If I had to take an educated guess (and yes it's educated), the 60-inch-and-up market share is around 1% of the total. And while those are the most-expensive sets, price is only part of the reason.
Theoretical demand -- that's the demand as display in the "curve" where you can see quantity rising with price falling -- is lower for every since starting around 32 inches and moving up.
In other words, every larger TV has less demand irrespective of price. If one does not believe this, one is wrong. This is not some arguable proposition, so if you wish to argue it (not accusing anyone of so doing) you will do so upon deaf ears.
But understanding that there is more quantity to be sold at lower prices doesn't mean you will ever see those lower prices. First of all, it makes no sense for TV manufacturers to ever price all TVs below $1000. They've gotten people to pay from $200-10,000. Sure, the $10,000 market is tiny and uninteresting to most big CE companies, but I doubt the $3000 is uninteresting. In fact, I suspect they love its margins more than just about anything.
Second of all, because they want their cheapest TVs to sell for $200 (or whatever the floor is) and want to price size and performance higher and higher, no one has an incentive to squeeze the size-price curve down to the point where $100 buys you 10 diagonal inches.
Third of all, LCD production is getting awfully mature and the vast majority of the learning-curve effects have been wrung out of it. There is unlikely to be significantly lower costs of production over the next 5 year as there were over the previous 10 years. This is also inarguable because learning-curve effects are well understood; new technologies do not violate them; and Moore's Law type effects don't occur on things where the physical size is inherently fixed. And LCDs are inherently fixed size; a 60-inch TV has 60 inches of glass, measured diagonally.
Now, all that said, 60-inch LCDs can get cheaper than the $2,000 the cheapest ones sell for now. And they will. And when they do more will be sold. This can be seen by structuring a plausible demand curve and someone with 5 years of real industry data could actually do a remarkable job of telling you how many more will be sold at $1,500 than at $2,000.
What's harder for us to glean is whether selling more at $1,500 makes the manufacturer more money than selling fewer at $2,000. That's what's sometimes called income elasticity of demand and while someone at Samsung and LG is probably able to tell you what they think about that for, say, 2013, it really dictates pricing almost as much as temporary gluts in panel supply.
In fact, because Samsung and LG make so much of the high-end glass used in LCD TVs and Chi Mei and AUO make so much less of what any mainstream TVs in North America use, the Korean giants can actually determine how much of the bigger glass panels to make depending on where they want the pricing curve to be next year and the year after.
The CE market is fairly non-aggressive when it comes to pricing. Generally people don't go around cutting prices to try to take share from one another (I'm talking LG, Samsung, Sony, Panasonic, Toshiba, Mitsubishi, et al. here... not Insignia) because that's not really a viable profit strategy.
Vizio was a wild card, but I think a lot of people saw their aggressive pricing and assumed they were really upsetting the apple cart. Instead, they were smart guys who understood that by running at lower margins in the short run, they could semi-permanently establish a brand, retail presence, and market share that they could maintain when they stopped doing much overly aggressive price leading.
Vizio today is still priced below the majors because, well, they don't have decades of brand equity and "halo products" to command Sony-style pricing. But you don't see Vizio dictating pricing trends. Instead, they are beholden to panel suppliers lowering prices and allowing Vizio to reset their prices to maintain whatever internal margin targets are out there.
When Vizio buys good panels, they can make TVs that are probably almost (or actually) the equals of major brands. If they buy last-generation Chi Mei panels, they are not going to produce sets in league with Samsung 8000-series TVs. Not even close.
Anyway, the upshot (I'm tired of typing) is that over time we'll see the mix shift somewhat higher, but living rooms are fixed in size, wives don't generally love gigantic TVs, not all men want gigantic TVs, and none of this is affected by the price of gigantic TVs.
Fact is, some of us want gigantic TVs and we have virtually no choices. Let's hope Vizio and LG give us one next year.
There is no difference in HDMI cables. If you can see the picture without visible dropouts or sparklies, the cable is working at 100%. No other cable will display a better version of that picture. You're simply wrong if you think there is a better digital cable than one that is already working. (Oh, and plasma didn't die because of logistics problems, nor does OLED ship in big boxes because it comes from Korea.)