Comments on: 3DTV endures setbacks, but it’s still coming right at us

By: Brandon S.

Brandon S. — Tue, 12 Jun 2012 13:23:25 +0000

The article highlights the problems without seeming to acknowledge them directly. The real problem with 3D is the lack of tv programming. And as the article stated, an inability for content providers to determine demand. I enjoy what little 3D content I can get. But I am not going to rent VOD titles at $6 per rental, all day long. That leaves me with one channel with limited on demand content (much of which is music concerts), ESPN 3D (which plays the same content over and over, and there is only so many times I can watch the same team win the same game…), and one other channel with limited, recurring programming. And even though that channel has limited content, I find myself watching things I might otherwise not, just because it is in 3D. If 3D fails, it will because of lack of programming, NOT lack of interest.

By: Ena

Ena — Wed, 16 May 2012 02:00:38 +0000

Hi Daniel, thanks for the article! Do you think we can have the smart TV which is not necessarily 3D in a connected home? It takes a while for the adoption rate to spread out..

By: Rich

Rich — Tue, 15 May 2012 21:20:50 +0000

3DTV needs to lose the glasses. Once that happens it will gradually take off, led by sports broadcasts, and eventually it will become dominant.

By: Brian S.

Brian S. — Tue, 15 May 2012 16:49:06 +0000

It’s because people are waiting for glasses free models. I know I am!

By: Steve

Steve — Tue, 15 May 2012 12:16:02 +0000

3DTV isn’t “circling the drain” because the tub was never filled to begin with.