News & Analysis
3-D TV or Myspace TV?
Junko Yoshida
1/10/2012 10:55 AM EST
LAS VEGAS -- Let’s face it. Consumers have been lukewarm toward 3-D TVs in the past two years. Even some of us in the media who used to be hungry for 3-D are no longer drooling.
But never mind that. All the major TV companies, ranging from Samsung and Panasonic to Sharp and Sony, announced a host of new 3-D products at press conferences Monday.
This onslaught of new 3-D TVs comes to this reporter as something of a yawn. Still, it’s fascinating to see how defensive about 3-D many of those CE companies have become, compared to their attitude at CES last year.
In Samsung’s press briefing on Monday, for example, 3-D decidedly took a backseat to the company’s new product strategy: “enjoy and share” all content across devices. In a nutshell, TV’s connectivity – in terms of apps and services – with mobile phones and tablets is Samsung’s next big push.
Boo-Keun Yoon, president of Samsung's consumer electronics division based in Korea, threw in 3-D almost as an afterthought. He said: “We are still investing in 3-D, by bringing high-quality 3-D content to the market.” Of course, the operative word that got my attention was the word “still.” Samsung is “still” investing in 3-D.
Even at Panasonic’s press event, the company saved its biggest news until the end, which, surprise, surprise, wasn’t about 3-D.
Panasonic struck a deal with MySpace, which is now refurbishing itself as MySpace TV. Panasonic invited Myspace CEO Tim Vanderhook and co-owner Justin Timberlake on stage to talk about Myspace TV’s mission: bringing the “social television” viewing experiences to consumers. (The two purchased MySpace from NewsCorp earlier this year.)

Justin Timberlake, co-owner of Myspace, pitches Myspace TV.
Panasonic is counting on Myspace TV to make TV “social again,” according to the company, by feeding onscreen messages from friends, finding “trends” (which programs your buddies are watching) and others. “This is not about web video services,” said Timberlake. “This is about making TV better and making TV at its best.”
As dubious as “social TV” might sound, what was clear is that making TV at its best in the mind of Timberlake wasn’t about bringing 3-D to everyone’s living room.
That said, Panasonic executives did their best to defend 3-D.
Speaking of 3-D, Shiro Kitajima, President of Panasonic Consumer Electronics Company of the North America, said, “We are barely in the second year since the 3-D launch.” He stressed the popularity of 3-D by quoting CEA’s market projection numbers. CEA is predicting sales of 7 million units of 3-D TV and 9 million units of 3-D Blu-ray systems in 2012.
Kitajima said, compared to the time when the industry launched HD, “we are doing well.”
But I must say that the public and the media should give the Japanese giant a little break. Panasonic deserves credit for its persistence, throwing money at the dirty job of producing and delivering 3-D content to ingrate consumers.
Panasonic is determined to make 3-D happen.
Panasonic announced at CES that it’s teaming with the NBC’s Sports Group to make the London 2012 Olympic Games available in 3D to all U.S. distributors who carry Olympic coverage on cable, satellite and telco. NBC is promising to deliver more than 200 hours of 3-D programming on its Olympics coverage.
Will that trigger the public to start embracing the new 3-D TV, just as some major broadcast events in the past helped convince consumers to upgrade from black-and-white to color, and then analog to digital?
The answer remains elusive.
At a time when more consumers are finding ways to view TVs other than sitting in a living room to watch a large-screen 3-D set, more people question how long the concept of “broadcast” TV will remain viable. However, we should note that of all broadcast TV content, live sports remains the last bastion -- still sending consumers back into the living room and watch the game with friends and family.
Market analysts and video industry consultants have been blaming the dearth of 3-D content for consumers’ slow pickup on 3-D. One industry consultant, speaking on the condition of anonymity, pointed out: “I’ve been tracking 3-D from the camera to the displays. Most [3-D movies] are crap.” When I caught up with him last week, he said, “I may go see ‘Hugo’ in 3-D later today, which I’ve heard is one of the better 3-D productions.”
Panasonic’s press conference Monday was heavy with superfluous B-list celebrities – as usual.
Aside from Timberlake, co-owner of Myspace, Panasonic’s guest list this year ranged from Micahel Lang, CEO of Miramax (pushing Miramax apps), Ed Begley, Jr. (eco-friendly homes), to Gary Zenkel from NBC and female football player Brandi Chastain (promoting NBC/Panasonic partnership on Olympics in 3D).
Conspicuously absent from the list was filmmaker Martin Scorsese, director of “Hugo.”
Panasonic, however, shared an alleged Scorsese’ quote with the crowd. When asked why he used 3-D for shooting “Hugo,” Scorsese reportedly said: “Because life happens in 3-D.”
3-D’s cinematic debate aside, the bottom line of the industry’s 3-D push is clear: Most TV manufacturers need 3-D to prevent the value of their TV sets from falling further.
Whether consumers buy new TVs for 3-D’s sake or not, Panasonic, for one, is planning on 93 percent of the company’s plasma TVs in 2012 to be 3-D; 40 percent of its LCD TVs will be in 3-D, while four out of six Blu-ray products they sell this year will feature 3-D.
Like life, 3-D is what happens while you’re doing other things.
To read EE Times' full CES coverage, please visit here.
Navigate to related information


Duane Benson
1/10/2012 11:40 AM EST
Black and white to color is a pretty natural progression. There's really no mystery why that happened. Still, it was about twenty years between the first color TV broadcast and the last black and white broadcast.
I think analog to digital TV was a government mandate to allow better use of the spectrum. Without that mandate, I doubt that the a to d conversion would have happened nearly as fast.
Certainly there is technical benefit to 3D TV. In theory, it should better match they rest of our reality. However, the need to wear special glasses, the potential for headaches and the poor quality of much of the materials offset the modest gains of the 3D experience.
Sign in to Reply
junko.yoshida
1/10/2012 11:57 AM EST
Yeah, I agree, Duane. 3-D aside, what's puzzling me is Myspace TV... I know every CE vendor is under pressure to come up with something to make their TV "social," I am not really sure how social I want to become when dozing off on my couch... you know what I mean?
Sign in to Reply
Duane Benson
1/10/2012 12:06 PM EST
It seems to me that Myspace TV kind of misses the point. The problem with the old model of television viewing is the lack of socialness. The problem is really the rigidity. In my youth, a TV show was on at a specific time each week. If you wanted to watch it, you had to be in front of a TV when it was on. The social component came in when you and your friends talked about it the next day or on the phone.
The new generation of media viewers, for the most part, really doesn't understand the staticness of that model. Virtually anything can be found on demand today. The social component is taken care of quite well via text messaging.
The hole in the conventional television viewing experience is largely in completeness of web video services - seamless searching and display as well as inexpensive legal access. It's not in social media.
iTunes changed the music industry because it solved a problem at a price point that customers saw as equal to the delivered value. Television needs a similar solution, not trends or exposed text messages.
Sign in to Reply
karen.field
1/10/2012 1:54 PM EST
My process of "Socialization" when it comes to television is to call my mother right after "House" finishes airing to discuss the plot. Call me old, er make that really old, school!!
Sign in to Reply
David Ashton
1/10/2012 10:37 PM EST
I must admit, I have thought about getting a PVR so I can time shift the programmes I really like (Air Crash Investigations and the like) from their near-midnight time slots to a more reasonable hour.
Then maybe I would not be so damn tired and be able to socialise more without falling asleep....
Sign in to Reply
rick.merritt
1/10/2012 2:59 PM EST
3-D is hear to stay and will only (slowly) get better IMHO.
But we want it all from that big screen on the wall: Web, social, 3-D, HD...and maybe someday smellovision (yuck!)
Sign in to Reply
nicolas.mokhoff
1/10/2012 5:21 PM EST
I hear ya, Rick. 3-D is here to stay as are all glitzy gadgets that have their shiny moments in their life. But after the glitz, comes the reality: who wants to wear glasses in order to enjoy themselves? And no matter what prognosticators say, auto-stereoscopic TVs are a long way off. Unless you're Sony: http://www.tgdaily.com/consumer-electronics-brief/60694-sony-introduces-glasses-free-3d-tv-at-ces (caveat: I do not own stock in Sony.)
Sign in to Reply
rick.merritt
1/10/2012 8:07 PM EST
Auto-stereo is here for small screens like Nintendo DS. For big screens, I am told, we need a new fast-switching display tech and face tracking that EEs are working on.
Sign in to Reply
Frank Eory
1/10/2012 4:52 PM EST
The movie Avatar came and went a few years back, and the public has mostly forgotten it already. Not much 3D content since then has been compelling enough to make large numbers of consumers say wow, I need to go spend a bunch of money on a new TV so I can have 3D at home!
Social TV? Maybe. I don't think I want my screen cluttered with a bunch of IMs from my friends discussing the show I am trying to watch right now. Maybe we can talk about it after it's over...and we don't need the TV for that.
But the younger generation is different. I can imagine a lot of interest among teens and young adults in halfway paying attention to a TV show they are supposedly watching, while simultaneously typing/text chatting with a bunch other people, and all of that stuff cluttering up a single display. I suspect that the worse your ADD is, the more you find this idea appealing :)
Sign in to Reply
Bert22306
1/10/2012 5:55 PM EST
I have to believe that the only reason vendors are adding 3D capability to TV sets is that this can be done at a low cost.
Also, I see the 3D phenomenon differently from color and HDTV. People in general wanted color, and wanted high def images, but the initial hardware was just too expensive. So of course, people held off, until prices dropped. When prices of color TVs and of HDTV reached the order of magnitude of what came before, those products became the norm. The new standard.
It's simply not the same for 3D. It's not like people are clamoring for it. Honestly, from the first articles ballyhooing 3D TV a few years ago, all I could ask myself is, "Where is this coming from?"
As to "broadcast," it's not clear to me what people mean by that anymore. No one has had to watch TV in real time, i.e. "by appointment," for just about 30 years now. Whether the technique was time shifting with VCR, then PVR, or whether streaming online, it makes no difference.
The story-telling part of TV won't die. Nor will the news and sports. But I do agree that the distribution techniques have been and will continue to change over time.
Sign in to Reply
rick.merritt
1/10/2012 8:06 PM EST
If you saw Scorsese's "Hugo" you know stereo 3-D and story telling can be a wonderful combo. If you didn't see it, please go.
Sign in to Reply
Bert22306
1/10/2012 8:53 PM EST
Sorry, Rick. I did not see Hugo, but I have seen any number of 3D movies. We go to the movies frequently. So, I'm not convinced.
In every case, I would have been just as happy to see the movie in 2D. We go to the 3D showing based purely on schedule or availability.
And in more than a few cases, the 3D effect made me queasy anyway. It has to do, I believe, with the difference between how close an object is meant to be, according to eye convergence caused by the 3D effect, and where the eyes' lenses are actually focused. I've read that this affects most those who do not wear glasses. Evidently, because when you don't wear glasses, your lenses are actually focused on the object. You still need to focus on the screen, even if the 3D effect is telling you the object is in front of your nose.
Queasiness is especially bad in movies which go for the maximum "wow" factor. In some cases, it's not a big deal.
Sign in to Reply
rajuchaluva
1/11/2012 2:17 AM EST
Experiencing 3D with TV is not that great compare to theatres!!
Sign in to Reply