When do the 2012 Panasonic VT series come out? - Page 8

Originally Posted by sypack

This thread is going nowhere....

Originally Posted by beezar

I'm just hoping the VT50 (or any of the higher-end plasmas) doesn't have quality control issues like the VT30.

Just don't want to roll the dice hoping that the particular TV I get has issues that other ones of the same model don't. (Like the VT30 where only some had problems with buzzing, green/pink blobs, flickering, etc.)

The plasma manufacturers really need to start making TV's of which the majority have quality control issues straight out of the box...

Originally Posted by cpcat

Furthermore, and perhaps more on-topic for this thread, I'd expect the VT50 series to be excellent as well. PDP is mature now and likely this year and next will offer the best overall price/performance ratios yet.

Originally Posted by eagle-sas


Wasn't it extraordinary that a VT50 with 70" screen diagonal could satisfy the 108 watts upper limit prescript?

.

Originally Posted by fatuglyguy

I hope they'll release a 60" VT model this year. At my viewing distance, I think 65" would be pushing it, but I'd want the model with the best panel/performance. In other news. anyone looking for a gently used 50" G20 ?

Originally Posted by fatuglyguy

I hope they'll release a 60" VT model this year. At my viewing distance, I think 65" would be pushing it, but I'd want the model with the best panel/performance. In other news. anyone looking for a gently used 50" G20 ?

Originally Posted by rogo


Any mode in which it can do this will be unwatchable.

Originally Posted by eonibm

I could easily go 85" at 8' (except for the price).

Originally Posted by eagle-sas

Take it as true that the PDP is mature now.

The 50VT30 calibrated mode power consumption 2D mode circa 180 watts, 3D mode ca 240 watts.

According to Energy Star 5.0 requirement the maximum power consumption potential for a plasma tv 108 watts.

Wasn't it extraordinary that a VT50 with 70" screen diagonal could satisfy the 108 watts upper limit prescript?

Furthermore it will be brighter! Much the same as a LED TV.

Originally Posted by GSDTrainer

Energy Star requirements for TV's only state they have to meet those standards in "standard mode".

Originally Posted by deathnote

When would the 2011 models end production, assuming 2012 models hit in the spring?

Originally Posted by deathnote

When would the 2011 models end production, assuming 2012 models hit in the spring?

Also, how will the 2011 prices fluctuate as we near the 2012 models?

Originally Posted by deathnote

When would the 2011 models end production, assuming 2012 models hit in the spring?

Also, how will the 2011 prices fluctuate as we near the 2012 models?

Originally Posted by D-Nice

Who originates the "what's in" cpcat?

Originally Posted by rogo


Well, you're wrong.

First of all, cutting out all the "bells and whistles" would reduce the manufacturing cost by perhaps $150-200. Not more.

Second of all, while I can't tell you the cost of whatever hypothetical improvements in picture quality all of you want, let's agree it's millions of dollars.

Now, explain to me how you many of these "monitors" you plan on selling? 50,000 globally? Certainly not for less that TVs; they'd have to cost more. They will have a messier supply chain since small numbers of units will have to move to large numbers of specialty retailers.

I've already explained in the discussion of the Sharp Elite why it's actually impossible to hand-pick panels from a generic LCD line. But let's say they make a dedicated production run for your special monitors where they fine tune and control everything and throw out all the "bad ones". Now, what are your yields? Low. So you have to raise prices still more to pay for that.

I'd guess by the time you hit retail, your monitor will cost at least twice as much as the most expensive model today, which will make your original sales goal that much more unreachable. And I'm not sure that the performance benefit is really going to be that significant. Marginally better? Sure, no doubt.

And we saw that for twice the money, the Sharp Elite could edge the Panasonic and Samsung plasmas at a shootout of current models. The words "blow away" were not used by qualified or sophisticated viewers who actually got to see them side by side.

Bottom line, if the market existed where by significant numbers of people would pay, say, $10,000 for such a TV, I have no doubt one could be built and sold. At the parameters I think the AVS crowd wants one, I have significant doubts anything very interesting could be built and delivered.

Originally Posted by cockatiel

At 8', I hesitated a long time between 46", 50" and 58", finally settling for 50", which many said would be big enough. I never believed those "as big as you can" guys. Seemed like an ego thing. I didn't want the pixel structure to get in the way. Anyway, as everyone says, I started to wonder how a bigger screen would look at that distance... I switched to a 63' this year and now I'd really like a 70". Like Eonibm said, don't worry about being too close. Go big: you'll get used to it in about 30 minutes and after a few months, you'll wish you could have a bigger one.

Originally Posted by boe

Finally some decent advice! I get so frustrated by consumer reports giving bad advice on screen size. Sure if you are watching The View or some Merryl Streep film (or some other crap that makes you want to take your own life e.g. most domestic in flight films) a small screen is fine but if you are watching enjoyable programming like Game of Thrones, NCIS, hockey or something that is worth watching you'll want as big of a screen as you can get. Is there any evidence of some other sizes than 70"? I know they have some larger sizes but the prices are so high I'm not sure I'd classify them as consumer screens.

Originally Posted by David_B

There's much more that goes into the cost of making a tv besides manufacturing cost.

Rogo, you obviosly have never worked in the financial department of a corp that designs and builds and sells consumer goods. You realy should stop guessing.

Originally Posted by rogo

Umm, not really. The "cost of making a TV" is pretty much defined as the manufacturing cost. Perhaps you are referring to amortization of R&D and physical plant, packaging and logistics expenses, sales and marketing expenses as "costs of building a TV" in addition to the actual COGS (physical materials, pre-purchased parts and the costs of transforming them through the aforementioned plant into finished goods)?

If so, that's fine; it changes nothing. You can remove 100% of the Smart TV features from a modern TV as well as the tuner and you wouldn't cut the build cost much at all. I gave you $150-200. You think it's more? If you start including "all the other costs" it doesn't change. Arguably it gets worse. Any model-specific R&D would be amortized solely over your high-end set, not spread across your product line as would any line re-tooling. Any custom packaging and branding would be the same.

It's probably true that every dollar you saved in reduced COGS would be spent elsewhere on this "cheaper to build" TV making it no longer cheaper to build from an accounting perspective. Clearly, my business experience and MBA doesn't qualify me to discuss this matter. :rolleyes


I never have worked for a comparable company and yet I've identified the cost drivers and discussed how the accounting works. I can also explain somewhat approximately why adding $10 worth of content to a product adds a significant multiple of that to the retail price of it. Is there anything else you need me to explain?

There's a difference between random guessing and educated guessing. The point isn't whether the final price of this TV that has no market would be $10,000; the point is the economics don't work. I've explained why that's the case.