backtop

Print 21 comment(s) - last by 3DoubleD.. on Jun 21 at 2:53 PM
Global TV shipments take a beating

Research firm DisplaySearch has published its latest Advanced Quarterly Global TV Shipment and Forecast Report covering Q1 2012. According to the data offered in the report, global LCD TV shipments have fallen for the first time ever during Q1 2012. Global LCD television shipments slipped 3% year-over-year and all other TV technologies were down in shipments as well.
 
The report found that larger screen sizes were experiencing strong growth thanks to lower panel pricing. Shipments fell slightly from Q4 2011 due to the seasonal shift from the holiday buying season. Overall global shipments in Q1 of 2012 declined 8% year-over-year to 51 million units. A reduction in shipments for LCD TVs was the biggest reason for the decline with LCD TV segment slipping 3% to 43 million units shipped.
 
“Soft demand and cautious expectations about the upcoming year in many parts of the TV supply chain have led to a slowdown in shipments,” noted Paul Gagnon, NPD DisplaySearch Director of North America TV Research. Gagnon added, “Key component prices, such as LCD panels, are not expected to decline much in 2012, and many brands are concentrating on improving their bottom line. Both of these trends will contribute to slowing unit volume among a price conscious consumer market.”
 
The LCD TV market is growing for 40-inch and larger screens thanks to a sharp decline in plasma TV demand. The average LCD TV size increased 5% year-over-year in Q1 passing 35 inches for the first time. Gains in the segment were noted in both emerging and developed markets. The market share for LCD TVs using LED backlighting also grew from 51% in Q4 of 2011 almost 56% for Q1 2012. That's up 20% from a year ago because LED backlit sets are becoming cheaper.
 
Plasma TV units continued to decline falling 18% year-over-year in Q1 2012. DisplaySearch notes that its figures show consumers are buying on price when shopping for plasma TVs.
 
The overall market for TVs with 40-inch and larger screens increased to over 37% in Q1 2012 compared to 31% market share the previous year. The increase in larger screen shipments is thanks reduce prices with 40 to 44-inch LCD TVs averaging below $600 in new 50-inch LCD TVs selling for under $1,000.

Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled
Is anyone watching "news" like this?
By bug77 on 6/20/2012 11:19:18 AM , Rating: 1
When you bring a new product to the market, people will buy it. Until they won't. There's this thing called market saturation.
As a manufacturer, I'd keep my eye on the trends so I don't overproduce, but as buyer/user? I couldn't care less how many LCDs were sold this year compared to any other period in history.




RE: Is anyone watching "news" like this?
By bah12 on 6/20/2012 1:15:27 PM , Rating: 2
And I for one love the market saturation, as hopefully it will bring 4K to market faster. The 3D gimmick was a joke, and now the hertz race is failing the OEM's too. Hopefully now they will quit releasing "features" for problems no one is complaining about, and actually learn to make an improvement that will entice an upgrade.

Gimmicks and made up problems, aren't going to make me upgrade. However a better panel certainly will.

Shocking I know but an actual upgrade to the panel itself (you know the part we look at), might sell more units. LED was nice, 3D is a joke, and anything more than 120hz for non-3D is wasted. Time for the OEM's to actually address the panel, something they've neglected for quite some time.


RE: Is anyone watching "news" like this?
By geddarkstorm on 6/20/2012 2:22:50 PM , Rating: 2
Well, admittedly, 120 hertz is darn nice compared to 60, from all the side by side viewings I've personally seen (as you say, anything above 120 is a total waste). I would certainly enjoy that as a standard feature, without any ties to 3D.

What we really need now is a new technology, like OLED or SED ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surface-conduction_el... such a sweet tech). Stuff that by its very nature is superior to LCD, with plenty of room for improvement.


RE: Is anyone watching "news" like this?
By Solandri on 6/20/2012 3:18:03 PM , Rating: 2
The whole point of 120 Hz is to smooth out 24 fps movies. 24 doesn't divide into 60 evenly. So if you're showing a 24 fps movie at 60 Hz, you have to show each movie frame for 3-2-3-2 etc TV frames. The result is that a smooth panning shot ends up looking kind of stuttered. With a 120 Hz TV, each movie frame is shown for 5 TV frames, and the panning shot remains smooth.

240 Hz is the same thing, except for 3D movies. In a 3D movie, the left eye's image is shown one frame, the right eye the next. So when showing a 24 fps 3D movie at 120 Hz, you're back at the 3-2-3-2 problem again. 240 Hz fixes that.

Some TVs have a motion smoothing algorithm which if it detects the source framerate is slower than the TV's framerate, it'll make up "in between" frames to smooth it out. This is what gives some TVs the smooth, video-like quality which some people like, others hate. But that really has nothing to do with how many Hz the TV operates at. You could do the exact same thing with a 24 fps movie on a 60 Hz TV.


By Reclaimer77 on 6/20/2012 4:11:02 PM , Rating: 1
Movies are SUPPOSED to be viewed at 24 FPS. Higher frame rates might smooth it out, but it ends up feeling fake like low-budget soap operas. 24 frames gives a "cinematic" quality to the viewing.

In my opinion, and that of many "videophiles" any feature of a TV that messes with the frame rates and motion should be turned off for viewing movies.


By bug77 on 6/20/2012 5:16:08 PM , Rating: 2
The thing is, for 240Hz, you'd need a refresh rate of a bit over 4ms - across all the color gamut. Such a thing does not exist in the LCD world, not even TN-Film can go that low and nobody uses TN-Film for TVs.


By kattanna on 6/20/2012 4:27:20 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Well, admittedly, 120 hertz is darn nice compared to 60


it is! we got a new 120hz LED tv beginning of the year when our OLD DLP finally starting giving up the ghost.

at first though it was so damn clear it was offsetting LOL now though, its just great.


By Targon on 6/21/2012 1:19:07 PM , Rating: 2
When things don't improve, people don't see a need to upgrade. Right now, we see 1080p displays, and buying a newer TV won't give you anything better than that, so why would you replace an existing 1080p display? LED replacing LCD doesn't make people feel it is better. Going from a 32 to a 40 inch or larger would do it, but if the quality of the image doesn't go up, many won't bother.

3D itself COULD be a positive change, as long as it is used for depth of field, where what you are watching looks like there is depth to the scene, but by itself shouldn't be seen as special. So, what can they do to make people want to upgrade? Larger screens at lower prices, make 120Hz standard to make those with older screens want to upgrade? Working with cable companies to come up with a way to eliminate cable boxes would be welcome(SDV included in TVs where you can register a TV with the cable provider and get all your channels would be nice).

Higher resolutions with the broadcasting industry being ready and willing to upgrade regularly would also be a selling point(which would also help the computer industry since we are still virtually locked at 1920x1080 or 1920x1200) and would encourage people to upgrade.

The real solution would be to have TVs be modular, so parts could be swapped and upgraded, and sales of parts would dominate. If you are happy with a 40 inch display, then allowing a board swap that would give you higher refresh rates, or adding things like wireless, updated TV tuners(which could be provided by cable companies), or even a higher resolution SHOULD be possible in the long term if designed properly.


It's actually much cheaper
By quiksilvr on 6/20/2012 10:52:06 AM , Rating: 2
You can easily find 40" LCDs for under $400 and 50" LCDs are going for under $600 now:

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N8...




RE: It's actually much cheaper
By Reclaimer77 on 6/20/2012 11:05:57 AM , Rating: 2
Coby?? Yeeaaah no thanks. Only two reviews, and one of them had a DOA set shipped to him lol. You would be nuts to buy that set. Coby is garbage.


RE: It's actually much cheaper
By AntiM on 6/20/2012 11:16:34 AM , Rating: 2
Cheaper isn't necessarily better. I think I would have to pass on that deal as well. I'm also a little concerned about having a LCD TV shipped; that's one item I would rather buy off the shelf.


RE: It's actually much cheaper
By Icebain on 6/20/2012 12:09:43 PM , Rating: 2
It gets shipped to the store much the same way as it gets shipped to your house. If something is wrong at a store, you have to take it back to them, while, if it's wrong from an online retailer, they schedule a pickup.


RE: It's actually much cheaper
By geddarkstorm on 6/20/2012 2:16:30 PM , Rating: 2
I bought my 32" Specter off of TigerDirect, shipped straight to me. No problems what so ever after five years.

Shipping is pretty safe. All the monitors I've had shipped to me and others have always been in perfect condition.


There may be ANOTHER Reason
By That Takes the Cake on 6/20/2012 2:32:49 PM , Rating: 2
Some families, like mine, just don't bother watching TV any more.

I just love it when I go to stores where the DirectTV salespeople walk the aisles asking people to subscribe. When I tell them I don't even have a TV they stop talking mid-sentance, mid-breath. Lovely to see.

And my kids grades have skyrocketed. And, the quiet house while people read is a REAL blessing. Precious beyond price.




By StevoLincolnite on 6/20/2012 6:09:40 PM , Rating: 2
Yep. No one watches television in my home anymore.
Bought a 32" LCD many years ago for over $1000.
The last time I think it was turned on was last year when Halo: Anniversary was released for the Xbox 360.

We have all sorta' gravitated from the lounge room at nights to our own bedrooms and play on Computers, read a book on a kindle, listen to music... etc'.


RE: There may be ANOTHER Reason
By JediJeb on 6/20/2012 6:15:56 PM , Rating: 2
If there was actually something on TV worth watching I would probably watch more myself. I am still using the 31" Mitsubishi I bought 17 years ago and it does me just fine for the few hours a week I actually watch it. Not that I don't like to watch TV, but there is just little on now that makes me sit down and watch. With Eureka ending, Dr. Who not on yet and not much else on I spend a few hours a week watching old shows on Netflix and that is about it.


Well...
By jjlj on 6/20/2012 12:08:11 PM , Rating: 2
I guess the industry is going to have to come up with another gimmick besides 3D to get me to replace my 52" LCD that I have had for over 3 years.

And no, internet enabled TV's aren't going to do it. My Win 7 PC with a TV tuner card is doing just fine hooked up to my LCD.




RE: Well...
By Targon on 6/21/2012 1:37:19 PM , Rating: 2
TV tuners don't help on many cable systems due to SDV(Switched Digital Video) and other technologies that are not supported by various cable systems. I agree that adding "Internet" features to TVs won't do it since most Blu-Ray players have those features built in anyway. Higher resolutions, better color reproduction, and so on would make a lot more sense to make people want to upgrade.


It's funny...
By aliasfox on 6/20/2012 2:28:37 PM , Rating: 2
That some of the best LCD TVs by picture quality were produced a few years ago - the Sony XBR8 and Samsung UN9000 series (I think) had locally dimmable RGB LED backlighting... and nobody cared enough to buy them. Most sidelit white LED backlit TVs have worse color accuracy/output than CCFL backlit LCDs of a couple of years ago, all so we could save a couple of inches on the depth. An aftermarket sound system is practically mandatory given how bad the sound is these days.

Even Sharp's (very nice) Elites are high polished rehashes of technology that we've had for years - white backlit (yawn) locally dimmable (had it in 2009) LCD panels are nothing new, and barely match the picture quality of old Pioneer Elites. Where's my RGB? Or 1440p? Or even 4k? Heck, at the 60-80" sizes they sell these TVs in, a 4k TV would simply use the same size pixels as ~32-40" 1080p panels.

Everyone keeps saying new technology is on the way, but color me unimpressed until I get some real picture quality improvements. The market will likely continue to flounder when your high end sets have nearly the same specs as your no-margin entry level specs, all of which have picture quality no better than what we already have...




RE: It's funny...
By 3DoubleD on 6/21/2012 2:53:58 PM , Rating: 2
Amen

I can't even look at LCD TVs knowing how much better the Pioneer Kuro's and Elites were back in the day. LCDs with all their gimmicks still offer the worst picture quality out there. Unfortunately, plasma TVs have been on the way out for a while, which is a real shame. I grabbed mine a few years ago (a pretty cheap Samsung one), but I have yet to see an LCD panel that can match it's natural looking picture. I'll admit one thing though... it's terrible in a brightly illuminated room.

In the future I envision I'll be using a projector in a specially build/designed room for serious watching and a large, cheap (why waste the money) LCD panel in some other brightly illuminated room for everything else.


It is the iTV effect
By Azethoth on 6/20/2012 7:34:13 PM , Rating: 2
Everyone* is waiting to buy the next iTV which may ship later this year. In retrospect 2012 will end up selling more LCD TVs because of this Apple effect on the market.

;-)

*"Everyone" potentially does not include haters of Apple products.




"There is a single light of science, and to brighten it anywhere is to brighten it everywhere." -- Isaac Asimov









botimage
Copyright 2013 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki