This is a pdf, so you'll need something like Adobe Acrobat to view it:

http://www.lighting.philips.com/gl_en/global_sites/application/projection/pdf/08_avni_01_08_strategy_indd.pdf

Interesting article, thanks for posting this. Something really needs to be done IMHO. It is a shame that so many projectors these days are almost considered "throw aways" due to high lamp prices.

The article does not explain why lamps are so expensive but rather explains how the industry is trying to find a way to lower the cost of legitimate replacements so that end users can enjoy their equipment longer and do it in a safe manner.

Unfortunately, PJ companies would rather see you buy new machines than provide lower cost replacement lamps.

When the lamp dies, it's time to upgrade.

Jim

Whether your projector is a throw-away depends on how much it cost and how often you use it. I think people would buy lamps for their $5k projectors. On the other hand, something like my HD70 would be considered a throw-away after 3 years.

Whether your projector is a throw-away depends on how much it cost and how often you use it. I think people would buy lamps for their $5k projectors. On the other hand, something like my HD70 would be considered a throw-away after 3 years.

Absolutely. But we are in the under 3K forum and many of us, myself included, would have a projector budget significantly under that figure. By the same token, if my car's worth a thousand bucks, and it's going to cost 4 or 5 hundred for it to pass the yearly inspection, that vehicle's headed to the boneyard.

Jim

When the lamp dies, it's time to upgrade.

Jim

I don't think so especially if your projector works perfectly , I mean just because a lamp dies and you have a good projector it should be an easy choice to buy a new lamp.
my Acer uses lamps that cost $199.99 anjd when my first lamp reached 1,200 hours I bought a new one and replaced the old one and stored the original as a spare..

People appear to be taking the disposability of projectors too seriously. My point is that projectors are rapidly approaching the point where you don't get them fixed. I realize that replacing a lamp is not really 'fixing' a projector but in many cases, you're spending a considerable amount of money to have a working projector again.

If you paid $1500 (or more) for a 480P projector 3 or 4 years ago, there's really no reason to put another four hundred into it. Many people may only use a projector for less than 500 hours a year. Few use it as their main video source. If this is the case, then when it dies, it's time to upgrade. There are a lot of X1 and 4805 projectors still working out there. I wouldn't recommend anyone buy a new, full priced lamp for one of these. It's just not worth it. Upgrade and enjoy where the technology has advanced to. You'll buy more projector for less money.

Jim

The article does not explain why lamps are so expensive but rather explains how the industry is trying to find a way to lower the cost of legitimate replacements so that end users can enjoy their equipment longer and do it in a safe manner.

Unfortunately, PJ companies would rather see you buy new machines than provide lower cost replacement lamps.

Actually, it does go someway to explain the high cost of 'genuine lamps'. The most obvious is: "the traditional model for the distribution of replacement
lamps involves up to seven different
transactions as the lamp
makes its way from manufacture,
to various levels within the projector
brand’s organisation, to
distributor, to reseller and finally
to the end user."

That is an unusually long supply chain for the electronics industry. I don't buy the 'high standards' argument however. It sounds like printer manufacturers justifying OEM ink that costs 6x more than generics. Sure, the OEM may very well have better quality control, but the huge markup has more to do with a monopoly than anything else.

Yes, and when legitimate replacements become available, the OEMs will install lockout chips in their lamps like HP did in its inkjet cartridges.

I don't buy the 'high standards' argument however. It sounds like printer manufacturers justifying OEM ink that costs 6x more than generics. Sure, the OEM may very well have better quality control, but the huge markup has more to do with a monopoly than anything else.

A color corrected high pressure quartz lamp with electronic ballast and control circuitry is a long way away from printer toner or ink.

Generic ink and toner have screwed up more printers in my corporation than I care to discuss. If you find a quality generic supplier, they will use good ink / toner and the results are very good but most suppliers use cheap ink / toner and the results are poor quality, fewer copies, leaking ink or toner, quicker drum replacement, ruined fusers, clogged ink heads, etc...

Except for Direct To Customer like Dell, which has 3 or 4 steps in their process, most companies use a 6 or 7 step model.

The recent toys and personal care products from China incidents should be enough to tell you that SOMETIMES QC is not what it should be.

You pay your money, you take your chances.

This is a pdf, so you'll need something like Adobe Acrobat to view it:

http://www.lighting.philips.com/gl_en/global_sites/application/projection/pdf/08_avni_01_08_strategy_indd.pdf

There's real irony in all this.
This past weekend I picked up florescent replacement lamps (complete with ballast and manufactured with mercury) for 25 cents each.

Anyway, we projectorheads will have our day soon enough with laser and LED technology.