100"+ class panels: technology, information, sightings and practice - AVS Forum
Forum Jump: 
Reply
 
Thread Tools
post #1 of 183 Old 07-21-2013, 12:53 AM - Thread Starter
AVS Special Member
 
irkuck's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: cyberspace
Posts: 3,502
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 35 Post(s)
Liked: 63
100"+ class panels were first demonstrated at the CES 2013 and proclaimed there to appear (at exorbitant prices though) but not much information became available since. These panels are interesting as they show necessity of going beyond 1080p and challenge projectors. Technologically such panels do not seem to be challenging: they are just quadruples of current 2K panels. Whatever is produced in quadruples in the current plants can be adopted for the 100"+4K panels and thus one can easily see range of sizes possible to make: 4x50"=100", 4x55"=110", 4x60"=120", 4x65"=130". From this one can see that for the 100"+ panels no significant new investment is needed and in principle they can become affordable costing just multiples of their quarter-size ancestors if the manufacturing lots are organised suitably. Market for such panels may not be very small as they would cannibalize projector markets. Hence it seems the problem with the 100"+ panels would be mostly psychological and logistics. 100"+ would be perceived as gargantuan and difficult to install but these are not insurmountable issues if one recalls adoption of the displays which were previously thought as huge.

So let's start a thread on the 100"+ class panels anticipating their appearance and mentally preparing for their accommodation biggrin.gif.

BTW, in the above there is assumption that 100"+ = LCD. One can speculate on panels build with another technology, e.g. OLED which would add possibility of curved implementations and could be very attractive at this size. At the moment however, flat LCD is the only realistic possibility.

irkuck
irkuck is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #2 of 183 Old 07-21-2013, 02:20 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
rogo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Stop making curved screens
Posts: 30,287
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 239 Post(s)
Liked: 562
100"+ panels were demoed at CES 4-5 years ago, by the way. Sharp even built a few of those at, I believe, 108". Some went to people with too much money and a desire to just have them. Somewhere around half a million did the job...

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.)
rogo is offline  
post #3 of 183 Old 07-21-2013, 11:11 AM - Thread Starter
AVS Special Member
 
irkuck's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: cyberspace
Posts: 3,502
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 35 Post(s)
Liked: 63
On a historical note Panasonic produced reportedly 8 pieces of 152" plasma panels which were even 4K. But 4K plasma is a dino and 2K 100"+ LCD panel is a dodo. It is generally agreed that 100"+ LCD panel is obviously and naturally not 2K but 4K (and likely 8K in the future). Thus the 90" LCD TV available from Sharp looks like the biggest 2K species evolved before extinction due to the appearance of 4K.

irkuck
irkuck is offline  
post #4 of 183 Old 07-21-2013, 01:24 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
rogo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Stop making curved screens
Posts: 30,287
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 239 Post(s)
Liked: 562
I'm not going to spend much more time on this but the 103" Panasonic has been an actual, orderable product for several years (at least since 2010).

It doesn't mean your basic points are wrong, but the 100" class is not new.

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.)
rogo is offline  
post #5 of 183 Old 07-22-2013, 12:39 AM - Thread Starter
AVS Special Member
 
irkuck's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: cyberspace
Posts: 3,502
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 35 Post(s)
Liked: 63
That the 100"+ class is new is implied by the currently agreed viewpoint 4K is necessary for panels in this class. There won't be 2K panels in this class and this is important factor defining its exclusivity. Double-digit-sized panels may exist, at least for a while, in the 2K and 4K editions.

The main point is obviously when 100"+ panels will appear. I am not enthusiastic of rushing them in the style seen with the current 4K panels. They should have HDMI 2.0 support,finely zonable backlight and reasnable pricing.

irkuck
irkuck is offline  
post #6 of 183 Old 07-22-2013, 10:41 AM
Member
 
tlwiz1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 70
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 19
I think the issue becomes shipping, and then installation. These beasts would be so large and so heavy (relative to the size of the packaging) that a 3 man crew and special trucks/lifting gear (the 90" comes on a pallet) would be required. Imagine also the room needed to enter a home and get it set up. The "market" of buyers is now getting smaller, and we haven't even talked about price. People who can afford a 100+" display, would be easily swayed to buy a 4K or 8K projector and get it at 130+" on a screen.
I'm not saying I don't WISH that your idea would work out...I just don't ever see it happening. I would love the Sharp 90" and could easily get it into my house. The price tag makes me say no thanks (when a 4K isn't too much more). An 84" 4K would be sweet...but again the price. Can't do it for the $15-20,000. From a manufacturer stand-point, they look at what the market will buy, and what will best serve those buyers. I would think that the 100"+ market is so tiny in comparison to the 55-70" market that it just isn't worth the $$ in the eyes of the "bean-counters."
tlwiz1 is offline  
post #7 of 183 Old 07-22-2013, 11:40 AM - Thread Starter
AVS Special Member
 
irkuck's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: cyberspace
Posts: 3,502
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 35 Post(s)
Liked: 63
Quote:
Originally Posted by tlwiz1 View Post

I think the issue becomes shipping, and then installation. These beasts would be so large and so heavy (relative to the size of the packaging) that a 3 man crew and special trucks/lifting gear (the 90" comes on a pallet) would be required. Imagine also the room needed to enter a home and get it set up. The "market" of buyers is now getting smaller, and we haven't even talked about price. People who can afford a 100+" display, would be easily swayed to buy a 4K or 8K projector and get it at 130+" on a screen.
I'm not saying I don't WISH that your idea would work out...I just don't ever see it happening. I would love the Sharp 90" and could easily get it into my house. The price tag makes me say no thanks (when a 4K isn't too much more). An 84" 4K would be sweet...but again the price. Can't do it for the $15-20,000. From a manufacturer stand-point, they look at what the market will buy, and what will best serve those buyers. I would think that the 100"+ market is so tiny in comparison to the 55-70" market that it just isn't worth the $$ in the eyes of the "bean-counters."

I do not agree the market is tiny: 100"+ class would cannibalize large part of HT projector market and a here one can think even a 130" display is not impossible (though the market for it would be tiny. just as the number of people using 130" screens ).

Installation would simply break with traditional notion that real men do it alone. Even now installers are commonly doing Sharp 90".

Now regarding the price, I see no reason why the price of a 100+ incher should be in the Rolls Royce category. Technically these displays do not require any new technology, just new projection masks for a single big 4K display instead of quadruples of smaller 2K. High prices of the current 4K displays are just introductory anomaly and should go down rather fast.

irkuck
irkuck is offline  
post #8 of 183 Old 07-22-2013, 03:04 PM
Member
 
tlwiz1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 70
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 19
Quote:
Originally Posted by irkuck View Post

I do not agree the market is tiny: 100"+ class would cannibalize large part of HT projector market and a here one can think even a 130" display is not impossible (though the market for it would be tiny. just as the number of people using 130" screens ).

Installation would simply break with traditional notion that real men do it alone. Even now installers are commonly doing Sharp 90".

Now regarding the price, I see no reason why the price of a 100+ incher should be in the Rolls Royce category. Technically these displays do not require any new technology, just new projection masks for a single big 4K display instead of quadruples of smaller 2K. High prices of the current 4K displays are just introductory anomaly and should go down rather fast.
I hope you are right, and I am wrong. I guess I'd agree the market isn't too small, but it sure isn't a mass market. These sizes/types of units would only be available at hi-line stores. Most buyers don't shop there because they think Costco is the place to buy after "testing" the unit at Best Buy. But again...I hope you are right.
tlwiz1 is offline  
post #9 of 183 Old 07-23-2013, 02:05 AM - Thread Starter
AVS Special Member
 
irkuck's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: cyberspace
Posts: 3,502
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 35 Post(s)
Liked: 63
Quote:
Originally Posted by tlwiz1 View Post

I hope you are right, and I am wrong. I guess I'd agree the market isn't too small, but it sure isn't a mass market. These sizes/types of units would only be available at hi-line stores. Most buyers don't shop there because they think Costco is the place to buy after "testing" the unit at Best Buy. But again...I hope you are right.

What you say is the same people said years ago about 65", now 65" is everywhere.

irkuck
irkuck is offline  
post #10 of 183 Old 07-23-2013, 10:08 AM
Member
 
tlwiz1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 70
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 19
So you seriously think that those same people/number of people will want and purchase a 100+" panel. Never going to happen. You are comparing apples to oranges. The mass market is 55-65" for daily viewing. 100+" is for the enthusiast or home theater. I know tons of people with 55-65" panels and none of them woukd go bigger or buy another set.
My argument is that it doesn't make financial sense for companies to pursue this. Hell, they won't even make local-dimming sets in mass numbers. You really think they will make 100+" panels in large numbers? Who will buy them? I just don't see a large enough/justifiable market.
tlwiz1 is offline  
post #11 of 183 Old 07-23-2013, 12:14 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
rogo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Stop making curved screens
Posts: 30,287
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 239 Post(s)
Liked: 562
Only 10% of the TV market is currently in the 50" and up category. Is that growing as a proportion? Yes, but far more slowly than most AVSers think.

We engaged in a lengthy discussion ~2 years about about whether the 70" category could become "mainstream" and I expressed a great deal of skepticism that it could reach 10%. Evidence seems to suggest that is the case. And while it's true that "65 inch is everywhere" I urge everyone to visit a Best Buy or Costco and do some SKU counting. There's a big difference between being "everywhere" and being the preferred model. Keep in mind, also, that the U.S. skews larger in display purchasing than any other market and will do so essentially forever.

It's a little fraught to guess exactly how big a tiny number will be, but considering the global TV market is a ~250 million unit universe, I suspect we can reasonably conclude that 100" panels will likely not reach 5 million units anytime in the next 10 years -- if ever. Thus far, 65"-and-up TVs are, I believe, not at that level and might be closer to 1% than 2%.
tlwiz1 likes this.

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.)
rogo is offline  
post #12 of 183 Old 07-23-2013, 11:52 PM - Thread Starter
AVS Special Member
 
irkuck's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: cyberspace
Posts: 3,502
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 35 Post(s)
Liked: 63
There was no suggestion 100"+ class will be more than a small niche in the overall market. But there is basis to claim the 100"+ may become the new "65" in the sense 65" was once perceived as monster and very expensive - and the 65" is now part of every solid manufacturer line-up. A couple of factors are in favor of such claim:

- Perception of large display sizes have changed from restrictively puritanical to watch-it-like-net-porn biggrin.gif
- Appearance of 4K boosts the 100"+ case
- Producing 100"+ 4K displays does not require huge investment
- Chinese Agent is showing significant interest in panel manufacturing which should greatly reduce prices
- If the 100"+ would start cannibalizing HT projectors the market would not be smaller than e.g. for 80", but bigger (provided prices are reasonable)

irkuck
irkuck is offline  
post #13 of 183 Old 07-24-2013, 03:44 AM
AVS Special Member
 
coolscan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 1,797
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 10 Post(s)
Liked: 102
If they manage to sell and it is profitable to sell 84" 4K TV for $15-20K like the Sony and LG and $39999 for the Samsung 4K with the stand, then it will be a marked for 100" 4K TV in the future.
The Sharp 90" HD TV goes for $10999.99. and if they sell that large size a 100" is not much larger and complicated to transport and deliver.

Looking at the reports here at AVS, it seems like Sony is selling quite a number of the 84", and my guess is that if Sony had a 100" 4K TV which only cost comparatively more than the 84", much of the 84" sales would have been eaten by the 100".
People that an afford such TVs usually like "big things" even if it is just for bragging rights. Then add the rather large marked for big TV sizes that are used for all kind of display purposes in hotels, companies and shops.

Would have been interesting to know how much more labour goes into making a 100" 4K TV compared to a 84" 4K TV, because it is certainly not reflected in the price difference.

Only price quoted for a last generation 100" 4K TV is the China Star, with a price of $300K and only made to order, which is the largest hinder for such size to hit the marked at the moment.

coolscan is offline  
post #14 of 183 Old 07-24-2013, 09:31 AM - Thread Starter
AVS Special Member
 
irkuck's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: cyberspace
Posts: 3,502
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 35 Post(s)
Liked: 63
Such huge spread of prices of 84"@4K TVs (all based on LG panels?) indicates this is nascent market and companies try to make huge profits.
I do not see good reason why asymptotically the price of 84"@4K -> 4x42"@2K. Glass sheets are same, pixel pitch is same, just another mask and
no cutting of the glass into four pieces.

irkuck
irkuck is offline  
post #15 of 183 Old 07-24-2013, 05:49 PM
Member
 
tlwiz1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 70
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 19
Quote:
Originally Posted by irkuck View Post

There was no suggestion 100"+ class will be more than a small niche in the overall market. But there is basis to claim the 100"+ may become the new "65" in the sense 65" was once perceived as monster and very expensive - and the 65" is now part of every solid manufacturer line-up. A couple of factors are in favor of such claim:

- Perception of large display sizes have changed from restrictively puritanical to watch-it-like-net-porn biggrin.gif
- Appearance of 4K boosts the 100"+ case
- Producing 100"+ 4K displays does not require huge investment
- Chinese Agent is showing significant interest in panel manufacturing which should greatly reduce prices
- If the 100"+ would start cannibalizing HT projectors the market would not be smaller than e.g. for 80", but bigger (provided prices are reasonable)

I'll say it again....
I hope you're right.

I would LOVE to be able to buy a reasonably priced 100+" panel
tlwiz1 is offline  
post #16 of 183 Old 07-24-2013, 06:07 PM
Member
 
NLPsajeeth's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2013
Posts: 50
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 20
CSOT (China Star Optoelectronics Technology) is currently producing and selling a 110" 4K panel built in their Gen 8.5 fabs.

TCL, HiSense and Westinghouse are all selling built to order 4K TVs based on this panel:
http://www.theverge.com/2013/1/10/3862522/westinghouses-300000-dollar-custom-110-inch-4k-tv-isnt-for-everyone

Basically anyone with a Gen 8.5 fab can make a 110", Samsung showed one off at CES 2013:
http://reviews.cnet.com/flat-panel-tvs/samsung-110-inch-4k/4505-6482_7-35567550.html

Since yields are never 100% and demand for such displays is almost zero, it is simply way more economical to use those fabs to build 4 55" displays rather than a single 110" display.


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
(Database of 4K Displays),
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
(Database of 8K Displays),
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
(General Display Information)
NLPsajeeth is offline  
post #17 of 183 Old 07-24-2013, 08:10 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
rogo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Stop making curved screens
Posts: 30,287
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 239 Post(s)
Liked: 562
Demand at $300,000 is certainly almost zero. If they charged 2x the cost of 4 55" TVs, however, demand would be non-zero and the resulting sales would be accretive to the fab's earnings (given that yields on 55" panels are way closer to 100% than you might think).

I'd put the retail price of such a TV at $20,000. If you want to gouge the early adopters, you can go for $30,000. At $300,000, you are saying, "We don't really want to sell any of these."
tlwiz1 likes this.

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.)
rogo is offline  
post #18 of 183 Old 07-24-2013, 09:43 PM
Member
 
tlwiz1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 70
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 19
Quote:
Originally Posted by rogo View Post

"We don't really want to sell any of these."
LOL biggrin.gif
tlwiz1 is offline  
post #19 of 183 Old 07-25-2013, 02:10 AM - Thread Starter
AVS Special Member
 
irkuck's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: cyberspace
Posts: 3,502
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 35 Post(s)
Liked: 63
Quote:
Originally Posted by rogo View Post

Demand at $300,000 is certainly almost zero. If they charged 2x the cost of 4 55" TVs, however, demand would be non-zero and the resulting sales would be accretive to the fab's earnings (given that yields on 55" panels are way closer to 100% than you might think). I'd put the retail price of such a TV at $20,000. If you want to gouge the early adopters, you can go for $30,000. At $300,000, you are saying, "We don't really want to sell any of these."

Not entirely so. You forget there are people for which 300 000 is like 300 for you. It is quite reasonable strategy for a company which produces exclusive product to charge exclusivity price for it. After they reach initial sales target of e.g. 10 and saturate this market segment they can move down.

Anyway, it would be fun to know just in case how the $300 000 order is made. One contacts them by email: Dear Comrades, Please send me your 110" display you were proudly showing at the Congress of the Invincible Communist Party, or what? biggrin.gif.

irkuck
irkuck is offline  
post #20 of 183 Old 07-25-2013, 10:45 AM
AVS Special Member
 
tgm1024's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 6,433
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 436 Post(s)
Liked: 800
Quote:
Originally Posted by rogo View Post

Only 10% of the TV market is currently in the 50" and up category. Is that growing as a proportion? Yes, but far more slowly than most AVSers think.

 

What constitutes a "market"?  Is it 10% of the number of TVs, or of total revenue, or of total profits?

 

If it's the number of TVs, then that 10% number is being swayed dramatically downward by a large number of people buying budget TVs of which both 1. the profit margin and 2. the total impact on the manufacturers, are maybe questionable.

 

I tend to think of where the dollars are (gross and net) with regard to market share, not with where the people or items themselves are.


Beware the statistical correlations that sound like they're indicative of something. Drowning deaths are tightly correlated to ice cream consumption. In fact, be wary of any statistic that is stated as if it comes with a self-evident conclusion: there is no such thing.
tgm1024 is online now  
post #21 of 183 Old 07-25-2013, 10:59 AM - Thread Starter
AVS Special Member
 
irkuck's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: cyberspace
Posts: 3,502
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 35 Post(s)
Liked: 63
With the price of a 50" 4K TV getting under $1000, the real price of 100"+ 4K TV should be way below $10 000. Encouraging is that massacring the 50" prices is TCL which demoed the 110" panel.

irkuck
irkuck is offline  
post #22 of 183 Old 07-25-2013, 01:48 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
rogo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Stop making curved screens
Posts: 30,287
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 239 Post(s)
Liked: 562
Quote:
Originally Posted by irkuck View Post

Not entirely so. You forget there are people for which 300 000 is like 300 for you. It is quite reasonable strategy for a company which produces exclusive product to charge exclusivity price for it. After they reach initial sales target of e.g. 10 and saturate this market segment they can move down.

.

I don't forget that there are people like that. They live quite literally within 1 mile of my house. No, really, they do. A strategy of saturating a market of 10 and then moving down is actually stupid. On so many levels. And just to be clear, those 10 people have no idea the product even exists (well, maybe 1 does).

Quote:
Originally Posted by tgm1024 View Post

What constitutes a "market"?  Is it 10% of the number of TVs, or of total revenue, or of total profits?

If it's the number of TVs, then that 10% number is being swayed dramatically downward by a large number of people buying budget TVs of which both 1. the profit margin and 2. the total impact on the manufacturers, are maybe questionable.

I tend to think of where the dollars are (gross and net) with regard to market share, not with where the people or items themselves are.

When I refer to the market, I am talking units TGM. The "value share" of 50" TVs is much higher, but globally, they constitute 10% of all the TVs sold, so about 25 million per year. In the U.S., it's somewhat higher, but it's not >25%.

Quote:
Originally Posted by irkuck View Post

With the price of a 50" 4K TV getting under $1000, the real price of 100"+ 4K TV should be way below $10 000. Encouraging is that massacring the 50" prices is TCL which demoed the 110" panel.

Yes, it could be cheaper. And the part where your model fails is that by slowly trying to price discriminate down the curve and gouge everyone, you allow entrant after entrant after entrant to join the party. The actual profit maximizing strategy, therefore, is to never charge $300,000, but instead to sell it for something much less, actually market it, and own the category. If it were $30,000 and, say, TCL only, and good and they sold 15,000 of them worlwide this year and 25,000 next year, who would be "the 110-inch company"? Hint: The current answer is, "No one is."

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.)
rogo is offline  
post #23 of 183 Old 07-26-2013, 10:20 AM - Thread Starter
AVS Special Member
 
irkuck's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: cyberspace
Posts: 3,502
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 35 Post(s)
Liked: 63
Quote:
Originally Posted by rogo View Post

I don't forget that there are people like that. They live quite literally within 1 mile of my house. No, really, they do. A strategy of saturating a market of 10 and then moving down is actually stupid. On so many levels. And just to be clear, those 10 people have no idea the product even exists (well, maybe 1 does).
Yes, it could be cheaper. And the part where your model fails is that by slowly trying to price discriminate down the curve and gouge everyone, you allow entrant after entrant after entrant to join the party. The actual profit maximizing strategy, therefore, is to never charge $300,000, but instead to sell it for something much less, actually market it, and own the category. If it were $30,000 and, say, TCL only, and good and they sold 15,000 of them worlwide this year and 25,000 next year, who would be "the 110-inch company"? Hint: The current answer is, "No one is."

Your logic does not hold vs. reality which means it has problem somewhere. Vide the Panasonic 152" 4K plasma sold for reportedly half a million with reportedly good number of tens actually sold and reportedly still available for order. Panasonic was not interested in expanding the market and lowering the price. There could be many reasons for this but overall products based on exclusivity command good profits.

In the case of the 110" LCD I believe TCL/Chinese are interested in expanding the market. What should be thus following is the appearance of the 110" panel in some regular selling channels. Authoritative proof of this should be the CES'14 at latest but it could also be earlier.

irkuck
irkuck is offline  
post #24 of 183 Old 07-26-2013, 02:47 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
rogo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Stop making curved screens
Posts: 30,287
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 239 Post(s)
Liked: 562
Quote:
Originally Posted by irkuck View Post

Your logic does not hold vs. reality which means it has problem somewhere.

If my "logic" is different than yours, I'll take my chances.
Quote:
Vide the Panasonic 152" 4K plasma sold for reportedly half a million with reportedly good number of tens actually sold and reportedly still available for order. Panasonic was not interested in expanding the market and lowering the price. There could be many reasons for this but overall products based on exclusivity command good profits.

Panasonic was "not interesting in expanding the market". Doesn't that say enough right there? They didn't make "good profits" selling "tens" of them. They made spit.
Quote:
In the case of the 110" LCD I believe TCL/Chinese are interested in expanding the market. What should be thus following is the appearance of the 110" panel in some regular selling channels. Authoritative proof of this should be the CES'14 at latest but it could also be earlier.

At $300K, they are not interested in expanding the market. But thanks for your incorrect conclusions. And your idea of what is called "perfect price discrimination" where you lower the price only after you find every chump willing to pay the highest possible price is not a valid theory of (a) market expansion or (b) really world microeconomics. There is no way to perfectly price discriminate to begin with, let alone to do so and also grow a market at the same time. If order to do this, you'd need to be able to nearly instantly find everyone willing to pay $300K and get their order. Since you cannot, you leave your opportunity cost of not selling 100x as many TVs at $30K on the table trying to find the few. In doing this, you expose the market to competitors and indifference. Neither of these helps you win.

There is a reason the first iPads weren't $3,000 even though Apple could have sold 1-2 million for that easily.

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.)
rogo is offline  
post #25 of 183 Old 07-27-2013, 02:44 AM - Thread Starter
AVS Special Member
 
irkuck's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: cyberspace
Posts: 3,502
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 35 Post(s)
Liked: 63
Quote:
Originally Posted by rogo View Post

If my "logic" is different than yours, I'll take my chances.
Panasonic was "not interesting in expanding the market". Doesn't that say enough right there? They didn't make "good profits" selling "tens" of them. They made spit.
At $300K, they are not interested in expanding the market. But thanks for your incorrect conclusions. And your idea of what is called "perfect price discrimination" where you lower the price only after you find every chump willing to pay the highest possible price is not a valid theory of (a) market expansion or (b) really world microeconomics. There is no way to perfectly price discriminate to begin with, let alone to do so and also grow a market at the same time. If order to do this, you'd need to be able to nearly instantly find everyone willing to pay $300K and get their order. Since you cannot, you leave your opportunity cost of not selling 100x as many TVs at $30K on the table trying to find the few. In doing this, you expose the market to competitors and indifference. Neither of these helps you win.
There is a reason the first iPads weren't $3,000 even though Apple could have sold 1-2 million for that easily.

Price discrimination is possible for category of very exclusive products: one first starts at sky-high price, if no buyers are found then the price is lowered to the ionospheric level, and then to the stratospheric one. A point were first buyers are found is the market price. Obviously this is possible only with a very unique product and/or product carrying a highly valued brand name. From these reasons Apple can not charge stratospheric prices: the brand is coveted but the product is not unique enough, tons of copycats surround it (potential buyers would say: yeah this is Apple but if I buy copycat I get 80% functionality for 5x lower price). TCL has opposite problem: the product is unique but the brand is on the dogs: 'TCL who???' which diminishes its chances at the high-end. Chances would be much better if the 110" is sold under Samsung or Sony brand (which eventually may happen) but then they will shave a lot of profits. Thus the TCL is looking for rich techies which are interested in product build to order. Also, there is every reason to believe the price is negotiable and depending on demand it might be possible to get this panel e.g. for mere $200K biggrin.gif.

irkuck
irkuck is offline  
post #26 of 183 Old 08-06-2013, 01:08 AM - Thread Starter
AVS Special Member
 
irkuck's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: cyberspace
Posts: 3,502
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 35 Post(s)
Liked: 63
TCL 65" Ultra HD TV to debut in Australia for $5K AUD. That would be a minor news in itself but TCL are the guys who have the ultra 110 incher ready. Maybe the 110" will be next with the price in reasonable proportion to the 65" eek.gif

BTW, according to the report It is a 65-inch LCD panel with edge LED backlight and 4096x2160 pixel resolution (all other 4K TVs today use 3840x2160). This is either a kind of news error or something which is hard to grasp: what for they would make such panel confused.gif

irkuck
irkuck is offline  
post #27 of 183 Old 08-06-2013, 10:24 PM
AVS Special Member
 
tgm1024's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 6,433
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 436 Post(s)
Liked: 800
Quote:

 

Note: As of this post, that's $4479 USD.

 

And I've been keeping an eye on TCL for awhile now.  They're going to show up in the US market more and more...or at least they seem to be to me in the last year or so.


Beware the statistical correlations that sound like they're indicative of something. Drowning deaths are tightly correlated to ice cream consumption. In fact, be wary of any statistic that is stated as if it comes with a self-evident conclusion: there is no such thing.
tgm1024 is online now  
post #28 of 183 Old 08-06-2013, 11:40 PM - Thread Starter
AVS Special Member
 
irkuck's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: cyberspace
Posts: 3,502
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 35 Post(s)
Liked: 63
Quote:
Originally Posted by NLPsajeeth View Post

CSOT (China Star Optoelectronics Technology) is currently producing and selling a 110" 4K panel built in their Gen 8.5 fabs.
TCL, HiSense and Westinghouse are all selling built to order 4K TVs based on this panel:
http://www.theverge.com/2013/1/10/3862522/westinghouses-300000-dollar-custom-110-inch-4k-tv-isnt-for-everyone
Basically anyone with a Gen 8.5 fab can make a 110", Samsung showed one off at CES 2013:
http://reviews.cnet.com/flat-panel-tvs/samsung-110-inch-4k/4505-6482_7-35567550.html
Since yields are never 100% and demand for such displays is almost zero, it is simply way more economical to use those fabs to build 4 55" displays rather than a single 110" display.

I seem to remember reports Samsung panel is not of its own manufacturing but it is made by the TCL, Samsung has a stake in the TCL.

Market for the 55" panels is huge and thus cutting the glass into 4 panels is very effective production method. What is amazing however is that making 110" 4K panels can be done with the same plant, pixels are the same, and there is saving on the operation of glass cutting biggrin.gif. One needs only to replace projection masks from 4x55" to 1x110" and modifying assembly line to deal with the big glass, this is very minor investment comparing to the overall factory cost. Yields in the manufacturing costs of LCD panels are nowadays very high. One can thus conclude that in essence the cost of manufacturing of 110" should not be much different from 4x55" if the production of both sizes can be organised flexibly. Potential market for 110" is very small comparing to the 55" but if it can be satisfied with little investment than it is realistic to expect 110" displays with price sticker in the 4-digit range.

irkuck
irkuck is offline  
post #29 of 183 Old 08-31-2013, 12:08 PM - Thread Starter
AVS Special Member
 
irkuck's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: cyberspace
Posts: 3,502
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 35 Post(s)
Liked: 63
irkuck is offline  
post #30 of 183 Old 09-02-2013, 03:29 PM
Newbie
 
sbmcruise's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 12
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
My 70" Sharp shrank within weeks.

The WAF rules out a projector.

I have room for a 100" but not sure I would push an LCD/LED TV that big unless they could significantly improve off axis viewing.

I could push the budget to 10K, so I'm thinking I'm 5-7 years out,
sbmcruise is offline  
Reply OLED Technology and Flat Panels General

Tags
Panasonic 103 In Telly Th103pf12u
Gear in this thread

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page


Forum Jump: 

Posting Rules  
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off