Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments
Search

News for nerds, stuff that matters

Slashdot Log In

Log In

Create Account  |  Retrieve Password

CES Scorecard 2007 - What Came True; What Didn't

Posted by Zonk on Fri Dec 28, 2007 05:33 PM
from the just-a-few-weeks-away dept.
Toys Hardware Technology
narramissic writes "In the race for Consumer Electronics Show (CES) headlines, companies parade new, hot, and not-quite-ready-for-primetime products while keynote speakers rev things up with predictions for the year ahead. An ITworld article runs down the list of who stuck their necks out too far in 2007, starting with Sharp's monster 108-inch LCD. 'The set represented the biggest flat-panel TV developed -- a title it still holds today -- and came without a price but with the promise of availability during 2007. But wealthy consumers are still waiting. Sharp said recently that it is still working on plans for a commercial launch for the TV set.'"
+ -
story

Related Stories

Submission: CES Scorecard 2007: What Came True; What Didn't by narramissic (997261)
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.

CES Scorecard 2007 - What Came True; What Didn't 50 Comments More /

 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More
Loading... please wait.
  • the list of who stuck their necks out too far in 2007

    The guy killed by the tiger at the SF zoo [chron.com] on December 27 didn't make the list?

  • Am I the only one? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by InsaneProcessor (869563) on Friday December 28 2007, @05:40PM (#21843774)
    Am I the only one who read this and wondered where the rest of the article is? I found this kind of empty. They only wrote about four products and five technologies out of the 2000 vendors.

    • Am I the only one who read this and wondered where the rest of the article is? I found this kind of empty. They only wrote about four products and five technologies out of the 2000 vendors.
      No, the article was complete. You can buy the other 1991 products at Walmart.
      • It was in late 2005 that there was a big article about Atom Chip and the products that they were suppose to be developing. They were at CES 2006 but according to what I read about them they allowed no one to touch their supposedly fantastic chips(a terabyte non-volatile memory chip). If one goes to the CES 2008 site and looks at the corporation that will be present one will again find Atom Chip. It one goes to their site one will see a pitch for a 100 gigabyte(2 50 gigabyte memory devices on one chip). N

  • HD format war (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Sciros (986030) on Friday December 28 2007, @05:44PM (#21843808) Journal
    The 108" display being forgotten is all great and stuff (who cares, really) but the article focused much more on the unresolved HD format war (blu-ray vs hd-dvd) which I find funny considering JUST HOW MANY blu-ray ads I've seen on Slashdot recently. Anyway, prices have indeed dropped a good bit over time and with the slow adoption rates is it really looking like any of these formats is going to take over, let alone win over the standard DVD format, ever? I'm not sure anymore. It seems like if another couple of years go by and nothing much changes, we'll see a solid-state memory format becoming more viable as next-gen storage for media.

    Actually that would be nice, but I don't see the movie industry being too keen on that happening, and Sony will never give up on pushing a proprietary media format that they can monopolize.

  • At that size... (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Kjella (173770) on Friday December 28 2007, @05:44PM (#21843810) Homepage
    ...why not go with a projector? Honestly, the main reason to have a TV rather than a projector for small sizes is the awkwardness of placing the projector. For the big screen, place it out of the way near the ceiling and you'll have a wall full. All in all, I don't see the niche the 108" would fit even if I had lots of disposable cash.

    • Re: (Score:1, Funny)

      by Anonymous Coward
      why not go with a projector?

      Hello?? Like that would work, a projector placed on the ceiling of a hummer..

      *sigh*

      some people truly have no idea of the problems some of us face

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by timmarhy (659436)
      you can't watch a projector with any kind of light in the room, so it's useless unless it has it's own special room.

      I have a 70", 178cm JVC hdtv and it's far better then any projector i've seen.

      • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

        by bahwi (43111)
        Try a grey screen, or if you prefer screen paint(what I have). http://www.goosystems.com/ [goosystems.com]

        Works great in my well lit house with the windows. I haven't seen many TVs that compare to my HDTV projector at 120" + :D

        But to each their own. Anything over 50" is great for splitscreen on video games. Keeps me very happy.
      • I have a 70", 178cm JVC hdtv and it's far better then any projector i've seen.

        You haven't seen a good projector then.
    • Because a projector takes more room?

    • Maybe for people who have to compensate for something?

    • Re:At that size... (Score:4, Informative)

      by Lumpy (12016) on Friday December 28 2007, @07:26PM (#21844656) Homepage
      You got it. THAT is the reason there really is no market for the 108" monster plasma.

      I can ship a high end projector and screen for peanuts. a 108" monster plasma or LCD will cost me nearly $500.00 in truck freight and another $500.00 in insurance. I get so many 58" or 64" set's delivered broken it's not funny, the larger they get the more they arrive broken (glass broken from shipping)

      Also the rich people are not interested in the 108. Most want the 50" a few will buy the 58" when we spec it in the package deal at only $100.00 more and very few want the 64 as it's too damned big. Even mounted at 6 feet high over the fireplace in a gigantic parlor room it's too big. a 50" looks better and fits most decor better.

      the 108 will not be common as it's too damned big to ship, too damned big to deliver, and will require a team of 4 or more to hang it on the wall. and dont even think of putting it on a tilt bracket!

    • I'm certainly headed for a projector. I've seen a normal old DVD projected onto a wall with a nothing special projector driven by a Macbook Pro. The picture was about two meters across and it looked great. There is absolutely no point in getting HD and having the picture any smaller.

      Of course, to actually make use of a HD projector I also need to re-arrange a room, get better curtains, install a screen, buy one piece of new furniture, upgrade my amp to (at least) 5.1, buy a sub-woofer, re-cable some stu
  • And go with smaller LCD HDTV units.

    It's amazing how gullible the electronics press was, in believing that bigger is always better.

    Now, if you'll excuse me, I have to fire up the generator for my personal computer that takes up my entire basement ... I built it based on Popular Mechanics designs by hand ...

    • Actually if you have the room an older rear projection HDTV is better. I got a 50" rca scenium on clearance new in a box for $399.99 because the sheeple wont buy them anymore. Granted non projector based are quieter for the "i barely want the volume up" crowd but I like it cranking so I dont hear the fans or colorwheel.

      And with everyone being fed the 1080p marketing BS everyone is shying away from the 720p sets giving lots of bargians out there. We are buying 37" olevia sets for $200.00 each from a loca
  • I don't understand the appeal.

    I've seen a lot of LCD TVs on sale and display at various stores. The one thing they all have in common is they all look like crap. These aren't just the cheap TVs. I'm talking about multi-thousand-dollar models that just look horrible.

    Perhaps "crap" isn't an objective term. They look grainy, have flicker, pixelation, and cost a fortune.

    I saw an ad for one recently that was very proud of its "10-bit engine" capable of 1080 lines! Wow! Correct me if I'm wrong (like I have to ask

    • Re:What's the point here? (Score:5, Interesting)

      by MarcoAtWork (28889) on Friday December 28 2007, @06:37PM (#21844240)
      #1 hdtvs in stores (and sometimes in people's houses) OFTEN are displaying SD material, also often the ones that are displaying HD are running some sort of store loop with horribly super saturated colors and sometimes crappy compression. If you want to see what an HDTV can do try to get one with a hooked blueray or hd-dvd player playing a hidef movie with a good transfer.

      #2 1080p = 1920x1080, 1080 is the vertical resolution, not the horizontal. Also 108" is for people who want to sit 10' or more away from their TV, I doubt they'd sit at 2' away like you would on a computer monitor...

      I suggest you document yourself a bit more on things before thinking that HD is all hype or marketing.
      • Yeah, whoops. I did confuse those numbers. All I can say is, "It's Friday, and it's been a long year." You're right, I'm wrong, and I'm sorry.

        Still, the idea of quadrupling the resolution (540i vs 1080p) then increasing the size of the TV by 10x means that the picture will be more grainy - especially when they say you have to sit further away to get the "full viewing experience".
        • I think the choice is clear, the best viewing experience is had on a 13" CRT.

          Is that the point that you are trying to make? It sure seems like it. I'll take my HDTV TYVM!
        • My personal 'sweet spot' for my eyes and my apartment is 37"-42".

          I agree with you on the idea of having a 100"+ TV is pretty dumbfounded... I think 50"-56" should be the max available. (other than the theater/IMAX)

            • Why is everyone so negative on /.?

              Because most of us probably couldn't afford a 108" display, and probably wouldn't have anywhere to put it!

              • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

                by Jeremy Erwin (2054)
                108 inches diagonally is 94 inches wide. If you don't have a large home, it might be difficult to find 8 ft of solid uninterrupted wall (more if you want to complement it with speakers) and in some geek homes, three or four floor to ceiling bookcases may win out. And if you do have a large home, it may be more sensible to install a projector.

                .
      • That still means at 108", the TV would be (ponderpondercalculate, where's Pythagoras when you need him...) 70" high. So a pixel would be about 0.05 inches tall (or about 2mm for the metric people amongst us).

        Now, I could of course get back 10' so I won't see it anymore, but why bother buying a 108" TV then instead of simply buying a normal one and get closer?
        • Maybe because someone might want to put one up in a sports bar, or a corporate lobby, or an airport, or a millionaire's private theater for friends and family.

          No, these probably won't end up in the average person's home, but there IS a small niche market for displays this large.

      • #1 hdtvs in stores (and sometimes in people's houses) OFTEN are displaying SD material,

        Of course. The DRM system, HDCP, won't let you run multiple monitors from the same protected source. The player and monitor do a cryptographic key exchange to authenticate the monitor, then exchange session keys. So each player-to-monitor session has a unique key. You can't just split the output.

        There are multiple-output HDCP-compliant splitters. [sewelldirect.com], and they're not cheap. $750 for a 5-output unit is typical. These

    • "1080 lines! Wow! Correct me if I'm wrong (like I have to ask) but that's basically the same picture you'll get on your 1024 x 768 monitor, but blown up to be 108 inches"

      Um, no, that's the same picture you'll get on your 1728 x 1080 monitor, but blown up to be 108 inches.

    • I saw an ad for one recently that was very proud of its "10-bit engine" capable of 1080 lines! Wow! Correct me if I'm wrong (like I have to ask) but that's basically the same picture you'll get on your 1024 x 768 monitor,

      You're wrong. You seem to be confusing lines and columns.

      1080 lines would be (Something) x 1080. In the case of HDTV, 1920 x 1080, which is better than the majority of monitors.

      Besides, monitors and TVs aren't a particularly good comparison. You aren't going to be reading tiny, fine text

    • I've seen a lot of LCD TVs on sale and display at various stores. The one thing they all have in common is they all look like crap [...]

      I just went to Best Buy today and was impressed with how far LCD TVs have come. Some of them looked better than some quality DLP TVs. That was just my opinion, I'm not trying to talk anyone into getting a TV but I love my 50" LCD projection TV that is only 720p. I have to get pretty close before I notice pixelization.

      I saw an ad for one recently that was very proud

    • If you ask me, the dying breed of flat CRT TVs look the best of anything. They have great color, great contrast, look good from all angles, don't have a proeblem with non-native resolutions, and can manage to display SD content without looking like total crap. The only problem is that a 36" set is huge and heavy, and they don't get bigger than that.

      I think the main reason people buy the LCDs is mostly because of the cool factor, but they also have the advantage of being a lot smaller and less heavy.
      • It's mostly the size/weight factor in my case. I can't stand the idea of having to move a CRT display any more, unless you have a bunch of young friends who are willing to do all the heavy lifting. Once you place the sucker, you're stuck with its location.

        LCD displays? Hell of a lot easier to move around and position.

  • Sony made good on its commercialization plans and put the set on sale in Japan on Dec. 1, where it sold out almost immediately despite the ¥200,000 price tag.
    ??

    ¥200,000 is no amazing price for a small scale release with frontier technology... It's around $1,750...
  • ...but where is my goddamn JetPack [angryflower.com]?

    Tony.
    • A truck is something you can park your F-350 on.

      http://www.komatsuamerica.com/?p=equipment&f1=view&prdt_id=864 [komatsuamerica.com]
    • Some of those gigantic beasts can really cost ya. I installed a giant for USC and they had us return it before a week was over because it stopped working. This was only an $8,000 beast but yes a lot of bugs need to be worked out of TV LCD HD TV that are over 60 inch diagonal. The DLP televisions are still very good, but the larger the set, the more options have to be offered, like internet viewing and other hookups. There are some rumors that Plasma production is slowing down, but early adopters risk bein
      • I am not so sure about DLP sets. There have recently been some revelations about longevity of nanomachines and DLP chips probably fall under that same issue since they are silicon that really gets a workout as it aims the little mirrors. Also, one dead pixel and you can have a super bright pixel on your screen. I'd rather have a pixel go dark than super bright.

        Plasma sets are also having issues, suffer from burn-in, and are expensive.

        I think LCD (either reflective or transmissive) is the best bet for
        • Plasma sets are also having issues, suffer from burn-in, and are expensive.

          For a given size, plasmas are cheaper than LCDs. Granted I got a good price, but my 58" plasma (the family holiday present) was $1900. Plasma is a power hog though; I think it is rated at over 600 watts.

          • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

            by mrchaotica (681592) *

            As long as the DMD can last 5-6 years (which shouldn't be a problem), that's fine with me. My TV upgrade cycle is about that long, so what do I care if DMDs will fail after 10 years of use?

            Yeah, well you're weird! My TV is almost as old as I am, and I'll bet a large section of the market is probably more similar to me than you. (Of course, I'm admittedly not planning on getting a 108-inch LCD anytime soon either, so the point is somewhat moot.)

            • A TV as old as you? I'm not sure whether you or me are in the majority but I can't imagine having a TV that old. The oldest TV in our house (besides one we just got from one of my grandparents whose age is unknown and which sits unplugged waiting for a purpose) is about half as old as me, and that one's not used to watch TV but just as a backup in case we need 2 large TVs for playing console games. Our primary TV is only 4 years old and starting to look somewhat replaceable.

              I'm no TVplile either, no HD, Blu

              • A TV as old as you? I'm not sure whether you or me are in the majority but I can't imagine having a TV that old.

                Well you see, I'm not that old -- I'm 23. ; ) The TV is from the late 80s/early 90s; it's a hand-me-down from my parents. Aside from having only coax input (no RCA or S-video, but it is "cable-ready"), it's not much different than any other cheap analog CRT you'd find these days at Wal-Mart and the like. Oh, and it's a whopping 19".

                My parents have a 15" TV in their bedroom that's at least a deca

                • According to the CEA, [news.com] 50% of households have a digital TV. I would venture a guess that 80-90% of those were bought in the last 6 years. That would put most of the country on track with replacing their TV in the last 6 years. I don't think most people have TV manufactured in the 80s (or even the 90s) anymore.
                  • That would put most of the country on track with replacing their TV in the last 6 years.
                    You are making the (IMO crazy) assumption that most households only have one TV.

                    • Very true. To clarify, my point wasn't that most TVs are new, but rather that most households have new TVs. I think most people do have a TV in their basement that is pushing 10 years. However, it's not the primary device.
                    • I think it is fair to say that most households have at least one newish TV. I think it is also fair to say that most households would be very upset if the main TV was the only one that stayed working.

                      But TVs aren't the real problem since the TV problem is easilly solved with set top boxes and sometimes ariel upgrades. VCRs and PVRs are a much bigger problem at least in my experiance they don't get on too well with set top boxes if you want to make timed recordings reliablly and they have only moved to integ

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners. Comments are owned by the Poster. The Rest © 1997-2009 Geeknet, Inc.