« Panasonic's twin-lensed 3D camcorder, the NY Times wonders if 3D will 'Move beyond Gimmicks' & Samsung's skinny 3D TV | Main | Porn Industry Cautious about 3D TV; Production Cost and Glasses Sited »

3D TV: The Nay-Sayers

Dan Costa of PCMag.com reports from CES in Las Vegas that 1.) the 3D televisions on display don't look very good 2.) 3D is a gimmick who's appeal will fade over time and 3.) no one will wear those glasses, those damned goofy glasses. He calls the current roll out of 3D television "a formula for failure." Read the complete article here.

Phillip de Wet also rains on the 3D TV parade in the Daily Maverick in a piece titled "Analysis: Why You Won't Be Buying a 3D TV (Until You Are Forced To)." Read the complete article here. One of his major complaints? Those "big, heavy, dorky glasses with cables running from them."

Let's remember, though, that tech writers have a lousy track record when it comes to prescience.

Here's a classic example. In 1984 in the San Francisco Examiner John C. Dvorak wrote, “The Macintosh uses an experimental pointing device called a ‘mouse’. There is no evidence that people want to use these things. I don’t want one of these new-fangled devices.”

And, of course, mouse technology never did catch on in computing. . .No, wait a minute, it did! I'm using one right now, 26 years later.

Still, you've got to love John, a man who's response to anything new in tech is predictably, "It stinks!" And who can forget the popular, loveable Leo LaPorte who predicted failure for the iPhone claiming that's not a market Apple can compete in.

There's an Arabic saying that I think applies here: "The dogs bark, but the caravan moves on."

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.ny3d.org/cgi/mt/mt-tb.cgi/254

Comments (2)

I disagree with the contention that Dan Costa is a naysayer. I found his article to be quite prescient.

I predicted that stereographic TV would be the norm in 10-15 years about 4 years ago and feel that we are still on that track. He seems to come to the same conclusion.

As with all relatively new technologies, it starts off as expensive and less than ergonomic. Remember how large the first cell phones were?

Joe Pedoto:

Thanks for your comment, Tim. We won't know if either you or Dan are actually prescient until we see how the future of 3D TV plays out in reality, will we?

If you look at the history of tech predictions you will find the accuracy beyond a year or two (the natural extension of current trends) is quite low.

Here are a few that were once heavily touted and have, so far, failed to live up to the hype: artificial intelligence, computer-aided software design, thin client computing, business-to-business Internet marketplaces, practical home robotics, flying cars, colonies on the Moon. . .

Post a comment

(If you haven't left a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Thanks for waiting.)

About

This page contains a single entry from the blog posted on January 12, 2010 8:27 AM.

The previous post in this blog was Panasonic's twin-lensed 3D camcorder, the NY Times wonders if 3D will 'Move beyond Gimmicks' & Samsung's skinny 3D TV.

The next post in this blog is Porn Industry Cautious about 3D TV; Production Cost and Glasses Sited.

Many more can be found on the main index page or by looking through the archives.

Creative Commons License
This weblog is licensed under a Creative Commons License.
Powered by
Movable Type 3.33