The Upshot: Under $500 for a 42-inch screen?
Posted 03.12.2009 at 2:57 pm
18 Comments
PRO-111FD
Pioneer Electronics
How could a technology be failing if it performs better and costs less than its competitor? That's probably what plasma TV makers keep asking themselves, and one we're been thinking about since both Pioneer and Vizio pulled out of the business last month. So we asked a few folks in the biz for their thoughts.
One possible answer is that the tech is pulled in two directions—toward both videophiles and bargain hunters—while LCD shoots up the middle and sweeps the most customers. (According to DisplaySearch, companies shipped about 33.5 million LCDs in the last quarter or '08 vs. about 4.4 million plasmas—though many of those LCDs were small screens.)
Plasma probably didn't look like bargain tech in the early aughts, when high-flyers were spending $5000 for a 42-inch screen. But remember that the first 40-inch LCD debuted at a forehead-smacking $10,000 back in 2004.
The huge price difference should have helped plasma, but instead it hurt. If LCD cost twice as much, it must be better, right? And as the prices of big LCDs kept dropping, the aspirational product became attainable. Why go for that old plasma junk when the new LCDs are coming out? (Ironically, plasma is actually the younger technology.) The fact they are literally brighter and shinier didn't hurt LCDs, either.
One of the big remaining plasma makers, LG, is clearly torn about how, or whether, to continue. In response to my questions, their US spokesperson, Tim Alessi gave a positive spin, saying "Both plasma and LCD have unique benefits that will satisfy the high-end consumer...LG strives to offer consumers a wide choice by offering both of these outstanding technologies." (Execs from LG, Samsung and Panasonic all elected to send me carefully crafted written replies rather than grant live interviews.)
But candid doubts came out in an article in the Korea Times in which an unnamed "LG executive" said, "Considering profitability, the plasma TV business won't be a cash-cow. Restructuring it is one possible option, though the timing is not ripe."
Related Articles
 | Introducing the PopSci Genius Guide: Home Entertainment |
Tags
Gadgets, Sean Captain, gear and gadgets, LCD, LG, panasonic, pioneer, plasma, samsung, screen, TVs, vizioHow do you sell it?
Some companies like Vizio capitalized on cheap plasmas, selling oodles at Costco. But as LCD prices kept dropping, the meager savings on un-hip plasma didn't seem to be worth it. And Vizio left the plasma business in February.
At the other extreme, you had Pioneer, which refused to make LCD on principle, because the engineers thought it looked like crap compared to plasma--specifically in terms of color, contrast and smoothness of motion.
Pioneer was one company that succeeded (for a while) in branding plasma as the high-end product, the choice of "videophile" connoisseurs. And I don’t just mean well-paid yuppies. I'm mean people who really know video quality, like Dark Knight director Chris Nolan and his cinematographer Wally Pfister (who also filmed the 2003 remake of The Italian Job), chick-flick photographer John Bailey (He's Just Not That Into You, The Sisterhood of the Travelling Pants) and the cinematographers from TV's Heroes and Mad Men.
In fact, post-production house Company 3—which handled blockbusters like Dream Girls, Sweeny Todd, Transformers and 300—tore out it's old Sony CRT monitors and replaced them with high-end Pioneer Kuro TVs to use for refining the video. I hope they bought a few spares, because Pioneer left the entire TV business in February.
Last week, I bumped into a former exec from Pioneer's US branch who didn't want me to mention his name, but had no qualms about mentioning his opinions. He thinks the brand failed precisely because the bosses back in Japan couldn't decide how to market plasma. Pioneer sets were way pricey—up to twice the cost of competitors. But that worked for high-end buyers who could see the subtle quality difference and would shell out for it.
Plasma was always a money-loser for Pioneer. But the US branch was doing pretty well compared to other divisions, he said—based largely on the ultra-pricey Elite brand sold at specialty A/V stores. "But Pioneer was producing too many TVs and also selling at lot at Best Buy. The set was twice the price of the Panasonic right next to it."
When Pioneer got out of the business, Panasonic snatched up a lot of the talent, hiring over 200 of Pioneer's TV engineers. The exec wasn't optimistic about that leading to Pioneer-like quality in Panasonic plasmas, though. "Panasonic didn't want to improve the tech," he said. "They wanted to make it cheaper."
But is that so bad? In the midst of a long recession, we still have our gadget lust—especially for TVs. (Sales still grew in the past year.) Josh Kairoff, Pioneer's former head of display engineering in the US probably did more than anyone to perfect video quality, but he recognizes that most people are not that fussy.
"Home theater and AV enthusiasts have always been about technology, while Bob and Jill consumer really don't care," he said. "They just want to watch Oprah and CSI and American Idol. Whatever provides them moving images to zone out on for the lowest cost per square inch wins."
Kairoff predicts 42-inch plasma screens dropping under $500 in the near future. And as a side benefit, they will most likely look better than the pricey LCDs they compete against.
18 Comments
To comment, please Login.
Download Our iPhone App
Stay up to date on the latest news of the future of science and technology from your iPhone with full articles, images and offline viewing
Follow Us On Twitter
Featuring every article from the magazine and website, plus links from around the Web. Also see our PopSci DIY feed
Become a Fan On Facebook
Share links with friends, comment on stories and more
December 2009: Best of What's New
In our December issue, Popular Science names the 100 best innovations of the year: bombproof wallpaper, self-parking cars, the fastest helicopter, and 97 more. Plus inventor profiles and videos.
Check out the best of what's new here.
Popular Science Photo Pool
Popular on Popsci
Most Viewed
Most Commented
Most Emailed
Today on PopSci.com
Copyright © 2009 Popular Science
A Bonnier Corporation Company. All rights reserved. Reproduction in whole or in part without permission is prohibited.
I always thought that plasma tvs didn't last long and LCD's were power hungry, but here I am stuck with a DLP.
I wondered why several companies are ditching plasma. It seems like a great technology. Good article.
Plasmas definately look better then LCD screens. The pictures seem to just blend perfectly in fluid motion. LCD screens are somewhat pixelated close up, escepcially for computer monitors. Most people seem to stay away from plasmas because they hear of burn-in and that they dont last long. But now that plasmas are getting cheaper there really is no reason not to buy that coveted 50" Plasma with 1080i for the next football game.
from Columbia, SC
Is there any truth to the rumor about the life-expectancy of a plasma TV being around 10,000 hrs? It may be the reason its losing to LCD.
The latest Panasonic and Samsung plasmas are now rated at 100,000 hours of service life, which is actually longer than the CCFL backlights on LCD TVs (and not all of them are replaceable).
Plasma had record breaking sales last year, so all the reports of the format's imminent demise are way premature. Pioneer is getting out of the TV business (though they plan to make plasma sets through March of NEXT year -- they've simply stopped all R&D activity at this time), because they had the most inefficient plants in the industry. OTOH, Vizio's business model is built around undercutting the Tier One brands. With Panasonic now selling 42" plasmas with street prices around $650 ($800 for 1080p models), Vizio no longer has any room left to undercut the name brands on the plasma side, whereas they still have maneuvering room with LCD TVs.
Also, their TVs rely on surplus plasma panel inventories from other plasma manufacturers, since all of their TVs are built by third-party outsourcers with panels sourced from Panasonic, Samsung, or LG (these companies make over 90% of the plasma panels, including those that go into rebadged TVs with a different brand name). However, for the upcoming year, those manufacturers will not increase their plant capacity, which leaves very limited inventory for Vizio's outsource partners.
Plasma has always been a smaller niche because its sales predominantly occur in the larger screen sizes. LCDs are available in the smaller sizes, which are much higher in volume.
In addition, plasma still has the perception that it's susceptible to screen burn-in, even though the newer sets have reduced the risk to a minimum. And in side by side store comparisons, plasmas have a lower maximum light output than LCD. Buyers who are unfamiliar with how a calibrated screen is supposed to look might be more wowed by the higher brightness of a LCD, because they don't look out for the other performance factors where plasma holds the advantage such as contrast/black levels, color accuracy, and motion resolution.
In general, TV makers have always set the defaults with the brightness way too high because they know that this is how a TV stands out in a brightly lit retail store/warehouse club. The brightness levels on a calibrated TV are usually way below what you see on a store's TV wall. Out-of-the-box, the plasma's brightness output is actually closer to what a calibrated output is supposed to look like.
Could the reflective quality of the glass screens in plasmas cause people to opt for an LCD instead?
5 years ago very few of us had either an lcd nor a plasma tv... technology has come a long way since then and now they are affordable enough for most of us to have one. So why would anyone really be worried about bulb life? your tv craps out in 5 years.. so what? By then the next new product will blow your old set out of the water anyways :)
LCDs are better for video games. When I did my research in June and bought a television, I found that hud elements in video games can cause burn in. There are ways around this, but we're making marginal decisions. Also: ghosting in video games.
I also found that watching material with letterboxing will burn in the plasma display, no matter how modern. So if you mostly watch movies on your display and hardly any television, you could harm it.
LCDs are better than plasmas for the average consumer. Lighter, use less power, usually cheaper, and great for game consoles. Plasmas have better color fidelity and even brightness, but LCDs are solid contenders here and most customers couldn't tell accurate color if you put a gun to their head.
Plasma started out way too expensive and did not last long. I know dozens of companies that spent huge sums only to have to replace them in a few years.
If they bring the price down like this article says and advertise a longer life that would be awesome.
I love my 100 inch DLP but the bulb costs 50% of the entire purchase price.
I think they just want to sell the bulbs for the LCD and DLP and want a consumable TV so they can increase profits.
When you're paying for video games, the last thing you need is a more expensive HD tv. It would be nice, but LCD is far more hassle free, and the myth about turning plasmas on their side, that it will instantly hurt them, is pretty widespread. I think that warning on the box hurts them if it's not true, cuz how do you get it home or move it to a new place without paying more to move it if it is true. After forking over that kind of money, why take the risk? Burning may not be as serious with plasma as it used to be, but it's still not as risky with LCD. For the average consumer, LCD is a great choice. The picture quality is good enough to satisfy most people. I have been happy with both of mine, don't see a reason to get a plasma.
It really comes down to technology adoption, VHS or Super8, Blue Ray or HD-DVD
The popular technology wins!
Think about it this way, your parents want a new TV so they ask around and all their friends have LCD, and only one has a Plasma. Inevitably, they think well since everyone has LCD it must be the better technology. And this is what it comes down to, a popularity contest.
Brian Glassman
Commercialization
Innovation Management
"And this is what it comes down to, a popularity contest.
" briang1621
Perfectly said. The only aspects where an lcd "outperforms" a plasma is in "brightness", and the non reflective screes, which have all but dissapeared as well because the lcd companies use a different coating to try and increase the percieved contrast.
All the bs about burnin and life and all that stuff is a non factor. I watched two 42" samsung plasmas on ESPN for roughly 12 hours a day for more than a year, and you know what, the only burnin i could see was on a perfectly white screen you could see a very faint shape in the bottom right corner.
I think most consumers really just dont like their money because they dont do the right kind of reasearch, because if they did, they would found they could get a better picture for a lower price, in a technology that has proven to have less issues in the larger sizes.
-If they bring the price down like this article says and advertise a longer life that would be awesome. Voices1776
Prices are down, roughly 1500 for the best panasonic on the market 50g10, 1080p, and a 100000 hr half life. no worries about life span there.
-LCDs are better for video games. When I did my research in June and bought a television, I found that hud elements in video games can cause burn in. There are ways around this, but we're making marginal decisions. Also: ghosting in video games.
-I also found that watching material with letterboxing will burn in the plasma display, no matter how modern. So if you mostly watch movies on your display and hardly any television, you could harm it.rateoforange
Again you listened to some probably college age guy who bought a westinghouse and will talk bad about plasma all day because he got a good value. If you were buying a plasma like 6 years ago, then ya i would say worry about burnin, nowadays it truly is a non-factor and you would have to purposely try to get burnin on the newer sets.
I used to get frustrated with people who would comein and they could see the better quality picture in the plasma and see the lower price and still buy an LCD because of what some guy said on the internet or what his neighbor said. Its ok though because ill laugh my way into the future enjoying the best picture available on the market for a third of what one might spend on those rediculous LED tv's.
Plasma televisions can suffer from burn-in pretty quick. If you use a DVD/Blu-ray player that has a static background when not playing a disc, be sure to turn your plasma off. Over time, it will burn in.
http://beecherbowers.com
Plasma. . . cheaper, fresher tech . . .LCD . . . Old tech, more $$ . . Doesn't make sense. But I'l tell you what does make sense. . .Verblist, where posting, buying, trading, or selling goods/services is fresh, fast, easy and free!!
-Verblist
Verblist.net
with most of us now having 360s, PS3s or the Wii no wonder plasmas screens are decreasing in popularity. LCDs don't get images burnt into the screen hence their appeal
He thinks the brand failed precisely because the bosses back in Japan couldn't decide how to market plasma.http://www.travestisohbet.net
I think plasma screens definitely burned out faster from personal experiences. I bought a Sony flatscreen from Japan last year and within 6-7 months of using it (to play games), I already need to call in the repairman.
wool area rugs
I think plasma screens definitely burned out faster from personal experiences. I bought a Sony flatscreen from Japan last year and within 6-7 months of using it (to play games), I already need to call in the repairman.
wool area rugs