3D-TV no hit with viewers

[Smokey]

http://www.gannett-cdn.com/media/USATODAY/USATODAY/2012/09/29/ap-3-d-tv-x-large.jpg
ESPN producer Phil Orlins shows a 3-D camera setup.

LOS ANGELES — Phil Orlins knows everything about producing TV in three dimensions including greens of Augusta National and the flying motor bikes of the X Games for ESPN's 3-D channel. But he can only guess how well his shows resonate with viewers. That's because 3-D audiences are so small they can't be measured by Nielsen's rating system.

Orlins' problem is that fewer than 115,000 American homes are tuned into 3-D channels at any one time. That's less than one-one hundredth of the 20.2 million-strong audience that saw television's highest-rated show, NCIS, this week.

ESPN 3D is one of nine 3-D channels that launched in the years following the late 2009 release of James Cameron's Avatar. Enthusiastic television executives expected Avatar to spur 3-D's transition to American living rooms, boosting sales of TVs and, they hoped, getting people to pay for 3-D channels.

That hasn't happened.

Only 2 percent of TVs in the U.S. are able to show 3-D programming which is about 6.9 million sets out of 331 million. After this year's Christmas buying rush, it is expected the number of 3-D-capable televisions in homes to jump to 19.3 million. Even so, 3-D TVs will amount to fewer than 6 percent of all sets.

At movie theaters, 3-D has attracted lots of viewers. But not at home. There's a supply problem: 3-D TV is expensive to produce, so there's not a lot of it. Of the content out there, some isn't very good. There's an equipment problem: Some people find the special glasses required for 3-D TV uncomfortable. And there's a money problem: Many wonder if it's worth the extra cost.

There's very little direct consumer demand" for 3-D, said Tom Morrod, a TV technology analyst with IHS in London. "They don't see a value with it. Consumers associate value right now with screen size and very few other features."

More info:

Who’s watching? 3-D TV is no hit with viewers (http://couriernews.suntimes.com/business/15435139-420/whos-watching-3-d-tv-is-no-hit-with-viewers.html)

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

http://www.gannett-cdn.com/media/USATODAY/USATODAY/2012/09/29/ap-3-d-tv-x-large.jpg
ESPN producer Phil Orlins shows a 3-D camera setup.

LOS ANGELES — Phil Orlins knows everything about producing TV in three dimensions including greens of Augusta National and the flying motor bikes of the X Games for ESPN's 3-D channel. But he can only guess how well his shows resonate with viewers. That's because 3-D audiences are so small they can't be measured by Nielsen's rating system.

Orlins' problem is that fewer than 115,000 American homes are tuned into 3-D channels at any one time. That's less than one-one hundredth of the 20.2 million-strong audience that saw television's highest-rated show, NCIS, this week.

ESPN 3D is one of nine 3-D channels that launched in the years following the late 2009 release of James Cameron's Avatar. Enthusiastic television executives expected Avatar to spur 3-D's transition to American living rooms, boosting sales of TVs and, they hoped, getting people to pay for 3-D channels.

That hasn't happened.

Only 2 percent of TVs in the U.S. are able to show 3-D programming which is about 6.9 million sets out of 331 million. After this year's Christmas buying rush, it is expected the number of 3-D-capable televisions in homes to jump to 19.3 million. Even so, 3-D TVs will amount to fewer than 6 percent of all sets.

At movie theaters, 3-D has attracted lots of viewers. But not at home. There's a supply problem: 3-D TV is expensive to produce, so there's not a lot of it. Of the content out there, some isn't very good. There's an equipment problem: Some people find the special glasses required for 3-D TV uncomfortable. And there's a money problem: Many wonder if it's worth the extra cost.

There's very little direct consumer demand" for 3-D, said Tom Morrod, a TV technology analyst with IHS in London. "They don't see a value with it. Consumers associate value right now with screen size and very few other features."

More info:

Who’s watching? 3-D TV is no hit with viewers (http://couriernews.suntimes.com/business/15435139-420/whos-watching-3-d-tv-is-no-hit-with-viewers.html)

Once again a misleading title. It should have read 3D Broadcast is not a hit with viewers.

While Broadcast 3D has not took off, sales of televisions here in the US are selling very well according to NDP. And the best example of this is looking at the sales of 3D bundles which happen to be selling much better than the 2D packs when a 3D movie is released on Bluray disc.

The problem with 3D broadcast is too many reruns, and not enough content. And let's not mention the premium price for that. Broadcast is not going to drive 3D, movies will and have.

[GMichael]

Thanks for starting another good thread Smokey. I don't know if 3D will "catch-on" like HD has, but I know that I do enjoy it. It brings another dimension (literally) to our viewing pleasure. Admittedly, our 3 year old refuses to wear the glasses. They are a drawback. How many people want to spend $100+ each on a bunch of glasses, just for the few times they have a party each year? So we just have the 3, and only 2 see any use.

That said, you could substitute HD for 3D in that article and it reminds me very much of what was being said back in 2005/2006.

Edit: Oh, and this part, "Enthusiastic television executives expected Avatar to spur 3-D's transition to American living rooms, boosting sales of TVs and, they hoped, getting people to pay for 3-D channels. That hasn't happened. " is kind of funny. Maybe when Avatar gets released in 3D 2 weeks from now, things will change.

[recoveryone]

Well you guys kinda hit the nail on the head, but did not go down that street to follow up on it. Sporting events are grouped watch, thus the populority of Sports bars....and tailgating and so on. The glasses are and will be the major drawback unitl they are not needed and the 3D effect is worked out within the display. Movies are more personal and viewed in smaller groups (1-5 people) were sports are a (2-10+). Now if you have that many glasses to go around and extra cash to replace the ones that get damage for those that forget they are wearing them and smash them, bend them, and whatever else may happen.

Sports may have been the leader in HD content, but I don't see it being the same for 3D.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

Well you guys kinda hit the nail on the head, but did not go down that street to follow up on it. Sporting events are grouped watch, thus the populority of Sports bars....and tailgating and so on. The glasses are and will be the major drawback unitl they are not needed and the 3D effect is worked out within the display. Movies are more personal and viewed in smaller groups (1-5 people) were sports are a (2-10+). Now if you have that many glasses to go around and extra cash to replace the ones that get damage for those that forget they are wearing them and smash them, bend them, and whatever else may happen.

Sports may have been the leader in HD content, but I don't see it being the same for 3D.

My experience with 3D has shown me the glasses have gotten more comfortable(you don't notice them as much) of better quality(little or no ghosting), and cheaper on the whole. Technically speaking, 3D is a different product than it was when it started.

Now they need more quality story telling to go along with the technical advancements.

[Smokey]

The problem with 3D broadcast is too many reruns, and not enough content. And let's not mention the premium price for that. Broadcast is not going to drive 3D, movies will and have.

But wouldn't you say that movie industry have same content problem as 3-d broadcasters as there are not too many true 3-d films made each year. Most are post production 3d effects :)


Thanks for starting another good thread Smokey. I don't know if 3D will "catch-on" like HD has, but I know that I do enjoy it. It brings another dimension (literally) to our viewing pleasure. Admittedly, our 3 year old refuses to wear the glasses. They are a drawback. How many people want to spend $100+ each on a bunch of glasses, just for the few times they have a party each year? So we just have the 3, and only 2 see any use.

My boss who bought an LG 3-D tv while back said that he can only stand the glasses for about one hour before feeling of nausea and have to stop watching. He said 3-D is fun for occasional use, but not for regular Tv watching.

[GMichael]

My boss who bought an LG 3-D tv while back said that he can only stand the glasses for about one hour before feeling of nausea and have to stop watching. He said 3-D is fun for occasional use, but not for regular Tv watching.

I guess that some peolpe have more trouble with it than others. Wifey and I have no trouble sitting through back to back 3D movies (as long as the little one isn't driving us crazy). The glasses I have fit over my normal glasses and don't bother me at all for watching. They are just a little extra work when I go to get a drink or a snack. It would be great watching 3D sports at home with the glasses on if I didn't have to interact with others in the room so often. It just becomes easier to watch in 2D and leave the glasses off. Maybe when the squirt gets a little older, it will be less of an issue.

[Smokey]

I guess that some peolpe have more trouble with it than others.

According to statics (Dr. Dominick Maino), watching 3-D is a problem for about 6 percent of Americans with certain eye problems. They simply can’t see in 3-D or suffer dizziness or nausea when watching.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

But wouldn't you say that movie industry have same content problem as 3-d broadcasters as there are not too many true 3-d films made each year. Most are post production 3d effects :)

I would say no the movie industry does not have the same problem. If you go to amazon and look up 3D Bluray, you get 771 movies. Last time I checked on 3D broadcast, there was about 20 programs.

Smoke, 3D is 3D. It does not matter anymore if it is natively shot, or stereoized in post production. Just take a look at Titanic in 3D, and you will see how far post production 3D has come. The thing is, you must spend the money, and set aside enough time in post to get it right. Cameron does this, and Warner has learned their lesson, that is for sure.

I heard they are working on The Wizard of Oz in 3D...this ought to be interesting. Star Wars was excellent in 3D.




My boss who bought an LG 3-D tv while back said that he can only stand the glasses for about one hour before feeling of nausea and have to stop watching. He said 3-D is fun for occasional use, but not for regular Tv watching.

It not the technology, it HIS eyes. I can watch 3D for hours with no problems at all. My boys are the same way. I have had many guess in my hometheater, and nobody has reported feeling sick or getting dizzy.

You cannot use the problems of a few peoples eyes to condemn the entire format.

[Smokey]

The thing is, you must spend the money, and set aside enough time in post to get it right. Cameron does this, and Warner has learned their lesson, that is for sure.

Director Micheal Bay has said that it cost between $120,000 to $150,000 per minute for post production 3D conversion which is about $20 million dollars a film. Will studios spend that kind of money for every movie (at least to do it right), or just for big blockbusters?

Of all 771 3D bluray movies on Amazon, one wonder how many movies have spend that kind of money for 3D conversion :)

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

Director Micheal Bay has said that it cost between $120,000 to $150,000 per minute for post production 3D conversion which is about $20 million dollars a film. Will studios spend that kind of money for every movie (at least to do it right), or just for big blockbusters?

The answer to that question should be pretty obvious by now. That price is a bit high, and it just does not make any sense to do 3D on all movies released. Animation costs just a fraction of that price to convert. Titantic 3D costs far less than $20 million to convert. So movies require more intensive handling than others with post 3D


Of all 771 3D bluray movies on Amazon, one wonder how many movies have spend that kind of money for 3D conversion :)

Quite a few of them where already shot in 3D. IMAX had a bunch of titles already in 3D. Animation is already designed in 3D, and can be cheaply stereoized easily and quickly.

[E-Stat]

You cannot use the problems of a few peoples eyes to condemn the entire format.
The question remains as to how prevalent this is with the general public. Is it really just a few? Have there been any studies or surveys about 3D viewing?

While I enjoy 3D, my wife and her (adopted) sister get headaches and positively refuse to watch them.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

The question remains as to how prevalent this is with the general public. Is it really just a few? Have there been any studies or surveys about 3D viewing?

While I enjoy 3D, my wife and her (adopted) sister get headaches and positively refuse to watch them.

Ralph, no one has a definitive answer on this. They are guessing about 6-10 percent of the population, but they don't mention whether in the world, or America only.

One thing that is for sure is that folks that don't like it are far more vocal about it than those that do. I love 3D, but I don't sit around enthusiastically touting my pleasure with it. Those who hate it, note their displeasure every chance they get from what I have seen.

[E-Stat]

Those who hate it, note their displeasure every chance they get from what I have seen.
Honestly, I would too if I experienced discomfort or pain watching something. This is supposed to be entertainment, right? :)

[StevenSurprenant]

My displeasure with 3D are the frame of the glasses. It's very distracting and like looking down a tunnel. This also applies to normal glasses with frames.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

I guess if folks are truely keeping up with 3D(instead of relying on past experiences), they would understand that there are 3D glasses of all sizes, including custom sizes and perscription 3D glasses to boot.

The variety and accuracy of the glasses is equally varied as well.

[RGA]

3D is not going anywhere

3DTV sales rise, but do owners care about the third dimension? | The Digital Home - CNET News (http://news.cnet.com/8301-13506_3-57329573-17/3dtv-sales-rise-but-do-owners-care-about-the-third-dimension/)

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

3D is not going anywhere

3DTV sales rise, but do owners care about the third dimension? | The Digital Home - CNET News (http://news.cnet.com/8301-13506_3-57329573-17/3dtv-sales-rise-but-do-owners-care-about-the-third-dimension/)

Are you really going to insult our intelligence with a nearly one year old opinion piece that manipulates data to make a point?

According to NDP, sales of 3DTV's have jumped pretty dramatically since last year. But that is not the most important measure since 3D is becoming less of a premium item, and more a standard feature on most televisions. 3D bundles of 3D movies are outselling their 2D counterparts by almost 2-1. Also sales of 3D glasses have also dramatically risen, along with 3D projector sales - all according to NDP.

So 3D may not be going anywhere in your apartment, but they are going somewhere everywhere else.

[RGA]

Please provide a website that shows a poll taken of how 3D tv buyers are "primarily" using their sets - what percentage of time they watch in 3D, how many titles they purchase in 3D in the first 3 months versus beyond 3 months etc. I'll be happy to read "evidence" and statistics by said poll industries.


"According to the international accounting and consulting firm [Deloitte], 83 percent of consumers say that 3D isn't enough to make them want to buy a new television. Moreover, 60 percent of respondents said they simply aren't willing to pay extra for a television with 3D capabilities. Just 21 percent of those surveyed said they would pay 10 percent more for a 3D television over a set that doesn't have the technology.

A requirement for 3D glasses tends to be a major issue for consumers, Deloitte found. The firm said 30 percent of respondents reported that they didn't like wearing 3D glasses. Deloitte Director Ed Moran said in a statement that the glasses are "a barrier to the multitasking that consumers engage in while watching TV, including surfing the Web, reading e-mail, talking on instant message, and reading books, newspapers, and magazines."

Deloitte's findings aren't good news for 3D television vendors. Several companies have been pushing 3D as the next step in home entertainment. Sony, for example, currently offers several 3D television sets. And earlier this week, the company released a PlayStation 3 firmware update that allows consumers to watch Blu-ray 3D films on their consoles.

The news gets worse for 3D vendors. Deloitte found that 31 percent of respondents think 3D does not "enhance their entertainment experience." Another 13 percent of those surveyed said they "get physically ill [or] uncomfortable after watching 3D programming."

There is a single silver lining in Deloitte's findings for vendors. According to the firm, 40 percent of Generation Y respondents said they would buy a 3D set that require glasses. Approximately 55 percent of those people said they would buy a 3D TV if glasses were not required.

Deloitte's survey was conducted by the Harrison Group in June and July. The survey included responses from 1,960 people between the ages of 14 and 75.

I don't see why one year makes a big difference - 3D TVs changed dramatically? Sales have increased because as the other article notes the prices dropped like a stone. If the TV's are pretty much the same price buying a 3D TV makes all the sense in the world

As one of the respondents noted to the first article I posted

"I bought a 3D set, but no glasses. The full line resolution with full motion was higher for the 3D set. To handle the 3D aspect, it had a more powerful image processor, so it also has better 2D performance.

I have no 3D content.

Also, my kids are not enthralled with 3D. We purposely avoided a 3D screening of the final Harry Potter film. So I think the kids are less impressed than you think. They had the same reaction to the 3DS from Nintendo. They found the 3D aspect distracting from the game play, and only use it with the 3D switched off. Nintendo would probably just as soon not hear that, but, oh well.

13% of people out of the 1960 people surveyed claim to get physically ill. That's not a big deal - Sony Playstation games come with a warning that some people will have seizures.

Bottom line - if you like it you like it. 3D is not going anywhere - it's backwards compatible and gives you options. But like Starbucks - it's not for everyone.

PS: - I liked the last three 3D films I saw in the theater - the 3D helped 2 of them distract me (in a good way) from the rather banal movies.

Prometheus was one of the best "Sounding" movies that I can recall as an added bonus.

[E-Stat]

Please provide a website that shows a poll taken of how 3D tv buyers are "primarily" using their sets - what percentage of time they watch in 3D, how many titles they purchase in 3D in the first 3 months versus beyond 3 months etc.
I was curious to see TV sales breakdowns for 2011 and projections for 2012 and beyond. What I found here (http://allthingsd.com/20120327/flat-panel-tv-sales-flatten-in-u-s/)was this:

Total 2011 televisions: 39.1 M
Total 2012 televisions: 37.1 M

Falling totals, but pretty significant shifts in 3D capable. While 3D made up only 7% of sales in 2011, the number is expected to be 15% this year.

It seems that if indeed 3D capability just becomes another standard feature, then your opening questions become less important. I would certainly like to have the capability even if only for some select movies.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

Please provide a website that shows a poll taken of how 3D tv buyers are "primarily" using their sets - what percentage of time they watch in 3D, how many titles they purchase in 3D in the first 3 months versus beyond 3 months etc. I'll be happy to read "evidence" and statistics by said poll industries.

Polls don't tell you anythng about sales. If you want to see how folks are using the 3D televisions and projectors, look at the sales figures for software and 3D glasses.

You can get those comprehensive sales reports from NDP, and they cost between $10,000-$100,000 per year based on the concentration of information you desire. I get my reports through Disney.


"According to the international accounting and consulting firm [Deloitte], 83 percent of consumers say that 3D isn't enough to make them want to buy a new television. Moreover, 60 percent of respondents said they simply aren't willing to pay extra for a television with 3D capabilities. Just 21 percent of those surveyed said they would pay 10 percent more for a 3D television over a set that doesn't have the technology.

A requirement for 3D glasses tends to be a major issue for consumers, Deloitte found. The firm said 30 percent of respondents reported that they didn't like wearing 3D glasses. Deloitte Director Ed Moran said in a statement that the glasses are "a barrier to the multitasking that consumers engage in while watching TV, including surfing the Web, reading e-mail, talking on instant message, and reading books, newspapers, and magazines."

Deloitte's findings aren't good news for 3D television vendors. Several companies have been pushing 3D as the next step in home entertainment. Sony, for example, currently offers several 3D television sets. And earlier this week, the company released a PlayStation 3 firmware update that allows consumers to watch Blu-ray 3D films on their consoles.

The news gets worse for 3D vendors. Deloitte found that 31 percent of respondents think 3D does not "enhance their entertainment experience." Another 13 percent of those surveyed said they "get physically ill [or] uncomfortable after watching 3D programming."

There is a single silver lining in Deloitte's findings for vendors. According to the firm, 40 percent of Generation Y respondents said they would buy a 3D set that require glasses. Approximately 55 percent of those people said they would buy a 3D TV if glasses were not required.

Deloitte's survey was conducted by the Harrison Group in June and July. The survey included responses from 1,960 people between the ages of 14 and 75.

I don't see why one year makes a big difference - 3D TVs changed dramatically? Sales have increased because as the other article notes the prices dropped like a stone. If the TV's are pretty much the same price buying a 3D TV makes all the sense in the world

As one of the respondents noted to the first article I posted

"I bought a 3D set, but no glasses. The full line resolution with full motion was higher for the 3D set. To handle the 3D aspect, it had a more powerful image processor, so it also has better 2D performance.

I have no 3D content.

Also, my kids are not enthralled with 3D. We purposely avoided a 3D screening of the final Harry Potter film. So I think the kids are less impressed than you think. They had the same reaction to the 3DS from Nintendo. They found the 3D aspect distracting from the game play, and only use it with the 3D switched off. Nintendo would probably just as soon not hear that, but, oh well.

13% of people out of the 1960 people surveyed claim to get physically ill. That's not a big deal - Sony Playstation games come with a warning that some people will have seizures.

Bottom line - if you like it you like it. 3D is not going anywhere - it's backwards compatible and gives you options. But like Starbucks - it's not for everyone.

PS: - I liked the last three 3D films I saw in the theater - the 3D helped 2 of them distract me (in a good way) from the rather banal movies.

Prometheus was one of the best "Sounding" movies that I can recall as an added bonus.[/QUOTE]

You really are quite stupid using polls instead of actual sales figures. And the polls you cite only covered 3DTV, not 3D software or projectors. According to 2nd quarter sales figures for 2012, 3DTV's are set to outpace 3D television sales of 2011. 3D projectors have outsold 2D projectors by 15% in the 2nd quarter, and the Avenger 3D movie bundle was 85% of all disc sales for the title. 3D Bundles now represent more than 50% of all disc sales when a 3D title is sold.

That is the sales facts, not some survey

[E-Stat]

According to 2nd quarter sales figures for 2012, 3DTV's are set to outpace 3D television sales of 2011.
Outpace increase, but far from meeting total sales numbers



That is the sales facts, not some survey
Of the total sales I referenced in my previous post of 37.1 M units, this data (http://www.forbes.com/sites/johngaudiosi/2012/08/14/can-james-cameron-save-the-struggling-3d-tv-business-with-fox-avatar-3d-blu-ray-release/) says the 3D market will be 15% this year.

If you have other data, please reference it.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

I was curious to see TV sales breakdowns for 2011 and projections for 2012 and beyond. What I found here (http://allthingsd.com/20120327/flat-panel-tv-sales-flatten-in-u-s/)was this:

Total 2011 televisions: 39.1 M
Total 2012 televisions: 37.1 M

Falling totals, but pretty significant shifts in 3D capable. While 3D made up only 7% of sales in 2011, the number is expected to be 15% this year.

Keep in mind, these are projections, not actual sales figures. While they are correct about flat panels sales being down from 2011, the percentage of 3D televisions sold in that figure is actually up.


It seems that if indeed 3D capability just becomes another standard feature, then your opening questions become less important. I would certainly like to have the capability even if only for some select movies.

It pretty much is becoming as standard now that namufacturers know they cannot sell it at a premium price

[Smokey]

Of the total sales I referenced in my previous post of 37.1 M units, this data (http://www.forbes.com/sites/johngaudiosi/2012/08/14/can-james-cameron-save-the-struggling-3d-tv-business-with-fox-avatar-3d-blu-ray-release/) says the 3D market will be 15% this year.

Even with %15 increase which include coming holiday sales, 3-D TVs only makes %6 of total TVs in US household.

[E-Stat]

Keep in mind, these are projections, not actual sales figures. While they are correct about flat panels sales being down from 2011, the percentage of 3D televisions sold in that figure is actually up.
Projection only for this year that has not yet finished. Empirically, the answer was 7.5% for 2011. Do you have any data to suggest that it will more than double as the projection I posted suggests?

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

Projection only for this year that has not yet finished. Empirically, the answer was 7.5% for 2011. Do you have any data to suggest that it will more than double as the projection I posted suggests?

NDP aggregates all 3D sales which includes 3DTV's, software and projectors. When 3D projectors are included in the mix, it does more than double the 7.5% from 2011. Also keep in mind, they are tracking 3D televisions only, projector sales are not included in that 7.5%. With projector prices falling like they are, their sales are really surging right now.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

Outpace increase, but far from meeting total sales numbers

Since we don't know what the total sales numbers are, this statement is misleading.




Of the total sales I referenced in my previous post of 37.1 M units, this data (http://www.forbes.com/sites/johngaudiosi/2012/08/14/can-james-cameron-save-the-struggling-3d-tv-business-with-fox-avatar-3d-blu-ray-release/) says the 3D market will be 15% this year.

If you have other data, please reference it.

NDP reports are what I use. That 15% is just one segment of the market. The other segment is 3D projectors - and they put 3D sales past your quoted 15%

[E-Stat]

Since we don't know what the total sales numbers are, this statement is misleading.
For 2012. For 2011, the answer was 7.5%


NDP reports are what I use.
Are you able to substantiate your claims with a link to data?

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

For 2012. For 2011, the answer was 7.5%

That's for televisions only. Do you not think including 3D projectors is important to report as well? You can watch 3D on it, and that is why people buy them. So for televisions it was 7.5%. When you add in 3D projectors, it goes well past your 7.5%



Are you able to substantiate your claims with a link to data?

Sorry, but NDP reports are not on the net. If they were, they would not be worth the money they charge for them.

[E-Stat]

Sorry, but NDP reports are not on the net. If they were, they would not be worth the money they charge for them.
So what are the numbers? Do they conflict with the linked sources I provided?

Sorry, you're not convincing anyone.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

So what are the numbers? Do they conflict with the linked sources I provided?

Sorry, you're not convincing anyone.

Yes they do conflict because your linked sources do not include 3D projector sales. The NDP reports do. Can't you get that through your thick skull? Logic would dictate if 7.5% represents televisions sales, when you include 3D projector sales, it would push the total past 7.5%

Ralph, you should know by now I am not interested in convincing you, or anyone else. According to NDP, your sales figures fall short of the overall picture. You cannot cherry pick stats, and create a whole picture out of the partial data.

[E-Stat]

Logic would dictate if 7.5% represents televisions sales, when you include 3D projector sales, it would push the total past 7.5%
Minimally.


I am not interested in convincing you, or anyone else.
Obviously because you have nothing to back your claims.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

Minimally.

You don't know that, you don't have the figures do you?




Obviously because you have nothing to back your claims.

Oh I have it alright, the problem is you don't . Sorry about that......

[E-Stat]

You don't know that, you don't have the figures do you?
You mean like your empty claims? LOL!

How many projectors does Best Buy and Wal-Mart sell for every 100 flat screens? 2? 4? Are you serious?

[E-Stat]

Even with %15 increase which include coming holiday sales, 3-D TVs only makes %6 of total TVs in US household.
Good point. It will take a while to roll over existing units.