Overdose
Well-known member
Andrew Everard said:Overdose said:Mmmmm,
3D Tvs spring to mind.
Which have plummeted in price, thus failing the consumer electronic companies' aspirations to put some premium value (ie pricing) into a market sector that in recent years has seen chronic price-erosion. So in that way, 3D hasn't worked for the likes of LG, Panasonic, Samsung, Sony et al...
The 3D TV price fall was not about premium products failing (never meant to be premium, merely advanced), more to do with the inception of the newest technological gimmick and that investment in the new technology is usually paid by the first tranche of customers buying ino it. The price then drops as more manufacturers join the market and after a while the investment is covered and then real price cuts begin.
Premium products usually always maintain a high price, even second hand, because in the main, they are desirable.
Overdose said:
With all due respect, you're absoluttely wrong.
Much of the thinking behind the launch of 3D TV was the fact that major consumer electronics companies had got to the point were they were no longer able to make a profit from selling TVs, so commoditised had the product become, and so low had prices fallen.
There was thus a need for a feature to enable premium prices to be charged for TVs again, thus hopefully returning some profitablity to their TV businesses. 3D was was that supposed premium feature – and yes, it was absolutely meant to be a premium feature for which premium prices could be charged.
The fact that it hasn't really worked out like that is playing a major part in the current woes of several major consumer electronics companies.
Overdose
Well-known member
If a product is considered premium simply because of its price and gimmick content, then I concede that you are right. The customers however, soon get tired of gimmikcks and only true premium products that can stand on their own quality of design and build will survive. I don't think many of the companys selling 3D really believed it would take off any more than the last two times.
Besides, it's no different to LCD, plasma or LED TVs when they first came out. Prices started high and within 6 months almost halved.
The woes of the several large companys that you mention, might have a lot to do with the current global financial crisis, not an insignificant factor in todays market, surely? People are simply not prepared to spend the amount that they used to, on non essential goods.
Besides, it's no different to LCD, plasma or LED TVs when they first came out. Prices started high and within 6 months almost halved.
The woes of the several large companys that you mention, might have a lot to do with the current global financial crisis, not an insignificant factor in todays market, surely? People are simply not prepared to spend the amount that they used to, on non essential goods.
Again you are missing the point: 3D was absolutely meant and intended by the manufacturers to be a premium feature for which premium prices could be charged.
Having been used to selling large-screen TVs for £2000+ or whatever, the manufacturers were dismayed when price pressure from retailers and other competiitors pused prices for the same screen sizes down to below £1000, or in some case much less – and this was before the 'current global financial crisis'. Now you can buy a 50in TV for not much more than £500.
Flatscreen TVs, once viewed by manufacturers as their premium product lines, had become commoditised, just as Blu-ray players and DVD machines before them: consumers were no longer paying for quality, but just wanted the biggest screen they could get for the least money.
The big TV manufacturers looked around for a 'killer app' to enable them to go back to charging serious money for TVs, and 3D was the one they landed on. That it hasn't worked as a means of boosting profitablity is indeed down to market conditions – not only the current economic situation, but again the desire of major retailers to pile high and sell cheap rather than playing on the quality of the products, determined a rapid plummeting of prices.
3D TV hasn't worked as a premium TV feature, so manufacturers are increasingly turning to internet-connected TV designs in an effort to make money – any money – from the TV business.
That it isn't working is clear from our recent news and blog coverage of the problems the TV manufacturers still have: and before one places too much emphasis on the 'current global financial crisis', it's worth considering those queues outside Apple stores to buy each new product that company launches, even when it only offers a tiny incremental advantage over the existing product, and the huge advance orders.
You don't get people queuing up to be the first to own the latest 3D TV or Smart TV, do you?
Having been used to selling large-screen TVs for £2000+ or whatever, the manufacturers were dismayed when price pressure from retailers and other competiitors pused prices for the same screen sizes down to below £1000, or in some case much less – and this was before the 'current global financial crisis'. Now you can buy a 50in TV for not much more than £500.
Flatscreen TVs, once viewed by manufacturers as their premium product lines, had become commoditised, just as Blu-ray players and DVD machines before them: consumers were no longer paying for quality, but just wanted the biggest screen they could get for the least money.
The big TV manufacturers looked around for a 'killer app' to enable them to go back to charging serious money for TVs, and 3D was the one they landed on. That it hasn't worked as a means of boosting profitablity is indeed down to market conditions – not only the current economic situation, but again the desire of major retailers to pile high and sell cheap rather than playing on the quality of the products, determined a rapid plummeting of prices.
3D TV hasn't worked as a premium TV feature, so manufacturers are increasingly turning to internet-connected TV designs in an effort to make money – any money – from the TV business.
That it isn't working is clear from our recent news and blog coverage of the problems the TV manufacturers still have: and before one places too much emphasis on the 'current global financial crisis', it's worth considering those queues outside Apple stores to buy each new product that company launches, even when it only offers a tiny incremental advantage over the existing product, and the huge advance orders.
You don't get people queuing up to be the first to own the latest 3D TV or Smart TV, do you?
Overdose
Well-known member
You don't get people queuing for TVs in the same way as an Apple product, no, but this highlights my point of TVs not being a premium product, or more importntly being seen as a premium product, regardless of what the TV manufacturers think. The TVs have no real desirability other than bigger is better, but the Apple products, all premium in the sense of design and build, are well marketed to be desirable.
The distinction between useful innovation and sales gimmicks has been lost on a lot of manufacturers, but Apple seems to be in touch with the buying public.
Again, I will maintain that 'premium' needs to be tangible, not just marketing hype or gimmick to justify the 'premium' price tag. If a product does not have more substance than this, then it will fall by the wayside or get lost in mediocrity and nobody is going to pay big money for that.
As an aside, is there any possibility of sorting out the word verification please? Replying to comments quickly is nigh on impossible. Many thanks.
The distinction between useful innovation and sales gimmicks has been lost on a lot of manufacturers, but Apple seems to be in touch with the buying public.
Again, I will maintain that 'premium' needs to be tangible, not just marketing hype or gimmick to justify the 'premium' price tag. If a product does not have more substance than this, then it will fall by the wayside or get lost in mediocrity and nobody is going to pay big money for that.
As an aside, is there any possibility of sorting out the word verification please? Replying to comments quickly is nigh on impossible. Many thanks.
nopiano
Well-known member
Your comments are interesting insights, as always, Andrew. But is this really a new phenomenon, for TVs, or vacuum cleaners for that matter? Colour TVs cost a fortune when new, and were useless really, constantly out of alignment, breaking down, enormous. Just like 3D tellys then! Ditto the early plasmas, which cost £3000 or more, but now seem ridiculous.
Panasonic and Sony, to take two premium examples, don't have to make TVs at all. If they make no money then more fool them, unless they are loss leaders for some other product or service (though quite what, I'm not sure with bluray players for under £100).
If Apple made TVs (as opposed to the confusing Apple TV box) they might look like Loewes or B&Os. They cost a fortune too, and presumably low volume. Which brings us back to the topic, because Linn is very low volume and very expensive.
I think most of their current products are over-priced, but they are pretty fantastic too. The LP12 aside, as it will forever be controversial, the Klimax DS is stunning. I could never justify one, but I am glad they exist, that Linn are still in business after 35 years, and are British.
Panasonic and Sony, to take two premium examples, don't have to make TVs at all. If they make no money then more fool them, unless they are loss leaders for some other product or service (though quite what, I'm not sure with bluray players for under £100).
If Apple made TVs (as opposed to the confusing Apple TV box) they might look like Loewes or B&Os. They cost a fortune too, and presumably low volume. Which brings us back to the topic, because Linn is very low volume and very expensive.
I think most of their current products are over-priced, but they are pretty fantastic too. The LP12 aside, as it will forever be controversial, the Klimax DS is stunning. I could never justify one, but I am glad they exist, that Linn are still in business after 35 years, and are British.
Overdose
Well-known member
I'll get back later on this debate, I've got exciting things to do, like collecting some logs. Laters.
Overdose said:
I think we're both actually making the same point: I was merely explaining how TV manufacturers see it, while IMO 3D is absolutely a pointless gimmick, and a distraction on the road to continuing improvement of TV picture quality.
Overdose said:
Should be sorted now.
lindsayt said:
By 1987 - LP12 (£471); Basik Plus (£129) / Ittok LV11 (£399); Asaka (£260) / Troika (£546) Re the 3D debate - Imo. As with any new tech, it's always a battle to see if these companies can convince Joe Public to buy into the "next big thing", and then "milk it" in the beginning, before it becomes "yesterdays news," and the price plummets. I believe that 3D is failing for at least 5 reasons ; - The public is suffering from "Technology Overload" and has been left behind scratching their heads in confusion. - The constant rendering of what they have just bought, as obsolete. In the case of 3D, that's BDP, Amp and TV. - The impracticalities of wearing glasses and the possible health risks of tricking the brain into seeing 3D, through the active shutter system - Inability to settle on one format (Active Shutter vs Polarized) that is generic across all makes. - Screen size (large for decent effect) and sweet spot (too small). Ie. It's a mess (as it currently stands). Apologies for to OP for further diversion.
Before I shell out for new kit, it has to pass Alan Sugar's "mug's eyeful" test. 3D certainly didn't!
CnoEvil said:
No need to apologise. Happy to see this enlightening debate go wherever posters want. I'm curious as to how a legacy technology can continue to thrive. Nothing can persuade me that a turntable can justify that kind of outlay EXCEPT that apparently sane people get an enviable pleasure from listening to music the old-fashioned way
Overdose
Well-known member
Talking of Regas. The Rega Planar 3 cost £147 in 1983. Applying the 2.79 multiplier again gives a modern day equivalent price of £410.
The Rega RP3 retails at £475 today.
The Rega RP3 retails at £475 today.
nopiano
Well-known member
lindsayt said:
I agree. I made an almost identical comment on Linn's own forum a few weeks ago. A couple of very exclusive international dealers had to write several paragraphs to justify the marvellous engineering advances at Linn which mean that point isn't valid. I'm not particularly convinced, but am glad both Rega and Linn seem to thrive, and offer great products (even if i can't really afford Linn any more!).
Similar threads
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram