Inside Redbox is the #1 "Unofficial" Redbox Online Community for Redbox Codes, News and more. Inside Redbox is not affiliated with Redbox Automated Retail, LLC.

Backers and buyers of 3DTVs may be disappointed by recent data released by research giant Nielsen, which reveal that the majority of consumers both worldwide and in the US are unlikely to buy 3DTV sets.

According to Nielsen’s numbers, only 3% of surveyed consumers in the US expressed interest in purchasing a 3DTV during the next 12 months. That number goes up to about 10% when worldwide consumers are factored in.
buy lasix online no prescription

Still grimmer for the 3DTV movement is the percentage of American respondents who declared that they would not be purchasing 3D sets, which stands at nearly 60%.

3D in the home, at least at this point, still comes across as an overpriced gimmick to the majority of consumers, especially Americans. Do you think that perception will ever change, Insiders, or will 3DTV join the ranks of the Laser Disc and DAT in a few years?
buy amitriptyline online no prescription

(via GigaOm)

18 Responses to “Report: Majority of Consumers Not Interested in 3DTV”

  1. Visitor [Join Now]
    Egamer25 [visitor]

    Although I love the thought of 3dTV the Trouble is the TV’s are just too too too expensive to be even considered by the average consumer. they are the play thing of the rich and most of us just don’t got it.

  2. Visitor [Join Now]
    JBG [visitor]

    There is no doubt that 3D capability will be in all TVs some time in the future but it doesn’t seem like it’s anytime soon. The current technologies are simply unacceptable and I don’t see how people pay good money for them now. It seems like the existing stereoscopic principle is just not going to work because of the limitation of wearing glasses (all attempts for glass-free stereoscopic TVs have failed miserably). 3D imaging is way superior to what we have today, bigger than the transition from black&white to color, or standard to HDTV and it will be gladly accepted by people (and if you don’t think so it’s only because you haven’t seen a real example). But we’ll probably have to wait for true-3D technologies, like holography, to become feasible before that can happen, though.

    • Visitor [Join Now]
      rb [visitor]

      I dunno’. 3D gives me a headache so I’m not interested at all. I’ve always been more interested in the actual quality of/interest in the storyline of a movie than any special effects in a movie anyway.

      • Visitor [Join Now]
        JBG [visitor]

        Unless the real world gives you a headache, a true 3D solution will be just fine for you. And, needless to say, just like an HDTV can show a black&white picture, a 3D TV can show a 2D picture when the effect is needed for artistic value, but TV programming has little artistic content, anyway. Sports have a great deal to gain from 3D, just as many other shows: educational, science & technology, DIY, news, etc. One day the right technology will be there and all TVs will be 3D.

        • Visitor [Join Now]
          cyraxote [visitor]

          I’m mostly blind in my left eye, but I can get around, drive, and watch non-3D movies just fine. I can’t watch 3D movies. Doesn’t look different from a 2D movie, just more distorted.

          Your “real world” argument doesn’t hold water. I won’t bother to address “TV programming has little artistic content, anyway” because that clearly is an (uninformed) opinion.

          • Visitor [Join Now]
            rb [visitor]

            Yeah,…I think JBG didn’t get my point—-My point being that you can put lipstick on a pig, BUT it’s still a pig! You can dress a movie up with all the latest special effects available, BUT if it’s a movie with a poor/non engrossing storyline, poor acting, poor directing,etc.– all the latest special effects (lipstick) doesn’t make it anything more than the same poor quality movie dressed up with a bunch of special effects.

  3. Visitor [Join Now]
    Jamie [visitor]

    The main issues right now are that there are still a lot of consumers out there who still have not even made the jump to HD, much less 3D. Secondly is wearing the glasses. You’re just not going to find enough Joe 6 packs willing to put on special glasses to have to watch their tv. The experience is not that much of a step up from Blu Ray to make it worth it to the normal consumer.

  4. Visitor [Join Now]
    Pentiuman [visitor]

    We just got a 55″ Samsung 3d LED TV for $2,500. (We wouldn’t have spent this much, but it was store credit from a bad Sony TV return). Yes, it’s $1k more than non-3d TV’s, but the picture is awesome on some movies and many XBox360 games. And, yes, the best experiences require wearing the 3d glasses, but it is so great, it’s worth it!

  5. Visitor [Join Now]
    jaxon [visitor]

    We have a new 82″ HD/3D tv and the problem isn’t so much the cost, at least for us, the problem is lack of product! There’s only 4-5 3D movies we care to watch and how often will we RE-watch? probably only to show friends the technology. Plus, after you get the “3D” tv, you need a $400 add on kit and glasses. The glasses alone are $150 +- EACH!.. So it comes down to: Am I willing to pay $4800 to watch UP, or AVATAR? I guess so, and hoping for more decent content in the near future.. Not into sports, so the 3D football is of NO value to us.

  6. Visitor [Join Now]
    Darrell [visitor]

    They need to throw in at least 4 pair of glasses. I almost purchased a Panasonic plasma 3d, but having to pay $150 for each extra pair of glasses really turned me off. Panasonic normally includes a single pair. Of course, there are “specials” that happen where you can get the 3d BR player and 2 pair of glasses for “free”, but that needs to be a standard offering if they really want to start moving these. At least with the Panasonic plasma, their 2D image is superb, so there is incentive to buy the set for picture quality alone and not just for the 3D. Software is another issue, it just isn’t there yet and a lot of the offerings are tied to the purchase of a particular set.

  7. Visitor [Join Now]
    LizP [visitor]

    I believe the glasses are proprietary to each brand (and possibly the TV model itself as new models come out), so when you want to or need to replace your TV that investment is remade or your brand choices are limited. Also, the glasses seem likely to be lost or broken fairly often so there may frustration as you have to keep spending money on those. At the rate technology advances and changes, the glasses you need may become obsolete, hard to find, and, therefore, expensive. I have talked myself out of being interested in 3D for the foreseeable future.

  8. Member [Join Now]

    Just not that interested in 3D, either at home or at the movies. At home, recreating the theater experience would take lots & lots of dough. And at the theater, it’s fine & good to see certain films in 3D, but it just makes it more of a special visit rather than an everyday sort of experience. My point being that not every film needs to be in 3D, or HD for that matter.

  9. Visitor [Join Now]
    Jerry [visitor]

    Oh, I’m interested in 3-D alright, when the prices are more down-to-earth Indeed, the price is way too high for what you are getting and the available uses for it currently.

  10. Visitor [Join Now]
    Amy [visitor]

    What is the big deal with 3D TVs if you still have to wear the glasses? I would hope, at least, that the glasses are of better quality than the stupid ones that are way too big that we get in the theater!

    I need a new TV, but can’t even afford a regular one, let alone any special type!

  11. Visitor [Join Now]
    westsidekidx [visitor]

    I was just like everyone didn’t care much for 3d was gonna wait for the technologu to get better but sony ended up throwing a deal I couldn’t realy refuse, I was in the market for a bravia 3 led, they had one for sale 46 inch 1300 with a ps3 they got all sold out so they gave me the option of getting a 3d one for 300 more I got the tv a ps3 a blueray a veideo game and the alice and wonderland package which came with 2 glasses the 3d transmitter alice and wonderland and an hdmi cable(already had a ps3 so I sold it for 300) ended up paying the same and am amazed on the 3d it has, I thought it would be like the theatre 3d but its totally much more! It makes it have more depth far away things look farther the pic looks more clear and about everything is 3d with most the movie it shows like its gonna hit u…..unlike theatres version where ur sitting and waifting when its gonna happen….as well as some games its amazing…..don’t regret it the purchase and would recomend everyone to give it a shot if u have the money to purchase an led 240 hrz its about the same price…..I know glasses are expensive but I know they’ll go down remember when blue rays where around 500 dollars! Now they’re about 100 bucks but if they don’t I know that will scare many people away….lol guess I’m that 3percent???? Weird not really rich drive a 97 civic lol

  12. Visitor [Join Now]
    New Year [visitor]

    Big big surprise! Yawn…

  13. Member [Join Now]

    Vizio is releasing a new passive glasses model … interested to see how it does…