Michael Gartenberg Doesn’t Buy 3DTV

Michael Gartenberg might end up right about 3D’s viability, but his reasoning for why is all wrong when viewed in historical context.  While 3D could be LaserDisc, it could also be the next phase of HD – take a look at his points:

1) Cost – Yes you will need a new TV, but even now in the first year of 3D if you buy a high-end HDTV you get it for free – and the cost story isn’t  much different for Blu-ray players either.  Early adoption is never cheap but as far as new tech goes, 3D is a relative steal.  

2) Hassle – When I bought my first HDTV six years ago, there wasn’t much HD content beyond Discovery HD Theater and PBS; where anyone with DirectTV or Comcast (in select areas) already has ESPN3D with more channels coming.  3D Blu-ray titles have been slower to arrive, but at least they’re out there.  I will agree that the glasses are expensive and might be uncomfortable for some.

3) Benefit –  3D is too new and outside of sports there isn’t much content available, but in historical context that’s also no different than the HD story.  If we had judged the benefit of HDTV from Discovery HD Theater couldn’t the same thing have been said?  


It’s generally a bad idea to extrapolate larger consumer behavior from
personal experience and say "if I like it, surely everyone else will as
well." It’s a mistake that happens all the time, but there’s is one case
where I will use my personal behavior to at least start the foundation
for analysis — when I don’t want a new gadget or technology. Granted,
sometimes I’m just not the target audience, but even then I’m usually
able to remove myself from the process and say it might not be for me
but others will love this. In the case of 3D TV, however, I think my
lack of interest doesn’t bode well for the market.