will be overpriced like all the rest out there now.