3D Haters Readying ESPN 3D’s Grave
Soothsayer tech analyst, Philip Swann, says that “idiot TV makers spent an enormous amount of time and money” trying to get people to buy 3D TVs they didn’t want and predicts display manufacturers will give up on advertising on ESPN 3D which will result in the nascent channel’s demise.
ESPN’s response to these claims is a little more reasoned.
New television technologies have always taken time to be nurtured and grow, and this is no exception. We’re where we thought we would be 14 months in, if not farther along.
3D is quite a convenient boogeyman for those looking to explain lagging TV sales. I am reminded of the old campaign slogan from Bill Clinton which I think more appropriately explains slow display sales in today’s market, “It’s the economy, stupid!”
If you want the full-court press of 3D hate, head on over to the New York Post article.
The next big thing in TV — 3-D — is proving such a bomb with consumers, the first victim may be ESPN’s sports-in-3-D channel.
“At one point last year they were actually openly questioning whether they were going to go ahead into year two,” tech analyst Phillip Swann told The Post.
The problem is plain, he says. Most of the advertisers on ESPN 3D are the set manufacturers themselves.
And of sales of 3-D TVs show no signs they are going to pick up anytime soon.
“If those guys start to get cold feet, then I suspect ESPN 3D will bow out,” he says.
Certainly people would be
Certainly people would be willing to buy 3D televisions if they were in the market for a television because all the top end TVs include 3D
But I also suspect that the economy is providing a convenient cover for manufacturers and 3 D content companies when it seems plausible to likely that very few people think there is significant benefit to watching a show in 3 D. In my opinion it’s an interesting effect, but it just doesn’t add much
I think the biggest problem
I think the biggest problem is the availability of quality content. Even when I had ESPN3D I rarely watched it because there just wasn’t much there that I wanted to see, same for many of the 3D titles that have made their way to Blu-ray.
Maybe I’m a 3D hater, but I
Maybe I’m a 3D hater, but I think the use of 3D glasses is holding back 3D TV’s. The fact that most sets come with 2 pair limits potential buyer when they find out how much extra glasses cost. Add that to the fact people are still dont know the difference between LCD vs LED vs PLASMA and the lack of adoption of Blu Ray currently. Its almost as if the industry is trying to jump a technology that hans t even become fully adopted yet
I still say it’s the (lack of
I still say it’s the (lack of quality) content. I went to see Superman Returns, Avatar, and Tron Legacy in 3D and only Avatar was worth the 3D. Nevermind the fact that Superman Returns sucked from a story/plot perspective. The 3D was a complete waste. Tron Legacy was great from a story/plot perspective (yes, I’m in the minority) and the special effects were fantastic. But, 3D was also a complete waste in the movie. There needs to be a reason for 3D. I don’t understand the “need” for a 3D sportscast, but I haven’t watched the channel, so I have no clue if they’ve made it worthwhile.
Do I want to watch a “talk show” (i.e. sport commentary) in 3D? Nope. It’s unnecessary. Do I want to watch a UFC event in 3D? Probably not, but if they made good use of 3D and it actually added to the event, I’d be interested. The problem there is that we usually have 5 or 6 people at the house to watch the PPV and I’ll be damned if I’m buying everyone a pair of glasses!
I think the passive glasses
I think the passive glasses have a better chance of being adopted if for no other reason than it wont be so cost-prohibitive to have glasses for everyone.
But other than slasher/horror flix where you are consciously attempting to be scared (and so having things fly out towards you might be useful) i still dont see how having a 3D effect really adds anything to the viewing experience.