Motorola Debuts Nano-Emissive Flat Screen 285
brain1 writes "PhysOrg is reporting that Motorola has developed a 5" flat-screen prototype display that uses carbon nanotubes. The display appears to promise lower costs for a full 40" HDTV screen bringing the price down to $400. The technology uses standard color TV phosphors, has a response time equaling CRTs', all in a package 1/8" thick. The display characteristics meet or exceed CRTs', such as fast response time, wide viewing angle, and wide operation temperature. All these are areas that LCDs are weak in. Is this the breakthrough we needed to finally make HDTV and flat-panel computer displays *really* affordable?"
Color palatte? (Score:2, Interesting)
This technology would be decent if it addresses the aforementioned problems, but isn't much of an improvement if it looks blotchy (what is this called, banding?) where colors are simil
hiding under the sheets??? (Score:2)
Last time I did that it was comic books with a flashlight and I was 9....
Not sure if it was intended, but thanks for the laugh.
Re:hiding under the sheets??? (Score:2)
Good taste in movies.
Hiding under the sheets?!? (Score:2)
I would like to thank you personally (Score:2)
ALL OF THEM.
you have made my summer.
LCD Gamut (Score:5, Informative)
When an LCD screen tries to show "black" a large portion of the backlight is still showing through. Moreover, this varies across the screen.
This is an emissive technology using the same phosphors as a CRT. Banding might be a problem, but it's insignificant compared to the color range problems on LCDs. Banding is tolerable in many applications. Shimmering and lack of contrast is not. Most LCD manufacturers don't push to avoid banding because the contrast problem makes the LCD unsuitable for color sensitive work anyway.
In fact, this should get *better* range than a CRT, because any cell can turn completely off. Any but the highest quality CRT has a problem with rise time and such. The brightness level of parts of the image affect other parts.
Re:Color palatte? (Score:3, Funny)
Lol, reminds me of my physics teacher who told us about a student who answered a question about TV's work. Apparently you have different coloured electrons, red ones, green ones and blue ones.
Re:Color palatte? (Score:3, Funny)
A race to the finish (Score:5, Interesting)
The company I work for (DuPont) is working on a different avenue. We're persusing OLEDs to replace plasma and LCDs. We'll see how things go.
Race yes, finish no. (Score:3, Interesting)
But you are correct that it will be fascinating to see if the technology stabilizes on a flat-screen format.
Re:Race yes, finish no. (Score:3, Funny)
Agreed. That's when a shift will be made to improve on mop and wetvac technology
Re:Race yes, finish no. (Score:2)
Not a chance, they'll collude and release the new technology in drips and drabs in order to stretch out the upgrade cycle as long as possible. It's all money.
Re:A race to the finish (Score:2)
Re:A race to the finish (Score:2)
This was eight or so months ago and I am betting the 80% figure must have migrated to the fifth year by now... and probably beyond the seventh year by the time the f
Timeline? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Timeline? (Score:3, Insightful)
Of course not... it's just a press release [google.com] meant to drum up business for Motorola, and generate ad revenue for PhysOrg.com.
Re:Timeline? (Score:2)
The cost estimate is almost obligatory these days when discussing flat screens. Everybody's saying "Sure, it cost $3000 now, but wait until we refine the production. It'll be $500 in a year or two." I think I first heard that claim 2 years ago.
From what I've read about flat sc
Re: Timeline? (Score:4, Interesting)
With flatscreen tech making such fast advances, I've decided to postpone replacement of my CRT as long as possible. Basically, until it dies, or the image quality goes down badly.
With most computer components, we've gotten used to something like 2-3 year life cycles. If you make a less-than-optimal purchase, too bad, but replacement will follow fairly quick.
But monitors/TV's, like washing machines, typically last quite a bit longer. So I'll be happy if my CRT lasts another year, so that better/cheaper flatscreens are on sale, when the time comes. Maybe this technology has arrived in the shops by then.
Bigger is better (Score:2)
I keep trying to come up with something witty to say, except I can't stop fantasizing about having a 40" LCD screen. Well, maybe two side-by-side for life-sized pictures of little people.
Re:Bigger is better (Score:4, Interesting)
Maybe the picture quality will be good, but so are current CRT RPTV's.
Re:Bigger is better (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Bigger is better (Score:2)
Yes, they are available today, and are bigger and cheaper than what this is going to cost.
Re:Bigger is better (Score:2)
As a consumer if I can get the same TV for a few hundred dollars off, who cares if the manufacturer is able to get a few extra % profit. Besides in the long run the for consumer electronics cost savings trickle down to the consumer and the margins become razor thin.
is this the breakthrough? Maybe (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:is this the breakthrough? Maybe (Score:2)
These issues will fall like dominoes when $400 HDTVs are released.
Cheap screens = more users = larger market = more players who want a piece = more competition = lower prices.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Re:is this the breakthrough? Maybe (Score:2)
Just a quick search on Dick Smith's website reveals These [dse.com.au] Receivers, of which 3 of the 8 are High Def.
There are plenty of them around... you really just haven't looked.
And HD TVs? Man, there's heaps... just walk into any electronics store and have a look...
You're just making stuff up.
At $400 a pop... (Score:3, Interesting)
I for could probably see myself paying that much for it, as would a large amount of geeks and/or yuppies. However, I'd say for most people, its not worth paying $400 dollars for a TV of any size or picture quality. Especially when you consider for all intensive purposes, there isn't much on teevee worth watching in HDTV.
Games and DVDs on the other hand...
Re:At $400 a pop... (Score:2)
1. Think about the savings in power consumption.
2. Remember cars were expensive before Henry Ford. (Just wait until the mass productions lower the costs)
Re:At $400 a pop... (Score:4, Informative)
For 40"???
I upgraded my TV last year, to a 540p-capable model (DAMN I wish I'd waited another year), for just about a grand... at 32" widescreen. Absolutely beautiful for progressive DVDs, but still, now I regret not having a 720p (though, at least 1080i doesn't require scaling...)
$400 for a 40" TV does not suck, at all.
However, I consider this important for a totally different reason...
This doesn't sound like an LCD. It sounds like a CRT with each pixel having its own electron gun, in an eighth of an inch thick. Think about that for a minute, and then just try to stop drooling. The thought certainly impresses me, and I only watch about an hour of TV per week.
Near-infinite brightness, perfect contrast (even "real" CRTs can't do that), pixel-addressable (ie, infinite sharpness?), lightweight and low depth, presumeably low power consumption display costing less than either a comparable CRT or LCD having all the shortcomings of either of those technologies as they exist today.
Perhaps I read more into this than I should, but if it delivers half of that, time to invest in their stock...
Re:At $400 a pop... (Score:5, Funny)
Dammit, I'm going to need some new sunglasses...
Re:At $400 a pop... (Score:2)
Re:At $400 a pop... (Score:2)
No, your Peril Sensitive ones will still work. I'm wearing mine, and I can't even see my new suntan at all!
"Infinite"? (Score:5, Funny)
You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.
Re:At $400 a pop... (Score:2)
Re:At $400 a pop... (Score:3, Funny)
You're on crack. I know a lot of people who've shelled out a lot more than that on smaller CRTs (I dropped $700+ on a Sony Wega a couple years ago).
Especially when you consider for all intensive purposes
<grammar>Not even for the more relaxed purposes!</grammar>
Re:At $400 a pop... (Score:2)
I'd also say there's a lot worth watching in HDTV. Maybe not the tonight show, but we've had ninety years of movies now and at least a few thousand of them would benefit from HDTV. And when HDTV is the norm-- and as animation and FX technology improve-- there will be plenty worth watching.
Re:At $400 a pop... (Score:3, Informative)
For all intents and purposes we're talking about $400 for a 40" television which is cheaper than it is now for a 40". Your opinion about nothing worth watching in HDTV is just that, opinion. I have a 65" Mitsubishi RPTV and HDTV makes SDTV look like ass, doesn't matter what I am watching.
You fai
Manufcatured cost... (Score:2)
That's the MANUFACTURED cost. That's not what you'd be paying for it at Best Buy. Wholesale price would probably be at least double that, and then you're looking at probably another 50% markup on top of that to give you the retail price.
So really you're probably going to be paying $1000-1500 when all is said and done. Currently an HD flat panel is going to be in the $3000+ price range. So that's
That's *manufactured* not retail cost (Score:2)
"And according to a detailed cost model analysis conducted by our firm, we estimate the manufactured cost for a 40-inch NED panel could be under $400"
Manufactured cost is not what you'll pay at retail. A little Googling uncovered this heuristic for a 6:1 manufactured vs retail cost. The ratio seems optimistic for today's razor thin margins and the commodity TV business, but it still indicates much higher retail prices.
From The Entrepreneur Network [tenonline.org]:
Re:At $400 a pop... (Score:2)
$400 for a TV isn't really that much. Plenty of people bought 19"-25" TVs at that price range 15-20 years ago, and that's when $400 was worth more than it is today. $400 for a 42" TV (which is what TFA said, not 40") will sell like hotcakes, despite the existence of very low cost competition.
By the way, the phrase is "for all intents and purposes". Widescreen anamorphic DVDs are a good reason to get a widescreen TV, even if it doesn't require HD. Cheap HDTVs will lead to most stuff on TV being in HD.
"Affordable?" (Score:5, Funny)
Not a troll (Score:4, Insightful)
I love how this got moderated "troll". Folks- digital TV is supposedly "mandated" for switchover. Except nobody's making cheap digital TVs- so people aren't buying.
People also aren't buying because current plasma and LCD units just DO NOT LAST! We have a TV in our house that is at least 15 years old, and works just fine (yes, it's got an IR remote, yes, it tunes basic cable, etc). While Motorola's press release hasn't said much about exactly how long the lifetime will be on these, if the TV industry wants consumers to buy 'em in numbers large enough to make the "mandate" possible- they'd better make them a tad more durable.
Re:Not a troll (Score:2)
Perhaps I should leave off commenting on the FCC mandated switchover since it's been discussed quite a few times other places, but it still irks me. It's going to keep coming back and biting us in the butt quite a few times even after the switchover date passes.
Who knows, maybe nanotubes will prove to be more durable in TV's than LCD's. Plus there will be the cool factor. Just like how some people like to brag "My leg brace is made from the same metal as the SR-71 Blackbird." Maybe it will be, "My TV uses
Re:Not a troll (Score:4, Informative)
You don't need a digital TV to display a digital TV signal. You need a digital TV set top box. It will plug in to any display you want: LCD, plasma, rear screen, HDLP or 15 year old CRT.
http://www.dba.org.au/index.asp?sectionID=18&so=7& sd=asc [dba.org.au]
Re:"Affordable?" (Score:2)
Will it have more than one native resolution? (Score:2)
Re:Will it have more than one native resolution? (Score:2)
1) Slower refresh rate. Can you set 8ms displays to 85Hz through DVI? This has actually improved quite a bit since they first came out.
2) Poor scaling of lower resolutions. I mean, it's nice to play a game at 1600x1200, but if your framerate suffers it's better to run 1024x768. I have yet to see an LCD scale an image as well as a CRT. It's too bad video cards don't have some sort of built in bicubic interpolation with sharpening to mitigate this effect.
3) Poor
Re:Will it have more than one native resolution? (Score:2)
I recently made the switch to an 8ms ViewSonic LCD, and while I find 1280x1024 fine for gaming, I was running everything at 1600x1200 before then.
Unfortuantely the "goddamn that's already enough" arguement doesn't hold for a lot of hardcore gamers. They'll split hairs over the difference between 100 and 150fps, as if anybody but the six million dollar man could really tell the difference.
Holding reviews till I can see it (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Holding reviews till I can see it (Score:2)
The Sony Trinitron 19" monitor I bought in 1996 for $1200 is now $120.
The Saturn we bought in 1996 for $17,000 has now depreciated to $3500 with PLENTY of life left to it.
Houses continue to appreciate. My parents had a $22000 home loan in 1972, I now have a 300,000 home loan in 2005. This home is twice the size, twice as efficient
Where's my flying car?! (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Where's my flying car?! (Score:2)
Well, almost.
Not $400 for the consumer.. (Score:2)
several key points (Score:5, Insightful)
a)PhysOrg is just a slightly more subtle version of PR Newswire. Note there's no author. Slashdot, please stop linking to crap like this. Manufacturers- if you're going to put out a press release, just call it a #@$!ing press release- and stop insulting our intelligence.
b)Manufactured cost is NOT market cost. Not even close. If a NE display lasts longer than plasma and looks equally nice- you can be damn sure it will cost MORE to the consumer.
c)They claim longer lifetime, but no range/estimate is given, even though they surely know what it is. If it's a year or two more than plasma (which is lucky to last 3-4 years), pardon me while I let out a big 'ol yawn.
d)A five-inch unit was produced because, most likely, they haven't been able to get high enough yield rates to do a 42" display. Call us when you've got something that actually resembles your target application in terms of scale.
Re:several key points (Score:2)
They do label it a press release. [google.com] The not-so-reputable sites package it up and sell it to you as news. But don't blame Motorola, blame PhysOrg for not putting (Press Release) like Yahoo does, and blame Slashdot for accepting a company's PR spam.
Re:several key points (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:several key points (Score:2)
I don't care if you copy verbatim
Re:several key points (Score:3, Insightful)
b)If it costs more, what makes you think the consumer will buy it in the first place?
c)If you had researched on nanotube displays, you'd see that it's the evolution of CRT's - hence the same (or more) lifetime.
d) This is slashdot! Why do you think we get news on the Space Elevator when it's years or decades away? Doh!
Re:several key points (Score:2)
Hmm. Slashdot picked it up and put it on the front page. I think you meant, "Manufacturers- if you're going to put out a press release, just call it a #@$!ing press release- and stop accurately assessing our intelligence."
Re:several key points (Score:2)
http://www.motorola.com/mediacenter/news/detail/0 ,
b) that's right, remember people - e = mc^2 where e is expensive, m is the manufacturers price, and c is the consumer demand.
c) not a single one of their 3 week old displays has had any problems!
d) arguably a scale issue, but problems can definitely crop up in the process when you jump up - especially 2^6ing your area.
Still Pixels (SDE) (Score:4, Interesting)
This will have similar issues that CRT's have. It will have visible SDE and generally will not have good close-up performance characteristics compared to CRT or LCD.
I do welcome our 400 dollar pricetags, but it looks like it will be a direct race with Plasma which has already dramatically improved the phosphor half-life (to that of as good or better than CRT's), reduced and removed burn-in, and good brightness and viewing angles. LCD's have one last gasp with Lumileds which look to finally improve brightness and color so that TV doesn't look like watching a flourescent tube. I think you will see 42" 16x9 for $1000 next year. I think Plasma wins. FED are going to be too far behind the engineering curves.
I really *want* to be excited. (Score:5, Interesting)
Every new display technology in the last 10 years either:
1. Is so astonishingly far from making it to market that I'll likely be blind before it gets there. (OLED, except for cell phones and the like)
2. Is touted as a quality, affordable solution, then is introduced only at the mid-high end (DLP, I'm looking at you)
3. Is never heard from again. (too many examples to list.)
I want something that's thinner and lighter than a CRT, without plasma burn-in, doesn't suffer from LCD's horrible color gamut, is sharper and cheaper than DLP, and lasts longer than OLED.
Bleh, maybe when I'm dead.
m-
Re:I really *want* to be excited. (Score:3, Insightful)
without plasma burn-in, doesn't suffer from LCD's horrible color gamut, is sharper and cheaper than DLP, and lasts longer than OLED.
I'm with the last poster, you really need a unicorn.
DLP is actually pretty sharp, any blurry DLP set is most likely a mal-adjusted set.
I really don't think LCD is that bad. Like any display technology, if a new display looks bad, it may very well be poor calibration.
OLED simply isn't ready, without breakthroughs (I ha
price isn't cost (Score:4, Insightful)
Life span? (Score:2)
TFA touts that this "could offer
Is this the breakthrough? (Score:4, Insightful)
Not if Motorola has anything to do with it.
MOTOROLA CORPORATE STRATEGY circa 1930 (CONFIDENTIAL)
1. Invent something brilliant.
2. Overprice it.
3. Watch your competitors undercut you with better products
4. Produce a "budget" model to compete with said competitors
5. Get branded the lame duck of the industry
6. Claim to have invented it and therefore have a god-given right to overcharge and underfeature it.
7. Umm
Senior executives' strategies usually outlive technologies. Unfortunately.
Re:Is this the breakthrough? (Score:2)
Does this include low power consumption like LCD? (Score:3, Interesting)
If I can get a 40 inch HDTV screen that uses as much energy as a lightbulb, it has a major impact both on heat and power usage.
Re:Does this include low power consumption like LC (Score:2)
Watchout Motorola (Score:2)
When I look arround my living room, all I see are Japanese/Korean electronics. Nothing is made in my own USA! But I know that as Americans, we invented the transistor that enbles all the magic arround us to happen
Shelf life? (Score:2)
Lower price later. Icnrease resolution (Score:2)
Unfinished Sentence (Score:4, Insightful)
As a few other have hinted at, the original statement is highly misleading. Yes, the cost of the actual parts is a factor in determining the price of a product - but it's only one of many. It's effect on the price is also inversely proportional to how much the item is a 'luxury' item or a 'necessary item.'
So need to worry if you just spent $5k on a plasma which cost the manufacturer $3k to produce. Because if it cost them only $400 to produce it, they would still have charged you $5k...and rightfully so as you were willing to pay that amount in the first place.
So this is definitely exciting news for TV manufacturers as it will serve nicely to increase the profit margin. When will we benefit? When nobody wants to pay as much for a plasma anymore - and, more importantly, doesn't.
Comparison of Each Type (Score:4, Informative)
Very Fast Response Time
Perfect Viewing Angles
Massive and Heavy
LCD:
Lower Resolutions
Bad Viewing Angles
Bad Response Times (though recent 8ms panels reduce this immensely)
Expensive
Very Nice Colors
Thin and Light
Doesn't hurt the eye
Plasma:
Dies in 5 years due to gas leakage
Rear-projector:
Yea these suck from the sides or close-up so let's not even mention these
Carbon-nanotube (CNT) based Motorola Display:
Because it uses phosphors like in CRTs, good brightness
Fast response time
Good viewing angle
Thin and light
Cheap
DOESNT NEED BACKLIGHT (no more washed-out colors in sunlight)
Longevity compared to plasmas
Though this is a 5" prototype, it is a 5" section of a larger 42" CNT grid for a large HD display, so stop bitching about this being 5 inches
Other notes: Since CNTs are small and the phosphor technology is the same as in CRTs (excite phosphor atoms to give off photons by making appropriate electrical connections using switches...in this case, CNT's) I am assuming that we can actually get large high-resolution monitors (this one is 1280 x 720) perhaps just like the crazy CRTs with 2XXX by 1XXX resolution.
Re:Comparison of Each Type (Score:3, Informative)
Projection TVs don't have the huge viewing angles that CRTs do, but in practice it's not likely a problem as long as you have a decent place for the set in your
$400? Yeah but not MSRP (Score:2)
Sure it may be $400 but then go the store and look at that price tag: at least double. They know it would still sell so why would they lower the price? They're not dumb.
What's the power consumption of one of these? (Score:2, Interesting)
Will it consume less power? Generate less heat? Will it have better update times? And, will the colours look less washed out?
If at least 3/4 of this are not solved when this displays will become commercially available, i'm sticking with the mature CRT.
Not for $400... (Score:3, Insightful)
Notwithstanding that this is a press release and quite likely vaporware, manufactured cost is not retail by far. The manufactured cost of a dual-layer DVD drive has been well under $10 for quite some time.
Add to this variuous overhead from shipping to marketing and, of course, profit! and retail may be 3-4x as much. That might be an advance, but as noted, this is only a press release which says they might have a product someday and the manufacture cost could, if they're really lucky and everything goes perfectly, be under $400.
Nothing to wet your diapers about, young SlashDotter.
1280x720 resolution at 40'? Still? (Score:2)
So yeah, this is neato, and I'm especially happy about CRT phosphors. I'm a sucker for the color richness of a CRT. I hope it doesn't flop. If I'm rich when this comes out, this might be my ne
Old News is still Good News (Score:2)
Lest we get overly excited. . . (Score:3, Informative)
Another thing that concerns me is the use of CRT-style phosphors. That means it will be subject to burn-in. Many people seem unaware of burn-in, but I expect it to become a big issue in a few years -- after the first generation of widescreen CRT and plasma sets start showing bars at either side when viewing full-screen content.
At my house we recently got a large Mitsubishi LCD panel. LCDs of course are not subject to burn-in. The wide viewing angle is impressive to me. Also, I was surprised by the default factory settings. There was no "red push" or "torch mode" or other typical kinds of programmed-in distortion to make it stand out in the showroom. I checked black level, contrast, sharpness, tint and color balance, etc. . . And I hardly changed anything from the factory settings. I just wish I had some actual HD test patterns to try on it, instead of a test DVD.
Nice display, but... (Score:2)
Samsung has had prototypes since '99 (w/ link) (Score:2)
Samsung has had this technology since 1999. It just hasn't been economical compared to LCDs. Samsung has been reluctant to undercut their own massive LCD panel investment, too.
More nanotube hype. Being at Rice University you'd think I'd be immune to the irritation by now.
Re:Very NICE press release! (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Very NICE press release! (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Very NICE press release! (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Very NICE press release! (Score:2)
Why don't they say how many lumens the new display has instad of saying "ultra bright!" Some quantity that can be traced to NIST standards.
Re:Very NICE press release! (Score:2)
Re:Very NICE press release! (Score:3, Interesting)
Toshiba has similar in production this month... (Score:5, Insightful)
Trust me, you will not see the price reduction that you hope. Even if it only costs $10 to produce, they will still sell it at $4-6k for a 40-50" screen simply because it is better then everything else. As a result of it being better then products that cost 4-5x its cost to make, its sale price will still be the same price as competing products, maybe undercutting them 5-10%, but not much more. The last thing they want it to drop the floor value of the market, which is what would happen if they actually produced and sold their own products costs. You price a product as to what the market can withstand to maximize profits, not to maximize market share. Simple macro-economics will tell you that if people are willing to pay that much for a product, then you sell it at that price point even if your product isn't that expensive. Why should you ever want to NOT take the extra money the consumers are willing to pay.
We will not see a major drop in price of HDTV's until everyone is producing these panels. Why start a price war in a market that offers you chances to make a 500% profit? Until there are at least 2 or 3 companies with similar products, we will not see a drop in prices. As a monopoly on the technology, (which you are if you are the first and only one to market), you can set your prices to whatever you feel consumers will pay.
Take this comparison. Did the price of albums drop when CD's were introduced? Heck no. We all know that it costs pennies to make the actual medium and put the data on that medium, vs dollars for tape with the same music. But you will typically pay $5-6 more for a CD then a tape, why, because the quality is better and the market can afford the price (well one could argue this, but this is the music industry's feeling). The same will be with this TV technology. It is much cheaper to make, but since it is technologically better then the others available, it will sport a higher price.
Back to the subject of my topic, Toshiba already has been demo'ing this for several months now, it debued last September/October at all the trade shows. It is pretty much the exact same idea, just with a different element used instead of carbon nanotubes for the electron stream emmitter array. Has pretty much same exact bonuses as this technology does, thin, brighter screen, much higher contrast ration (10,000:1 is quoted and measured from working screen!), full color support, refresh times faster then CRT's, less power consumption then LCD, weight about the same as LCD's, as high a pixel count as the best LCD's. In otherwords, take the best benefits of all the current TV standard technologies (plasma, LCD, CRT) and combine then best characteristics of each into one TV without any of the particular drawbacks of the different technologies (i.e. no poor contrast ratio and pixel count of Plasma's, poor contrast ratio and refresh times of LCD's, bulky size, weight and power usage of CRT's).
What this all means is if you are planning on buying a HDTV now or the near future, you absolutely are stupid if you purchase something right now and do not wait the 2-3 months for this technology to be available. You are simply throwing $2-10k down the toilet and flushing, because this stuff truely and utterly beats everything that is currently available by a VERY noticable margin.
P.S. link to photos... (Score:3, Informative)
http://i4u.com/article3233.html [i4u.com]
http://www.digitimes.com/NewsShow/Article.asp?date Publish=2005/04/21&pages=A8&seq=42 [digitimes.com]
Samsung has one too... Call it a FED (Score:4, Informative)
-Me
Re:Toshiba has similar in production this month... (Score:4, Insightful)
Henry Ford took a look at the math and saw that a well made car priced at $500 and sold to millions would yield a return 100 times greater than a $5000 luxury model sold to thousands.
Competing technologies like steam seemed to disappear from the streets, and auto makers unable or unwilling to move into mass production would soon fade out of the picture altogether.
Re:plasma? (Score:5, Informative)
Buy a projector... (Score:2)
1. It scales well (mine was a 60" at my last house and is a 90" now).
2. Viewing angle is 180 degrees.
3. The bulb is replacable so it dies before the birghtness is an issue.
4. Cost! For $1,500 you can have an HD monster screen TV.
This doesn't work in homes with an always on TV, due to bulb life, but otherwise it's a hell of a solution.
PS - A $400 manufacturing cost will still be a couple few grand at the store.
Re:Buy a projector... (Score:2)
I see way too many people with expensive TV's put them in the corner or some off angle in a room. And then they go on to haphazardly place the surround speakers in whatever location seemed good at the time.
Seriously, I don't think people want to put a projector on their ceiling or the middle of their room and reserve a large screen space because it would look "ugly" or it wouldn't fit in the "family room".
Two other serious disadvantage
Re:Wow (Score:2)
Re:Disposal? (Score:2)
Re:Killer App for HDTV (Score:3, Informative)
There was already a provision that if less than 85% of a specific market isn't able to receive a digital transmission, then the analog transmissions in that market are not required to go dark: