AVS Forum banner

2012 Sharp LED Anticipation Thread

9K views 44 replies 26 participants last post by  rogo 
#1 ·
Sharp LED


Not a lot of info on the net about these yet. We did talk in great detail with our Sharp rep though. More info >>> ( Click Here )



Sharp LC-46LE540U

Sharp LC-42LE540U


Sharp LC-52LE640U

Sharp LC-60LE640U

Sharp LC-70LE640U



Sharp LC-60LE745U

Sharp LC-70LE745U


Sharp LC-60LE847u

Sharp LC-70LE847u


Sharp LC-80LE844U


Sharp LC-60LE945u ( Elite HDR chip will be used we are told )

Sharp LC-70LE945u ( Elite HDR chip will be used we are told )


90" unit will release in the summer. More info to come of course
 
See less See more
1
#4 ·
I would guess they will be no better than the Elite, as Sharp own Pioneer
However, ya never know how close it may be. We will see..
 
#5 ·

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cleveland Plasma /forum/post/21532457


I would guess they will be no better than the Elite, as Sharp own Pioneer
However, ya never know how close it may be. We will see..

I don't expect it to outperform the 2011 Elite but if the performance is close I may have finally found a set worth justifying the upgrade from my 5080 to a 60 incher.
 
#11 ·
A few questions - The Sharp 60le845 what will be different if anything from the current 830-835 models?


The Sharp 60le945, any idea where it will be priced? Samsung 8000/Sony 929 territory or more mid level?


Update - For each series/size are the screens matte, semi matter or glossy?
 
#13 ·

Quote:
Originally Posted by PENDRAG0ON /forum/post/21533263


I am happy with my 732, I am happy with my 732, I am happy with my 732, I am happy with my 732, I am happy with my 732, I am happy with my 732, I am happy with my 732, ...


LALALALALA Can't Hear You!


NO! Get out of my head 90", GET OUT OF MY HEAD!

Sir- step away from the forum.


Just turn... and walk away.
 
#14 ·

Quote:
Originally Posted by Guibs /forum/post/21533089


truly desapointed that sharp is abandonning the 52" and 46" market. Having a 52" with backlit led and local dimming would get my money right away.


it's unfortunate that they don't get not everyone has a huge living room to put in a quality tv.

Sharp loses money making sets of that size. It has nothing to do with "getting it" and everything to do with remaining in business.
 
#16 ·

Quote:
Originally Posted by JukeBox360 /forum/post/21534371


For once. I disagree. I don't believe that's the case at all.

This is surely the case. Look at the data of TV industry, it is a sea of blood. All due to butchery competition in the standard size segment. Sharp is overall a smaller player so it is impossible it could be profitable there.


In turn Sharp is sovereign in the monster segment, hopefully the business side there is sustainable.
 
#17 ·

Quote:
Originally Posted by JukeBox360 /forum/post/21534371


For once. I disagree. I don't believe that's the case at all.

Disagree all you want. They do, in fact, lose money on the smaller sizes. As Irkuck points out, there is no certainty in the bigger sizes, but the differences there are clear.


60" -- Sharp has dominant market share

70" -- Sharp has 100% market share (and will maintain 95%+ for the foreseeable future)

80" -- Sharp has 100% market share

90" -- Sharp will have 100% market share


They are not walking away from smaller TVs because they don't like people with small rooms. They are taking the production facilities that made the smaller sets are re-purposing them to make tablet screens (although rumor suggest they are going to miss out on the first wave of iPad3 production, don't assume that's forever) and things like 80" and 90" displays. Those are made using the capacity that once made 4 40" or 4 46" sets.
 
#18 ·

Quote:
Originally Posted by Guibs /forum/post/21533089


truly desapointed that sharp is abandonning the 52" and 46" market. Having a 52" with backlit led and local dimming would get my money right away.


it's unfortunate that they don't get not everyone has a huge living room to put in a quality tv.

Well the sony hx909 from a couple years ago fits your bill perfectly, comes in the 52 inch size. You can probably still find them on ebay, amazon, etc. Still an awesome television.
 
#19 ·

Quote:
Originally Posted by rogo /forum/post/21536741


Disagree all you want. They do, in fact, lose money on the smaller sizes. As Irkuck points out, there is no certainty in the bigger sizes, but the differences there are clear.

While I agree that there's a much bigger profit margin on the larger tvs, how would they lose money on the smaller ones? It may not be worth their time for the small profits they would gain, but I would imagine it would be slight profits nonetheless. It doesn't cost much for a company like sharp to produce a 50" tv.
 
#20 ·

Quote:
Originally Posted by karlmalone1 /forum/post/21536946


While I agree that there's a much bigger profit margin on the larger tvs, how would they lose money on the smaller ones? It may not be worth their time for the small profits they would gain, but I would imagine it would be slight profits nonetheless. It doesn't cost much for a company like sharp to produce a 50" tv.

I'm thinking what people are saying is in the large screen size market Sharp is nearly the only game in town so any sales to people wanting a 60" or above screen Sharp doesn't have to compete with a ton of different brands and models. As of today I believe you want an 80" screen it's either Sharp LCD, DLP or projector. Now reduce that to 46" and tons of models to choose from and varying prices which makes it much harder to compete.


Now maybe I'm wrong but I thought Sharp still produced panels of various sizes for other brands?
 
#21 ·

Quote:
Originally Posted by karlmalone1 /forum/post/21536946


While I agree that there's a much bigger profit margin on the larger tvs, how would they lose money on the smaller ones? It may not be worth their time for the small profits they would gain, but I would imagine it would be slight profits nonetheless. It doesn't cost much for a company like sharp to produce a 50" tv.

So, the mechanism by which they lose money is as follows:


Add up all the costs:


Cogs for a smaller display +

opportunity cost of not making something else +

depreciation / amortization of fab when making the smaller display =


x or true marginal cost of the display


Then they go to wholesale it and it sells for less than X.


Now, even if it's true it sells for more than X (and it isn't; Sharp is flat out non-competitive in smaller sizes vs. LG and Samsung which make so many more panels that they simply can make them cheaper), the reality is they could have built something else and made a greater margin.


It's also true that even if the gross margin is technically greater than zero, that doesn't mean the item is profitable. If the gross margin is, say, 10%, after accounting for corporate overhead, that product is money losing. If instead they made a product with a higher gross margin, it would be profitable, accounting for all costs.


You can read Sharp's financials or ask more pointed questions to people like Specuvestor, but I assure you Sharp is abandoning the segments of the market where it isn't making money. It's not abandoning them out of some disloyalty to customers nor out of some belief it can social-engineer you into buying something bigger. Few of you will buy something bigger and they know this.
 
#22 ·
What is interesting to me is that there are 70" edge-lit sets in 2012 on the 8 series, this seems like a departure from the full back lit sets that are on the market now. It seems challenging to make a edge-lit 70", I know the costs and thickness of the set go down with edge-lit sets, but will the quality be the same?


"Sharp’s 8 Series AQUOS Quattron 3D LED TVs in screen size classes of 60-, 70- and 80-inches (LC-60LE847U, LC-70LE847U and LC-80LE844U) offer a sleeker look with a newly designed ultra-slim bezel with a black brushed aluminum finish. The 80-inch class model features full array LED, and the 60- and 70-inch class models are edge-lit LED, all with Quattron Quad Pixel Plus II technology and 240Hz."
 
#25 ·
Edge-lit will most serve to increase the margins on those sets. If they have solved the uniformity issues that plague edge-lit sets, I'll be pleasantly surprised.


Keep in mind, the 2011 70" models (non-Elite) didn't have perfect uniformity either, despite being backlit.
 
#26 ·

Quote:
Originally Posted by rogo /forum/post/21537499


So, the mechanism by which they lose money is as follows:

Add up all the costs:

Cogs for a smaller display +

opportunity cost of not making something else +

depreciation / amortization of fab when making the smaller display =

x or true marginal cost of the display

Then they go to wholesale it and it sells for less than X.

Now, even if it's true it sells for more than X (and it isn't; Sharp is flat out non-competitive in smaller sizes vs. LG and Samsung which make so many more panels that they simply can make them cheaper), the reality is they could have built something else and made a greater margin.

It's also true that even if the gross margin is technically greater than zero, that doesn't mean the item is profitable. If the gross margin is, say, 10%, after accounting for corporate overhead, that product is money losing. If instead they made a product with a higher gross margin, it would be profitable, accounting for all costs.

It is worse than that as it is not based on simple economic calculations like the one above. It is based on the question: how I can keep my market share (=volumes)? This leads to selling below reasonable economics and subsidizing in hope others will die earlier. Sony made losses on TV business for eight ys before giving up. Only those like Samsung and LG survive due to the fact they are integrated conglomerates which start from digging iron ore to make digging machines which dig sand which is used for making silicon and up to the finished product so they can crosssubsidizing and likely have hidden public support.


Sharp is brilliant in the supersized segment but this is small market and so it is not clear it is sustainable. It looks clear though they can run in this segment because they used amortized plants. It would be impossible to include full plant investment in prices to make big displays only.
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top