back to article TV sales PLUMMET. But no one's prepared to say what we all know

TV sales are falling everywhere. It’s kind of official, but people are still prepared to argue about it. The number of LCD screens are being forecast to recover but no one is giving a reason why, as the number of TVs that they ship in, are definitely not rising. There is lots of intelligence out there in TV land, but the two …

COMMENTS

This topic is closed for new posts.
      1. xperroni
        Joke

        Smart TV's still await a really good implementation, and the opportunity to sell sets on their smart capabilities has probably been supplanted, because whilst the makers messed around the market moved on, so that for casual browsing and emailing the solution is tablets.

        A friend of mine once approached the lady on a kiosk showcasing a "smart" TV, and asked her in what sense the TV was "smart".

        She didn't know.

        I guess TV makers don't, either.

        1. veti Silver badge

          "Smart" TVs

          Smart TVs have an excellent implementation: it's called the iPad.

          I really don't understand why people have so much trouble seeing this. Apple shipped something over 30 million new iPads last year, and most of those represent a TV that didn't get sold. Tablets are the new TV.

          1. Anonymous Coward
            Anonymous Coward

            Re: "Smart" TVs

            Tablets are the new TV.

            Are they really.

            How's that 42" iPad of yours?

      2. Psyx

        "But it was always thus. Nobody in the real world (ie excluding millionaires) consumes for itself, they consume because newer products offer more than the existing equipment, or because the old stuff has worn out."

        Unfortunately, that's the not the model that manufacturers want to use any more.

        Spurred on by the frankly insane cycles on smartphones, the rest of the consumer marketplace now wants the same model and would like us to buy a new tele every two years thankyouverymuch.

        The idea that people should only buy new TVs, cameras et cetera when the old kit stops working has been pushed aside. New functionality is still a selling point, but the manufacturers now have a trickle-through of 'exciting new' functions which...aren't. And they aren't worth buying new for.

        The issue is that retailers want to keep selling us shit faster than we want to buy it, and they think that putting a new gizmo on it every year will help.

        It might work the first time or two, but after two upgrade cycles we can see what's coming and start thinking that £X per year for a new Y when the old one still works just fine is ripping the fucking piss a bit.

        1. Kiwi
          Big Brother

          @ Psyx

          New functionality is still a selling point, but the manufacturers now have a trickle-through of 'exciting new' functions which...aren't.

          We've had so much over the years, and much of it never had content. How much truly HD content is there out there today? (and why is it that my old CRT TV could disply a higher resolution from the computer than my new and very expensive (thank God for the extended warranty that brought it for me!) "HD" TV?) Screen resolutions seemed to do a huge drop not long before "HD" came out.

          Couple of years back "3D" was the big thing.. And the content for it would come, just buy the TV's...

          Now, well I am wondering if 4k is already dead and buried, certainly haven't seen anyone advertising it here for many months.

          So.. Should I buy new&shiny every year or so like some of my friends do, in the hopes that the promised content will finally show up [briefly looks away to watch airborne pigs], or should I wait until there is some content that is soooo good that I just can't bear watching it on some less-than-new TV?

          Given the quality of so much TV today, you really do have to push the envelope with the content for me to buy new. I don't care what the picture quality is like, if a show isn't worth watching for the overall content, I'm not wasting my money.

      3. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        "But it was always thus. Nobody in the real world (ie excluding millionaires) consumes for itself, they consume because newer products offer more than the existing equipment, or because the old stuff has worn out. "

        You are ignoring the forced consumption for the sake of it. The government is constantly worrying about deflation and have many policies designed to avoid it because deflation means lack of consumption. GDP is a simple-minded measure of consumption and when did you last hear any economist celebrating a fall in that?

        What these all those policies come down to is forcing consumption and waste. On the other side of the fence are the manufacturers who also fear deflation and need us to buy new shit when we shouldn't have to. Partly this is done with fashion and other psychological tricks but a lot of it is done by planned obsolescence.

        You might think you don't consume for the sake of it, but the post-War economy is founded on the fact that in fact you do and in fact are not given the option to do anything else.

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          "You might think you don't consume for the sake of it, but the post-War economy is founded on the fact that you do and in fact are not given the option to do anything else."

          Really? I must be flirting with disaster, then, because I drive an 8-year-old car that I bought used, haven't bought a TV in... well, ever... work supplies my cell phones, which I use until they drop. My home theater consists of a 20 year old CRT projector and audio gear scavenged from all over hell's half acre. I heat my house with a pellet stove. My oven was made in 1935.

          Obviously the authorities haven't heard about me, because according to your post, I have not been given the option to do what I do.

          And I know people who make me look like Donald Trump.

          So really, I'm not sure what you're getting at. There's nothing forcing anyone to behave in any particular way. I haven't had to sacrifice having cool stuff. Perhaps your paranoia is miscalibrated.

      4. Tom 13

        Re: speed of useful end product innovation and improvement

        Not quite. I think the speed of innovation is about the same as it ever was. Granted in the early stages of innovation you are making more perceptible gains per unit of innovation, so that part is correct. But it overlooks two one time events in their respective industries.

        First was the Y2K scare for computers. By and large in the PC market this meant everybody had to replace their PC in 1999 even if they'd originally planned to keep it another 3 years. Second was the conversion from NTSC/PAL to HD across the world markets. Both of these events created a surge in purchasing and it was a mistake to assume it was "normal growth" or ought to constitute a new baseline from which to project growth.

        To some extent, what is happening now is an artificial depression because that equipment which would have otherwise aged out naturally was replaced prematurely so there's no need to replace it again so soon. My parents tended to buy a new color tv about once every 10 to 15 years. I think most people expect their LCDs will last about as long. Heck, the only reason I wound up with a second LCD tv is I adopted too early on the LCD wave and my "HD ready" set turned out to be not so "HD ready" because it didn't have HDMI inputs (they hadn't been invented yet).

  1. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Could it be what is on offer in the shops/online?

    Wanna buy a 48in+ TV with built-in FreeSat Tuner that is NOT 3D?

    Keep looking hard and you might find one.

    A year or so ago it wasn't that hard but now everything seems to be the dead horse that is 3D?

    1. Thomas 6

      Re: Could it be what is on offer in the shops/online?

      Try finding a 48in+ TV that isn't HD. Plenty of people have HD TVs but only use SD.

      3D is just something that comes as standard on TVs now whether you want it or not. It isn't something that really adds to the cost.

      1. Paul Crawford Silver badge

        Re: Could it be what is on offer in the shops/online?

        " It isn't something that really adds to the cost."

        No costs - what of patents, etc, that have to be licensed?

        What kind of 3D?

        If its polarising type you loose some brightness, if active shutter you have to add the hardware to support the headsets (and probably get one with the TV, which is just great for a typical family).

        1. Thomas 6

          Re: Could it be what is on offer in the shops/online?

          The cost quote was in the context of the entire comment.

          In the early days of HDTV (or 3D / smart TV), the customer paid extra for this feature. Now it is on all TVs, there is no extra charge. It is just part of the cost of the TV.

  2. Esskay
    Thumb Down

    They're living in the 90's

    When TV was the only way to consume media, and when a shiny new TV came out everyone needed (wanted) it.

    We've transitioned from kids wanting a TV in their rooms to kids being happy with a laptop/tablet/smartphone, not to mention the 24/7 avaliability of streaming content from the internet, and TV's reluctance to accept this fact. Even smart TVs make a clumsy effort to acknowledge the superiority of the internet when it comes to consuming media.

    1. Jim 59

      Re: They're living in the 90's

      Streaming may be the future but in 2014 there is no comparison between the experience of streaming on a mobile device and watching a big modern TV. With TV I have instant switch on, EPG guide, surf through 10 channels in a few seconds, stop/rewind (PVR), store it all for later, browse hundreds of recorded programs (PVR) record 2 (yes 2!) channels while watching a third, play Blu ray/DVD and through the hifi/surround.. And of course a modern TV can also stream.

      1. Esskay

        Re: They're living in the 90's

        True, a PVR has added life to the TV, but the functionality usually comes from spending a couple of hundred on an extra box - not from splashing out a few grand on a new TV. Not to mention that you still have to wait for a show to air at it's programmed time before the PVR can grab it.

        And a PVR might record 2 programs simultaneously, but my BitTorrent client can "record" a lot more ;)

  3. pacman7de

    TV sales are falling everywhere ..

    "TV sales are falling everywhere. It’s kind of official, but people are still prepared to argue about it. The number of LCD screens are being forecast to recover but no one is giving a reason why"

    Because no one under thirty is watching television .. or listening to the electric wireless ...

    1. Naughtyhorse
      Happy

      Re: TV sales are falling everywhere ..

      Yeah! dude, it's all gramophone records these days :-)

  4. EddieD

    I don't want a tv

    I want a screen. I don't want an intelligent, 3D, web connected behemoth that will be out of date in 6 months so I have to buy another one, I want a screen I can connect to my devices that will play the material of my choice from the device of my choice.

    I already have NetFlix, I already have LoveFilm, if I wanted them I could have Facebook, Twitter, I have a PVR (okay, I have a computer), I have everything I need.

    Just give me a large, high quality, terminally dumb screen with plenty of connectors.

    Okay, it can have WiFi. So I don't have to have cables. But that's all.

    1. James 100

      Re: I don't want a tv

      That sounds rather like what we know as "monitors", except that you probably don't want quite that high a resolution - 1080p would probably be fine for most, plus a few DVI/HDMI inputs (and sound, unless you have a separate system, which monitors tend to lack).

      I replaced my 720p non-LED-lit LCD with a 1080p LED-lit LCD in late 2012 - putting the old 720p upstairs in the guest room, since it still worked fine apart from a couple of "stuck" pixels.

      Why might I upgrade, assuming it doesn't break down in some way? A bigger screen maybe, or higher resolution. WiFi? Forget it: the screen needs power and at least one DVI/HDMI cable going in anyway, why would adding an Ethernet lead be a problem? I much prefer the simplicity and robustness of plugging it straight into the switch behind the TV (the same one the STB, wireless access point, games console and other Net-enabled devices already plug into) rather than relying on wireless and having to update passwords (you DO change your wifi password regularly, right ... then have to feed the new one into every wireless device using it?)

    2. RobHib
      Coat

      @EddieD -- Re: I don't want a tv - And I don't want one either!

      The only flat panel displays around here are on dedicated computer equipment!

      There's so little interest in TV here that the main set is so ancient that it's a CRT which only has an RF socket input! Right, it's so primitive there's no RCA video and audio etc.

      Recently, when the analog service got switched off, I put a PVR on it, but as there was no direct video input, I had to also dig up an old RF modulator.

      You may well ask why no TV. Simple really, with the crap infantile programs on offer, incessant ads and station promos etc., etc. why would one bother?

      The TVs are kept because we've always had them--sentimental reasons you might say. Nowadays, their only use is for truly noteworthy news--we did switch the telly on to check about the Malaysian MH370.

      Before that, it's hard to think of another specific time until we get back to the 911 crisis.

      Yawn.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: @EddieD -- I don't want a tv - And I don't want one either!

        "You may well ask why no TV. Simple really, with the crap infantile programs on offer, incessant ads and station promos etc., etc. why would one bother?"

        Right. Because watching a bunch of immature eejits on youtube trying to neknominate is so much more intellectually stimulating than say watching a series about the Plantagents or a crime thriller.

        I hate to break the news to you but 99% of the most infantile cr@p on this planet is found online , not on TV.

    3. This post has been deleted by its author

    4. Truth4u

      Re: I don't want a tv

      4k screen + network attached tuner. Lovely.

      Just waiting for them to come down in price, then hopefully I can get a good one that will last decades.

      As for TV, even formerly decent shows are dumbing down. I think the competent members of the production teams are retiring and being replaced with first year media studies students from the current generation of McUniversity courses. Can't think of another explanation for the sudden and obvious drop in quality. At least on the BBC where most people surely must be reaching retirement age by now.

      I think they're going to replace the old crew members on £200k/pa with kids on £15k and spend the change on something utterly vacuous like F1 coverage no doubt. Not that I approve of the money being wasting in either fashion.

      1. Truth4u

        Re: I don't want a tv

        Newsnight is a good example, used to be a serious news show, now relentlessly amateurish in every measurable way.

  5. John Smith 19 Gold badge
    Unhappy

    Seriously how often *do* people replace their TV's?

    I'd bet it's a lot less often than their PC/tablet/iThingy/phone.

    But before people say the TV is dead consider the idea of a consumer

    No mandatory configuration process.

    It just works

    I miss the day days of push button tuners when you you pressed the present and instant channel change. Maybe it's just a cheap implementation but 20sec just to flip between 2 channels (which you've been flipping between) is p**s poor and I'm damm certain it's the software bodge architecture that's the issue.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Seriously how often *do* people replace their TV's?

      Hear hear, you'd think that this was because somehow the first LCD telly's were a bit slow, but no, they're still doing it. Flipping through channels means you spend more time in 'limbo' than you do watching a channel.

      Oh, and people don't watch telly anymore because most of it is shit, innit?

      1. Mike Smith

        Just most of it?

        Telly's Law: Hardware functionality is directly proportional to the number of available channels and inversely proportional to programme quality.

        1. DropBear
          Trollface

          Re: Just most of it?

          Telly's Law: Hardware functionality is directly proportional to the number of available channels and inversely proportional to programme quality.

          Well, we also know programme quality is apparently independent from number of available channels - remember "got thirteen channels of shit on the T.V. to choose from"...?

          1. MJI Silver badge

            Re: Just most of it?

            I tend to watch about 3/4 BBC, found a new channel recently, a High Def version of BBC4.

            I basically fill the timer with interesting programmes, eg Top Gear, Horizon, Sky at Night, 1970s rock music, any documentries about old transport.

            Saw some crap on Challenge on FV last night, supposedly about the game Baftas, saw 3 awards and lots of knobends talking (not the game producers).

            Completely wasted opportunity.

      2. Sander van der Wal

        Re: Seriously how often *do* people replace their TV's?

        Yep.

      3. xperroni

        Re: Seriously how often *do* people replace their TV's?

        Oh, and people don't watch telly anymore because most of it is shit, innit?

        Aye, and it has been thus for the longest time.

        It was about twenty years ago that I stopped watching TV regularly. I was just 13 at the time, and already too fed up with all the shit being broadcast to keep up with it. My patch didn't have Internet back then, so I'd read comics and listen to the radio, which hadn't yet degenerated into a never-ending stream of advertisements and rants by constipated DJ's.

        I wonder what role TV programme standards actually had in the current sales slump, however. Would more people buy TV's today if content was better? Most of the good shows can be watched over the Internet today, so it could well have turned out just the same.

      4. Simon Harris

        Re: Seriously how often *do* people replace their TV's?

        "you'd think that this was because somehow the first LCD telly's were a bit slow, but no, they're still doing it."

        We got a so-called smart TV in January (actually not that smart, and just duplicates the features of the boxes plugged into it, but it was cheap). I'm sure the time it takes to boot up, show the splash screen, decide which input the signal should be coming from, and finally show the picture isn't any better than the time it took my late gran's 405-line valve and bakolite tv to warm up. At least the LCD TV doesn't squeal as it starts up!

    2. Chris Miller

      Re: Seriously how often *do* people replace their TV's?

      If 20s is a real figure, rather than an exaggeration for effect, I'd say there's something wrong with your setup (or maybe it's a sign that your signal is weak). I do notice that it takes longer to switch between Freeview HD channels (albeit only a second or so) than standard Freeview, and I'd always (in my ignorance) put that down to having to wait for a full frame to be broadcast (most of the signal is a 'delta' with the previous frame - I hear the same effect when switching DAB stations on radio). I'll bet there are experts on here who can correct my naive interpretation.

      To return to the fundamental question of a drop in TV sales, once again there are no drivers for people to replace sets that are working perfectly well. Maybe 4K will provide an incentive for new sales, but I'd bet that unless you've got a 100" set (and a mansion big enough to house it) you won't be able to see the difference with 'standard' HD.

      1. John Smith 19 Gold badge
        Unhappy

        @Chris Miller

        "If 20s is a real figure, rather than an exaggeration for effect, I'd say there's something wrong with your setup (or maybe it's a sign that your signal is weak). I do notice that it takes longer to switch between Freeview HD channels (albeit only a second or so) than standard Freeview, "

        Actually rechecking things it's 20 secs from switch on. Having read up on "1 sec boot Linux" implementations (I'm pretty sure that's what at its core) that's unimpressive. It's actually about 3 secs between channel changes but it's still 3 secs when I hit the " back" button on the remote IE it should be just swapping the output from the 2 decoders. Likewise with the picture in picture function.

        My guess is this was programmed by some linear thinking newby and it never occurred to them it's just a case of flipping between existing outputs rather than searching for a "new" channel.

        1. Calum Morrison

          Re: @Chris Miller

          There was an article here on el Reg a few months ago that explained why it takes so long to switch between digital channels. There were sound technical reasons IIRC; certainly not just some software that could be tuned up a bit; if that was the case, that would be a differentiator for a manufacturer to sell on...

          1. Def Silver badge
            FAIL

            Re: @Chris Miller

            ...explained why it takes so long to switch between digital channels. There were sound technical reasons IIRC...

            I doubt that. I don't bother with digital TV, I just have analogue via my cable provider and my PC & Xbox connected up. Switching between any of them takes about two seconds. However, when I'm configuring the channel names or configuring the channel order or whatever, switching is instantaneous.

            It's shit software written by muppets. Either that or the broadcasters have requested that TV manufacturers make it longer to change to try and dissuade people from channel surfing when the ads come on.

        2. Vic

          Re: @Chris Miller

          My guess is this was programmed by some linear thinking newby and it never occurred to them it's just a case of flipping between existing outputs rather than searching for a "new" channel.

          No, it doesn't work like that.

          Even if you were using ping-pong tuners for your alternates - and you almost certainly aren't - you still need to lock your decoder clock to the clock reference, find the assorted tables necessary to interpret the ES streams, then wait for a GOP start before you can actually decode anything. And if there is any issue with A/V sync, you might have to delay further.

          This, I'm afraid, is the result of both the temporal compression scheme we use for Digital TV and the carousel nature of the tables. A channel *can* improve the rate at which a decoder can lock to it by increasing the rate of PCR and table injection into the stream - but this costs bandwidth (possibly significantly) and offers very little benefit to the channel.

          Vic.

          1. John Smith 19 Gold badge
            Unhappy

            @Vic

            "Even if you were using ping-pong tuners for your alternates - and you almost certainly aren't - you still need to lock your decoder clock to the clock reference, find the assorted tables necessary to interpret the ES streams, then wait for a GOP start before you can actually decode anything. And if there is any issue with A/V sync, you might have to delay further."

            That all sounds very convincing.

            Except my STB is also a recorder which allows watch-while-record.

            Are you saying the system is "time sharing" the receiver hardware virtually on a frame by frame basis to allow this?

            Because (apart from incompetent implementation) the only other reason I can think of is that the system powers down the 2nd channel in a rather misguided attempt to save power.

            The "common sense" way to implement this function is too effectively switch the outputs of 2 live decoders between a single channel to the monitor, not to have a "primary" and "secondary" decoder and switch the channel inputs between them.

            With both decoders running continuously I'd expect channel switching to be possible on the next frame output, whatever frame rate that is.

            Obviously I'd expect switching to a totally new channel to take longer, but the speed of the switching for existing channels is rubbish.

            1. Vic

              Re: @Vic

              Are you saying the system is "time sharing" the receiver hardware virtually on a frame by frame basis to allow this?

              Nope. I'm saying it has multiple tuners and demultiplexers, but probably only one decoder (unless it supports PiP). The decoder genreates the images on your screen; the on-disk storage will still be encoded (for reasons that are obvious, I hope).

              Nevertheless, none of that changes what I posted earlier - you still have a time delay between attempting to select a channel and getting that channel's data available on the demux output. You then have a further delay getting that data decoded into images and sound.

              Because (apart from incompetent implementation) the only other reason I can think of is that the system powers down the 2nd channel in a rather misguided attempt to save power.

              That's because you are thinking of the decoder as a single, monolithic lump. It isn't - you have a tuner, a demultiplexer, and a decoder. Many STBs have multiple tuners and demuxers, but I haven't seen many[1] with multiple decoders

              The "common sense" way to implement this function is too effectively switch the outputs of 2 live decoders between a single channel to the monitor, not to have a "primary" and "secondary" decoder and switch the channel inputs between them.

              You could build one - but you'd price yourself out of the market. And you still wouldn't get over the inevitable delay in locking the channel - it just does take that time.

              Obviously I'd expect switching to a totally new channel to take longer

              Exactly.

              but the speed of the switching for existing channels is rubbish.

              It isn't. Switching to a channel for which you already have demultiplexed data is quicker, but there is still a decoder lock-up time. But that wait time will be less than the time to lock a tuner/demux as well as the decoder.

              Vic.

              [1] There were some interesting designs to do HD when we were introducing the STi9000 - certain manufacturers were gluing 6 STi3520s to a board and getting them to work together. But that's not something that's likely to make it to market...

              1. Vic

                Re: @Vic

                > STi9000

                STi7000. What is wrong with my brain today?

                Vic.

    3. MJI Silver badge

      Re: Seriously how often *do* people replace their TV's?

      My DVB-T tunered TV takes a second, just until it gets an I frame. Mind you so was the previous one.

      Oh it works, it is 1920x1080, it is big enough, it has 3 HDMI, it won awards for picture so why would I change it?

      I am over 50 and still on TV number 4, I bought my first one at 20.

      TV1 was a portable

      TV2 was big TV and had SCART

      TV3 was 16x9 flat CRT and had DVB-T

      TV4 is 16x9 LCD, and HD

      Yes 4 TVs in over 30 years, I always bought the best I could afford and changed when old one worn and new technology arrived.

      1. MJI Silver badge

        Re: Seriously how often *do* people replace their TV's?

        Other devices.

        Nothing wrong with using a 1984 VCR is there? SInce the only better VCR was 1987 (and mine is faulty, need a scrap one for parts) no reason to change, My old 1982 portable VCR still works, but the camera died in 2000. Currently now a user of HDV.

        1984 VCR is very rarely used though as I have 2 PVRs, but a big pile of old tapes.

        Outlasted a DTTV PVR killed off due to Pace being crap.

        Still on DVD player number 2, number 1 worn out. Had to replace the BD player due to a flashing yellow light but managed to ressurect long enough to transfer data.

        I have seen people replace kit regularly because they bought something sub standard, or something unsuitable, or because they just have to have the newest thing.

        But the mod 1990s quality drop hit a lot of people who thought they were trading up their late 1980s kit for something newer.

        But basically you need to take care when buying stuff as there is so much cheap junk out there it is silly.

        1. Random Coolzip

          Re: Seriously how often *do* people replace their TV's?

          "But basically you need to take care when buying stuff as there is so much cheap junk out there it is silly."

          +1. Still using my first DVD player, which I got in 2001. I don't mind paying top dollar for high-end components, as they tend to last and work well. Still using my Carver amp and B&O turntable I bought in college too. I also like to listen to my Hallicrafters SX-101, but I didn't buy that new...

  6. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    No Suprises here.

    I'm over 40; I don't bother with regular TV. if it isn't on Netflix or You Tube it isn't watched. As for TV's, yes, I'd love to buy a big screen TV (48in ++). without Smart/ 3D features or memory card slots.

    Give me loads of connectors especially HDMI (4+), audio, if you must 1 scart, and 1 aerial in.

    I think TV manufactures don't get it; then again, I suppose I'm not a regular customer.

    1. MrT

      I got to...

      ..."There is lots of intelligence out there in TV land" and chuckled - better comedy than a lot of the cheap channels...

  7. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    it is fairly obvious

    changes to broadcast format to digital, chages of technology to flat panel, its all over now.

    Before people had operational TV's that they had kept for over 30 years in some cases.

    The market will slow and flatten as the technologies have matured into their new state.

    Lets await the next new big thing (clearly not 3D) that people want.

    After all how many 90 inch home cinema setups can you have!

    1. Darryl

      Re: it is fairly obvious

      Yes, I think that the TV manufacturers have forgotten that people used to buy a TV and use it for 20 or 30 years until it got flaky or died. I think the younger management at these companies assume that people will rush out every year to get the latest model because it's 3D or Smart or 4K just to get the latest and greatest like people do with personal electronics, when that's just not the case with big ticket items like TVs

  8. Rathernicelydone

    I don't watch a lot of TV but do watch a lot of TV programmes that I have downloaded on my tablet. My 40" 1080i screen from 5 years back seems perfectly adequate for TV broadcasts (most of which seem to be in 720p anyway) and also for Blu-Ray. The TV in our room is now for communal/social watching of films, sports events etc. It has become a special occasion device for me rather than an everyday device.

    As with other people on here I doubt I will replace my TV any time soon. I haven't seen 4k in action and may consider upgrading in a couple of year's time but the difference would have to be substantial. I would rather spend the money on a nice speaker set-up instead (TV speakers seem to be absolute garbage).

    I have noticed that hardware seems to have outstripped software substantially. My PC is around 3 years old (an overclocked i7) and the only things I have changed is adding an SSD and a new graphics card (along with new power supply to support it). I can now play any modern game and the load times for Windows 7 and programs are astonishingly quick. I cannot see me upgrading the PC (e.g. new board/chip etc) for at least another 3 years.

    Likewise my HTC One that I bought over a year ago I wont change for another year at least as every app and Android itself runs perfectly.

    I once thought the hardware refresh cycle would mean significant spend continuously to keep my gadgets bang up to date but I'm sure my wallet is grateful for not having to do that!

    1. LaeMing
      Happy

      Yes. I used to run my home PC on a 2-3 year upgrade cycle but the last CPU+board upgrade is now over 4 years ago and getting more distant with no sign of flagging. I need a new bottom-end-of-the-top-tier graphics card sometime soon, and since my 27" 1920x1200 (nice large dot-pitch for that sitting-back-from-the-screen experience) LCD is starting to exhibit warm-up glitches after 5+ years that will likely soon be upgraded to 2560x1600. So I appear to be on at least a 5-year+ upgrade cycle.

  9. Ali on the Reg

    No single reason

    TV sales are falling because most people already have a big HD TV at home already, sometimes more than one. Why upgrade? 3D has died a death. 4k looks good - up close that is! Sit at any normal distance and the difference between 4k and 1080p is barely distinguishable for the vast majority of scenes. This won't stop most people buying it of course but currently prices are high and there does not exist the content or the means to deliver it. OLED has potential but is still way too expensive to manufacture even after 20+ years of development, and TV manufacturers have decided that 4k is more marketable. Mostly however I'd say that computing and the Internet has changed the developed world. Our family for example mostly consume media using computers/tablets - the TV is used very little. And when I say 'media' I don't mean just TV content. Even my 6 year old streams pre-recorded content from a DLNA server to her iPad. If we occasionally want to watch a family-friendly movie we fire up the home cinema projector - these can be purchased for around the same cost or less than a TV these days. And because people can watch what they want, when they want there is no need to congregate around the idiot box at pre-determined times (unless you are a member of the football religion).

This topic is closed for new posts.

Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2021