The paper of record continues their coverage of the coming of Ralph Kramden's dream, 3D TV, here.
It will come as no surprise that the article hits three main points: excessive hype from sellers, dumb glasses and does the experience merit the cost?
Going out on limb, the Times posits that the hype around the subject is overblown. Overblown hype and technology, when has that ever been the case in the past? Oh right, that's always the case (iPad). So that's not really news, is it?
And yes, you have to wear dumb glasses. Why is this such a sticking point for so many? I have to wear dumb glasses all the time. . . because I'm near-sighted. Stars (and wannabes) wear sunglasses all the time. . . in order to look cool.
The Times also states the novelty factor of 3D wears thin quickly and then sets up a classic 'straw man' argument here: "With the right content, it’s great, but it’s doubtful many will be excited by My Dinner With Andre in 3-D."
Sigh. Why are mainstream tech writers so biased against 3D?