×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

202 comments

The Decline of Japanese Consumer Electronics (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#45293803)

Continues...

Why is Obamacare failing so badly? (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#45293815)

But, when in doubt, Occam's Razor remains the most useful tool in analyzing politics. Why is Obamacare failing so badly?

Because its authors just aren't that smart, or organized, or hard-working, or detail-oriented.

They've never done anything in their lives like run a business where accomplishment actually mattered more than bullshit.

They've been lawyers, or academics, or politicans.

They are, in short, the apotheosis of the post-1960s graduate student mentality... they don't actually have any skills... other than changing the world.

Re:Why is Obamacare failing so badly? (0, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#45294083)

You should restrict yourself to having only one window or tab open at a time in your browser.

Re:Why is Obamacare failing so badly? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#45294107)

You should restrict yourself to using only one window and tab in your browser so that this doesn't happen again.

Re:Why is Obamacare failing so badly? (2, Insightful)

BergZ (1680594) | about 5 months ago | (#45294207)

The comment I'm replying to is the perfect example of why people are so tired of Obama-haters:
Because you can't seem to limit yourselves to talking about how much you hate his healthcare plan (or anything else about him for that matter), even when it has absolutly nothing to do with the topic at hand.
You don't like his plan: everybody everwhere in the world has heard your complaints about a million times already; give it a goddamn rest.
Just save your two minutes of hate for the next "What's wrong with HealthCare.gov?" article of which there is sure to be one every day for the next few months.

Re:Why is Obamacare failing so badly? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#45294259)

Look, they're using up all their ranting in an odd-numbered year. Don't get in their way. By next November the fatigue will have set in; it's the same thing that happened with Reagan.

Please, proceed, GPvernor.

Re:Why is Obamacare failing so badly? (-1, Offtopic)

epyT-R (613989) | about 5 months ago | (#45294409)

Why should someone who disagrees with obama restrict himself to his healthcare plan? In fact, wouldn't it be myopic to hate him solely because of it? It's not like obama hasn't made other questionable decisions, both as president and as senator. Eg, he voted for the PATRIOT act, and then renewed its provisions as president. For me, that is a large blemish on his record, regardless of his politics.

Re:Why is Obamacare failing so badly? (0, Offtopic)

Jeff Flanagan (2981883) | about 5 months ago | (#45294945)

It would be foolish to hate him because of the ACA at all. The ignorant conservatives need to get it through their thick heads that this is the Conservative pro-business plan. The Liberals want single-payer like civilized countries. If the Republicans keep acting crazy, we have no choice but to marginalize them, and they'll have no input in policy at all.

Because of the Limited Lifespan? (1, Insightful)

CanHasDIY (1672858) | about 5 months ago | (#45293847)

I mean, OK, we all know that electronic devices have a truncated lifespan... but when you go to buy a plasma TV, they make a point to tell you it will only work for about 50,000 hours, after which you have to go buy a brand new one. Hence the reason all the flat panels I own (which were bought before LED TV prices started to come down) are LCD and not plasma.

Re:Because of the Limited Lifespan? (5, Informative)

CastrTroy (595695) | about 5 months ago | (#45293887)

50,000 hours at 10 hours a day is 13.7 years. I certainly don't watch 10 hours of TV a day. Probably maxes out most days around 4, meaning that the TV would last me about 34 years. Assuming something else didn't break first. 50,000 hours is quite a long time.

Re:Because of the Limited Lifespan? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#45293949)

50,000 hours at 10 hours a day is 13.7 years. I certainly don't watch 10 hours of TV a day. Probably maxes out most days around 4, meaning that the TV would last me about 34 years. Assuming something else didn't break first. 50,000 hours is quite a long time.

Not when you have a family that leaves the fucking thing on all day despite your best efforts to get them to stop.

Re:Because of the Limited Lifespan? (1)

rolfwind (528248) | about 5 months ago | (#45294087)

Make them pay the next electric bill out of pocket.

Re:Because of the Limited Lifespan? (2)

geekoid (135745) | about 5 months ago | (#45294105)

lets say it's 1Kw.
24*30 720 Kw.
so about 10 bucks. That's not going to change anyone's habits.

Re:Because of the Limited Lifespan? (1)

rolfwind (528248) | about 5 months ago | (#45294143)

I didn't say to estimate their fair portion, just the whole bill. Continue to do it until they turn their shit off.

Re:Because of the Limited Lifespan? (1)

epyT-R (613989) | about 5 months ago | (#45294439)

Then he'd be as unjust as his lazy family members. He'd lose their respect and the result would be multilateral passive aggression from all corners.

Re:Because of the Limited Lifespan? (1)

freeze128 (544774) | about 5 months ago | (#45294027)

It may not fail like that. Suppose that the display degraded 50% after 50% of its lifetime was up? After about 6 or 7 years, you may notice the difference.

Re:Because of the Limited Lifespan? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#45294137)

Operational lifespans only count if you leave it on all the time. Believe me, power cycling something that is high volatage (by consumer standards) will drop the lifespan on a device like a brick. Even low voltage systems suffer from this power cycling stress. In other words, you can't watch only Jeopardy every day and expect the unit to last 100,000 uses.

Re:Because of the Limited Lifespan? (1, Interesting)

Charliemopps (1157495) | about 5 months ago | (#45294731)

Have you ever owned a Plasma? They die... all the time. I had 3 plasmas die in as many years. I've had the same LCD for 7 years now. Every time I go over to someones house and their TV has a giant glitchy white or black stripe running down the screen I know they have a plasma. I'm sure there are some success stories but when even the $7k+ luxury models have higher failure rates, that technology needs to die.

Re:Because of the Limited Lifespan? (1)

gmanterry (1141623) | about 5 months ago | (#45294993)

50,000 hours at 10 hours a day is 13.7 years. I certainly don't watch 10 hours of TV a day. Probably maxes out most days around 4, meaning that the TV would last me about 34 years. Assuming something else didn't break first. 50,000 hours is quite a long time.

But I'm retired and my TV is powered on for about 14 hours a day. That is 10 years.

Re:Because of the Limited Lifespan? (2)

mcmonkey (96054) | about 5 months ago | (#45293895)

I mean, OK, we all know that electronic devices have a truncated lifespan... but when you go to buy a plasma TV, they make a point to tell you it will only work for about 50,000 hours, after which you have to go buy a brand new one. Hence the reason all the flat panels I own (which were bought before LED TV prices started to come down) are LCD and not plasma.

Every TV has a limited life span. The number you quote is only relevant after your flat panel displays last 17 years. (50,000 hours at 8 hours/day.)

Re:Because of the Limited Lifespan? (2)

sinij (911942) | about 5 months ago | (#45293917)

This is almost 6 years of continuous operation. How long do you think your backlight will last?

Re:Because of the Limited Lifespan? (1)

Khyber (864651) | about 5 months ago | (#45294263)

I've used my 32" Samsung TV as a monitor since day one back in 2008, clocking 12 or more hours daily. Still pretty good backlighting!

Re:Because of the Limited Lifespan? (1)

Valdrax (32670) | about 5 months ago | (#45294457)

How expensive do you think replacing a backlight is compared to replacing an entire plasma screen?

Re:Because of the Limited Lifespan? (2)

Jeff Flanagan (2981883) | about 5 months ago | (#45294965)

You don't replace a backlight. Like the plasma, when an LCD gets old, you replace it with a much improved model.

Re:Because of the Limited Lifespan? (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#45293935)

You know that 50,000 hours is over 5 years of non-stop use. Even if the set was on for 12 hours a day, that's still over 11 years.

Also, that 50,000 hour count was not the "lifespan", but the half-life of the phosphors. Meaning after 50,000 hours of operation the screen would be half as bright as when new.

Know what else uses phosphors with a half-life? The back-light of the LCD panels you've bought up until the last couple years (LEDs also have a brightness half-life, so it still applies).

Good job being misled.

Re:Because of the Limited Lifespan? (1)

rolfwind (528248) | about 5 months ago | (#45294097)

LEDs have a lifespan of 100k hours, and they claim brightness will still be 70% of the original or there about.

Re:Because of the Limited Lifespan? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#45294127)

... at 25C LED case temperature.
Good luck maintaining that without a infinite heatsink.

Re:Because of the Limited Lifespan? (5, Insightful)

CanHasDIY (1672858) | about 5 months ago | (#45294245)

You know that 50,000 hours is over 5 years of non-stop use.

Yes, I do, but apparently I'm not your typical American consumer, who feels they have to buy something new every couple of years, even when the old one works fine.

My point being, the fact that they point out the lifespan of plasma televisions (while omitting the lifespan of other types of display) works, in a psychological sense, to scare away most consumers, who aren't going to take the time to do back-of-the-napkin calculations while standing in Best Buy; rather, they hear the phrase "limited lifespan" and subconsciously remove that product from their mental list of potential purchases.

Re:Because of the Limited Lifespan? (1)

bmcage (785177) | about 5 months ago | (#45294887)

Looking at HD content on my 10+ year old Panasonic plasma (yes, no hdmi, that was not out yet). Still looks great ... and better than the LCDs of that time. How it looks was the reason to buy it.

This is actually one of the few electronics products in my house I've been really satisfied with. Customers like me would buy LED now though. If you are BMW, you need to move with the best products in class: aluminium, electronic car, ... . Plasme could never shift to the lower segment as LCD had that well covered for less price.

Re:Because of the Limited Lifespan? (5, Informative)

hairyfish (1653411) | about 5 months ago | (#45294011)

They're playing down the burn in issue, "[Burn-in] is a real issue, but it actually takes much longer use than any normal person would watch a single image". Our cable provider puts a square box at the bottom of the screen with channel info in it every time you change channels. I've had my plasma about 8 years and it has the shadow of that box burnt into it.

Re:Because of the Limited Lifespan? (2)

mkettler (6309) | about 5 months ago | (#45294161)

Interesting. My cable company puts up the same guide-box on the bottom of the screen every time I change channels, with the same, static header bar. I've had a Panasonic TH-42PX80U Plasma for 4 years (almost 5), with no burn-in issues. I play video games on it too.

I have the pixel-orbiter on, and I do use the screen wiper once a year or so, so that may be some help. Regardless, I find it strange that the box is up long enough to result in image retention. AFAIK, displaying the black box in the same spot frequently shouldn't matter unless it's up there a very large percentage of the time the set is used (i.e.: way more than 10% of the time.).

I know older sets are more vulnerable, but it doesn't sound like yours should be old enough to lack things like a pixel orbiter.

Re:Because of the Limited Lifespan? (2)

Skarecrow77 (1714214) | about 5 months ago | (#45294615)

your tv is 4 years old.
GP's tv is 8 years old.

that's the difference right there. modern plasmas have pushed the threshold for permanent burn-in times to something like 18-20 continuous hours.

image retention of video game static images happens after just a few minutes on my 3 year old plasma, but the screen wiper (or just watching regular tv) cleans that off in a minute or two... but I've got an LCD monitor that does the same thing. image retention isn't burn-in.

hell you can burn-in a CRT if you try. nobody ever complained about that being a downfall of the technology.

Re:Because of the Limited Lifespan? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#45294183)

I've had a Panasonic plasma for 3 years, no persistent burn-in issues. The longest any image has remained was 2 hours. I use mine 5-8 hours a night as a computer monitor (HTPC) and have no problems with burn-in from browsers, windows, etc... I am sad to see Panasonic discontinue their plasma line, but look forward to getting an OLED TV as early reviews are extremely positive for them.

Re:Because of the Limited Lifespan? (1)

rhazz (2853871) | about 5 months ago | (#45294221)

Older plasma models were much more likely to have burn-in. Improvements in the technology have reduced the potential for burn-in on newer models, however it is still possible and is why you shouldn't leave static images on the screen for extended periods. I'm quite surprised that you got burn in from a "temporary" image only when changing channels (unless more than 50% of your viewing time is changing channels), in fact I doubt the burn in was from that limited exposure. Is it possible that the TV was shifted to an unavailable channel and the channel info was left displayed for an extended period? An example would be leaving the TV on a satellite channel that becomes inactive overnight - some setups will pop up the channel info until the feed becomes available again. I currently have a Panasonic plasma I purchased around 2006-2007. When I bought it the instructions were pretty explicit about avoiding static images for the first month of operation. A couple years in I accidentally left a game paused over night (8+ hours) which produced some burn in, but it faded within 24 hours.

Re:Because of the Limited Lifespan? (1)

rolfwind (528248) | about 5 months ago | (#45294069)

We have a 42" plasma since 2007 without problem. The limit in lifespan I guess will be a problem eventually, although not the killer. I guess it's that I expect to upgrade TVs by the end of it, preferably to 4k resolution.

The bigger problem is electric usage. This monster uses ~335 watts. My older early 00's HD projection 60" TV uses ~140 watts. Electricity in my area is really expensive in the meantime so this is just a no go.

I know my LED computer monitors use 33% less than even my same sized fluorescent based LCD monitors, so I expect significant enough savings when an if I do upgrade as this is in the main family use with a lot of use. That plus the wife is pushing for an ultra slim model, that would seem to preclud plasma I guess.

Re:Because of the Limited Lifespan? (1)

radish (98371) | about 5 months ago | (#45294269)

I have a plasma TV that's about 10 years old. I just replaced it with a new screen because it was getting to the point where the contrast was noticeably low. Still works just fine (and no burn in), just the picture isn't as good as it used to be. It's probably done I'd guess 20k hours and this is 10 year old technology - the plasma I replaced it with will last much longer.

Re:Because of the Limited Lifespan? (1)

CanHasDIY (1672858) | about 5 months ago | (#45294371)

What size, and how's the power draw on that thing?

I'm looking at LED TVs for my next display purchase, although I might miss the "free" heat my LCDs grace me with; my office is downright toasty during the winter months.

Re:Because of the Limited Lifespan? (1)

radish (98371) | about 5 months ago | (#45294649)

The old one was a panny 42" that weighed 70 something pounds and pulled nearly 400w! The new one is 50", 50lbs and around 140w. Still heavier and thirstier than an LCD but so much better looking.

Re:Because of the Limited Lifespan? (5, Interesting)

Dega704 (1454673) | about 5 months ago | (#45294467)

Many sales people are poorly informed and give out extremely inaccurate information. First of all, that number is the half-life rating (the amount of time it takes for the display to degrade to half it's original brightness). Secondly, most decent model plasma screens had a half-life rating of 60,000 hours, the exact same as what most LCD models are rated at; and most of the newer Panasonic models were rated at 100,000 hours, so they actually had a LONGER lifespan than most LCD TVs until LED backlights became the norm. For context, old CRT TVs were rated at 25,000 hours. How long have you seen some of those last?

Re:Because of the Limited Lifespan? (1)

ChronoReverse (858838) | about 5 months ago | (#45294531)

Modern Plasmas last 100,000 hours just like LEDs (http://shop.panasonic.com/shop/model/TC-P65ST60)

oh goddamn it (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#45293857)

CNET's very top TVs for image quality only are Panasonic plasmas :(

everyone i know who prefers LCDs have taken to heart weird ass rumors regarding plasma (unstoppable burn in; must sit exactly 10 ft from it; everything looks cell shaded; etc.)

hope my kuro doesnt die before someone makes a proper 4k set (only going to use it for large screen computer gaming)

Re:oh goddamn it (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#45294247)

On my last TV I made it a point to buy one that had a sane power usage. Less than my 35 inch sony CRT.

The only ones fitting that bill were LCD LED. Everything else had horrid standby some as much as 40w. Others the power usage was more than the TV I was replacing. Many topping 250-400w of power during usage. POWER = heat = short lifespan.

The plasmas have incredible pictures. If you set them next to an LCD. But by itself most LCD's were/are pretty good. 2160p (4k)TVs will be pretty cool. Once they get the refresh rate up there. Hopefully they also decide 40bit per pixel.

The one I ended up with? less than .05 w standby and ~80 w full power. Also made sure to get a 240 refresh rate. Motion blur is very minimal. Way brighter and better picture than what it replaced. I'm sure in 5-10 years when I replace this one that one will be way better and it has some high specs to beat... My only complaint is the hdmi lag when the cool features of the TV are turned on.

OLED (3)

Art3x (973401) | about 5 months ago | (#45293865)

From the article:

It's a shame, because even though LCD tech has shown a lot of improvement, plasma displays have inherent advantages, primarily because the tech doesn't require a backlight -- unlike LCDs, which twist crystals in individual pixels to affect the light passing through, plasma pixels illuminate themselves.

And once big-screen OLED becomes cheap enough (OLED pixels, not just OLED backlit) then that advantage will dwindle away too.

Re:OLED (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#45293997)

"If big-screen OLED becomes cheap enough (OLED pixels, not just OLED backlit) then that advantage will dwindle away too."

FTFY

Re:OLED (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#45294103)

ORGANIC LED. Organic means it has to be fed every day and it will shit on the floor.

Re:OLED (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#45294413)

ORGANIC LED. Organic means it has to be fed every day and it will shit on the floor.

So you can only watch reality tv with it?

capcha: contempt.... very fitting

Too bad (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#45293893)

I picked up a 55 inch panasonic plasma almost a year ago and I really like it. At the time it was a much better value than LCD equivalents. It's surpassed all of my expectations and I've got no complaints at all.

Even in that short year, though, LCDs have come a long way. The features are getting better, image better. 120hz is no longer an exotic premium option only for high end displays. The prices have come down too. I can see why panasonic is having trouble selling plasmas.

They are only the best rated TVs... (5, Insightful)

astro128 (669526) | about 5 months ago | (#45293921)

This is a real sham - Plasma TVs, and Panasonic ones specifically (the ST60 model lineup) are consistently the highest rated TVs out there. CNET has several article devoted to why should only buy plasma tvs and not LCD. The main reasons? Significantly better colors, no motion blur, wider view angles. I have a Panasonic TC-P60ST60 and it looks amazing. The real reason that LCD sell better? They do look better in bright rooms, though not by much. What room is the brightest of them all? Bestbuy show floors so that is where the comparison is made, not your living room.

Re:They are only the best rated TVs... (1)

cold fjord (826450) | about 5 months ago | (#45294017)

Looks like the time to buy is coming up before they're gone.

Not the first time that a better technology has been driven from the market.

Re:They are only the best rated TVs... (1)

alexander_686 (957440) | about 5 months ago | (#45294101)

It depends on what you mean by technology.

LCDs started off strong. This encourage more investment in fabs, which encourage more research on how to produce LCDs, which lead to better fabs, which lead to lower prices, resulting in stronger sales. A vitreous cycle ensures.

LCDs clearly have the better manufacturing technology. Now if we are talking about display quality..

Re:They are only the best rated TVs... (0)

geekoid (135745) | about 5 months ago | (#45294131)

Plasma aren't better, and they consume a hell of a lot of power

Re:They are only the best rated TVs... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#45294543)

Aren't better at clouding? Aren't better at motion blur? Aren't better at equating grey with black? Which are you referring to?

Re:They are only the best rated TVs... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#45294071)

Dito. I might buy another just incase mine dies.

I love my Viera and was hoping to upsize.... (3, Interesting)

myvirtualid (851756) | about 5 months ago | (#45293923)

We have a c.2003 52" Viera and love it.

The brightness is not an issue: it's on the North wall of the living room, facing a large window, and if it is "too sunny", I close the drapes. Done.

The viewing angle is amazing. Sunday night suppers are often prepared standing at the counter "just this side" of the family room, watching football.

I've stayed away from L[CE]D TVs because plasma just seemed like a better solution.

And now they will go the way of Betamax.

Silly consumers, believing hype and myth, buying poorer tech, and not saving a whole lot doing it....

Re:I love my Viera and was hoping to upsize.... (1)

jfengel (409917) | about 5 months ago | (#45294063)

Yeah, that's what I came here to say. I liked the look of the plasma considerably better, and I'm very happy with my Viera. Brightness has never been an issue. I did have to fiddle with the out-of-the-box settings to remove some misfeatures and get the colors right, and its Internet features are slow and clunky, but it does almost exactly what I want.

I hope that by the time it finally dies, they've fixed all the fails with LCDs (motion artifacts, poor contrast, mediocre color.)

Good riddance! (5, Insightful)

Nethead (1563) | about 5 months ago | (#45293925)

Plasma sets put out so much RFI that it makes working HF hell if one is in your neighborhood.

Re:Good riddance! (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#45294179)

That's interesting. Digital breakup is a problem here. Some of it can be easily correlated with low-flying aircraft. The real problem is rain and wind. I think the additional moisture in the air combined with wind attenuates and refracts signals just enough to mess with digital video. I noticed that compact florescent bulbs have a minor impact.

Receiving digital signals is borderline here. I have no external antenna and cannot place one because the owner doesn't allow it. I'm using an amplified set of rabbit ears. Without the amplifier it barely works.

I miss analog. The combination of FM audio and AM video degrades gracefully under marginal conditions. There's no way they'll boost their signals (it's too expensive) and there's no way I'll pay for cable (TV is crap and I'm trying to cut back anyway).

It's just interesting in an academic sort of way to think that on rainy days, it might not be the atmosphere messing with my signal; but all the other people inside watching TV as well.

Re:Good riddance! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#45294297)

Lets hope samsung follows soon, A neighbor of mine got one of these noisemakers and support wasn't helpful at all, they recommended 'shielding' off my antenna?!

Re:Good riddance! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#45294639)

Look at this as an opportunity to advance the state-of-the-art in S/N discrimination. Lord knows ham radio could use it - that field has been at a standstill for 30 years.

Cost and market (4, Insightful)

Midnight Thunder (17205) | about 5 months ago | (#45293939)

In Europe and Asia energy costs are high, so using an energy hungry TV makes little sense. Once these markets start shifting, a portion of the US market is no longer a sufficient reason to keep a manufacturing line open

Target and Wal-Mart (1)

Kagato (116051) | about 5 months ago | (#45293967)

Best Buy is still a Market leader in electronics in general, but Wal-Mart and Target continue to make up a large part of this market. They have a preference for LCD. The sales staff isn't trained to talk about video quality. Plasma doesn't burn in any more, but it can have temporary retention issues. That's more than enough for retailers like Wal-Mart and Target to take the path of least resistance.

For all of it's failings as a store, including the ill-fated DIVX rental model, Circuit City was really the last national retailer that actually put effort into training the sales staff on some of the finer points of AV.

Re:Target and Wal-Mart (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#45294309)

Best Buy is still a Market leader in electronics in general, but Wal-Mart and Target continue to make up a large part of this market. They have a preference for LCD. The sales staff isn't trained to talk about video quality. Plasma doesn't burn in any more, but it can have temporary retention issues. That's more than enough for retailers like Wal-Mart and Target to take the path of least resistance.

I think the preference for LCD is that they weigh considerably less then a plasma. The lesser weight means lesser shipping costs. A 42" LCD will fit in a shopping cart, and you can get a 60" LCD out the door and into the truck of a Walmart person. Even a 42" plasma would be more unwieldy then a lot of Walmart shoppers want to deal with and a 60" would require delivery, and setup, which is not something Walmart wants to do.

Re:Target and Wal-Mart (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#45294525)

To their credit, I worked for Target for 16 years and since 2008 they send electronics training manuals for everyone who works in electronics. They even have a quiz that is supposed to be taken by all said team members twice a year so they stay up to date. Correct information about the difference between plasma, LCD and LED IS in there. However, when they're paying their general team members $7-8 an hour, they have no real incentive to pay attention to anything. Also, most management is a joke and doesn't care themselves.
Target and Wal-Mark are *Discount Retailers.* Anyone who takes any information from someone working in a department that sells TVs roughly 20 feet away from diapers and 100 feet away from ice cream isn't going to seriously question it. Then again, most people going to Target (or Wal-Mart for that matter) is likely more concerned about price than any benefits in the different technologies.
All in all, blame the consumers. It's their money. It's their time not spent researching anything themselves. In these days of everyone having the internet available at all times, even on their phones, people are still as helpless as ever.

Blacker blacks? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#45293991)

Who you calling "spook", peckerwood?

Re:Blacker blacks? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#45294593)

huhuhuh.. you, buttknocker...

Power consumption (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#45294009)

For me the issues are
1) Power consumption
2) Lifespan of the TV
3) Potential burnin issues
4) Brightness
5) Size

If you're on a budget then in terms of TCO LCD wins out and is good enough in most of the areas it trails Plasma.

New display must be better overall (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#45294025)

For me, plasma was always a bit too expensive and power hungry.
Before getting my 55in HDTV to replace my 36in tube several things had to happen.
1. Price.. that 36 in tube set cost 1K
2. Size of display for price
3. Size of display (area it will consume in home)
4. Other factors such-as cost to run, view angle, expected life of set

Once that happened, out went the tube TV, onto the wall went the LCD/LED lit screen
Cost became less than the old 36in tube set.
Happy enough for now... sort-of

Before considering purchase my next TV there needs to be 2 important things to happen.
1. Most of all, the programming... this needs a very big change. Don't know who makes up the new shows but they trully suck!
2. Want real Holographic tv at a fair price.

Betamax (1)

swb (14022) | about 5 months ago | (#45294043)

I need to download the comments to this story and do a find/replace on "Plasma" and "Plasma TV" and replace it with Betamax and see how it reads.

Yet another superior technology undone by good enough.

Re:Betamax (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#45294205)

Plasma has some advantages over LCD, and some disadvantages. I wouldn't call it "superior technology." Personally, I would never buy one.

Re:Betamax (1, Troll)

geekoid (135745) | about 5 months ago | (#45294295)

Define superior?
Betamax was licensing and taps size. The technical merits that it was better with didn't out way the areas people wanted. Plus you watch a tape a few times and all those betamax advantages went away anyways.

Plasma is a huge power sink, and doesn't work with the incoming tech.

Plasma doesn't have 4k people will afford. It needs to have some redesign.
Plasma is a huge energy sync.

So by those metrics, it isn't better.

Re:Betamax (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#45294677)

So by those metrics, it isn't better.

However, by the metric of "holy God does that LCD picture look like complete shit when compared to the plasma next to it" it is light-years beyond LCD.

I like to be able to see the individual bullets fly while I'm watching action movies. Plasma gives me this. LCD makes them look like tennis balls.

Re:Betamax (5, Informative)

JDG1980 (2438906) | about 5 months ago | (#45294641)

I need to download the comments to this story and do a find/replace on "Plasma" and "Plasma TV" and replace it with Betamax and see how it reads.

I really don't understand how Betamax came to become one of the canonical examples of a superior technology brought down by a lesser competitor.

In its original form, Betamax was not appreciably superior to VHS in terms of resolution. The difference was maybe 5%-10% at most. A videophile might notice the difference, especially if he had an expensive Trinitron set, but the average viewer watching the tapes on an average TV set would not.

On the other hand, VHS was clearly superior to Betamax in one way that many consumers cared about a great deal: runtime. Remember that when home VCRs were first released, a blank cassette could cost $20 or more (and I'm not even adjusting for inflation). The earliest Betamax units could only get 1 hour out of a standard L-500 tape. In contrast, VHS started at 2 hours on the typical T-120 tape. Both formats eventually added extra modes which allowed more runtime in exchange for a slight loss of quality, and most consumers used these modes as soon as they were available. When the dust had settled, Betamax only managed to get up to 4.5 hours on the longest mode (Sony had also increased the standard tape length by 50%). VHS, in contrast, got up to 6 hours on EP mode on a standard tape.

Add to that the licensing issues (JVC licensed VHS to pretty much anyone who wanted it, while Sony was much more jealous about their format), and it's not at all surprising that VHS won. It wasn't about the marketing, it was that VHS offered a better cost/benefit ratio to the average viewer.

Re:Betamax (1)

Valdrax (32670) | about 5 months ago | (#45294685)

Yet another superior technology undone by good enough.

Superior? Bah. Much like Betamax, plasma was good at one thing and that's visual quality, and it was a mostly negligible advantage in both cases. Betamax only had noticeably superior quality at Beta I speed, and plasma only really looked at its best in the dark.

It was each technology's other failings that killed them. In the case of Betamax, it was VHS's longer recording times and lower prices. In the case of plasma, it was power consumption, burn-in, and price. In both cases, the "superior" technology was actually inferior for the average use case and more expensive for little gain.

First DLP, and now Plasma -- No more big cheap TV (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#45294055)

I own DLP (~70in), Plasma (~55in), and LCD (~32in) TV's. The LCD's do better in bright rooms; that's about the only good thing I can say about them. The DLP and Plasma sets have excellent picture quality, and were much less expensive the similarly sized LCD sets.

Re:First DLP, and now Plasma -- No more big cheap (1)

epyT-R (613989) | about 5 months ago | (#45294617)

See, to me, DLP has this rainbow effect on the colors, with the outer edges looking on the fuzzy side.

The "best" product didn't win. (3, Interesting)

Apharmd (2640859) | about 5 months ago | (#45294159)

At least by the metric of visual quality. Plasmas have pretty much led LCD TVs in that arena for the entire period where both technologies competed from the same screen size/price range. This includes the 2013 model year HDTVs- Panasonic's VT-series plasmas were consistently rated as the best-quality displays by most reputable reviewers. [cnet.com] Now once you start looking at other elements, like LCDs requiring less power, not being subject to burn-in, better peak brightness, and so on, the competition becomes closer, but I would have liked to think that pure visual quality would have kept Panasonic in the market at least a while longer.

This is pretty much the end of another display technology. Panasonic and Samsung were the last two plasma manufacturers targeting the mid- to high-end display market with their own panels.

I love my plasma (1)

Sedated2000 (1716470) | about 5 months ago | (#45294201)

I have a 65" LG plasma and was shocked when I took it out of the box to find out how thin it really is. I was also shocked to find out that it wasn't the heavy monster they once were and it actually runs quite cool. In contract I bought a 50" LED LCD to hang in my bedroom and not only is it twice as thick but it's quite a bit heavier. The picture on my plasma is wonderful too. My only complaint with it is the glossy screen since it sometimes reflects light in the evenings.

"good reasons"? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#45294275)

Okay, I read the linked yahoo news/mashable article and really, the only good reason I could find was the higher power consumption. Every single other reason listed was a consumer perception issue.

(I'd like to have a plasma TV but it's the size that excluded one. TVs ought not to be >40-inch monstrosities.)

I will definitely miss them. (3, Insightful)

Dega704 (1454673) | about 5 months ago | (#45294279)

I sold TVs for a couple years between 2006 and 2009, and I got to scrutinize a lot of screens side by side. It wasn't until LED backlights became common that LCDs could even begin to compare to the color accuracy of plasma screens. Unfortunately, customers would often come in already convinced that plasma screens had all kind of problems, some of which were extremely overblown or had been vastly improved since the early models (burn-in, lifespan); and others that were complete baloney (some salespeople at other stores had been telling customers that touching a plasma screen would ruin it). I suppose it was inevitable since Panasonic is alone on that front and LCDs are evolving much faster. If I could buy any TV I wanted today, it would still be one of Panasonic's high-end plasma models. Oh well. I still have my trusty 42 inch one and I hope to get quite a few more years out of it.

LCD sucks (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#45294355)

I've never seen an LCD TV that has as good a picture as my 42" Zenith plasma. I'll buy a used plasma to replace it before I buy an LCD.

Brighter whites? Really? (1)

Cyrano de Maniac (60961) | about 5 months ago | (#45294393)

Am I the only one who doesn't want brighter whites, and would even go so far as to avoid them?

On my smartphone, computer monitors, laptops, and even my old CRT monitors and TV I keep the brightness turned down. When I have opportunity to see LED TVs at my parent's place or elsewhere they always seem eye-piercingly bright, to the point where I don't care to watch them. The same goes for any LED based TV in a store -- or basically anywhere. This was one of the main reasons I was looking forward to eventually purchasing a plasma TV (instead of an LED TV) to replace my CRT TV.

Truer whites I'm all for, but brighter whites do nothing at all for me.

Re:Brighter whites? Really? (1)

suutar (1860506) | about 5 months ago | (#45294583)

Agreed. One of the first things in any "how to get the best picture on your TV" guide that I've seen is "turn down your brightness", usually followed by "turn down your contrast". Eyepoppingly bright color gets attention at the store, but is not generally what was intended by the video editors.

Many People prefer a "Bad" image quality (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#45294431)

Watched a American football game at my Mothers house on her new LCD display. Was like looking at a cartoon. All the colors were way over saturated. During half time I checked the setting. Everything was on the default show room settings. Max out everything.

I set the set into "movie" mode. Used some test images. Did a eye ball test of the RGB gamma settings.

Second half, world of differences. Grass looked like grass, uniforms no longer look like dayglow, flesh tones normal.

Was told that I had to set it back. The colors were washed out and dull. They hated the improved image.

Note! In a previous job I was involved in developing image compression codecs. So I spent 100's of hours doing AB comparisons of images. Oh and I own a plasma display for my home viewing. And we used CRT's at work for image evaluation. LCD just cannot produce the same quality images "yet"

room lighting (2)

MetalOne (564360) | about 5 months ago | (#45294459)

Personally, I think plasmas look better in the dark and LEDs look better once any amount of room lighting is added. I think a lot of people do most of their watching with some lighting on.

It's simple... plasma doens't show well in retail (5, Insightful)

Gordo_1 (256312) | about 5 months ago | (#45294497)

Disclaimer: I own a top of the line 54" Panasonic plasma set from a couple years ago and enjoy its excellent picture quality.

If you walk into a Best Buy or any other retail store and head over to the TV section, what immediately hits you is the brightness of most of the LCD sets and the comparatively subdued brightness coming from any (remaining) plasma sets still on the floor. In the unscientific forced side-by-side comparison environment of a brightly lit store, the LCD panels just show better.

It's the same reason that many folks think they'll prefer shiny laptop screens or speakers that deliver booming lows and super highs. It all seems better in a snap judgment... It's not until you take it home and have to live with it for a few hours that you start to realize that matte screens are easier on the eyes, speakers with more natural frequency response are easier on the ears and that LCD TVs (usually demoed in torch mode) need to be turned down to a more tolerable brightness level (well within the realm of what a plasma can do) during extended viewing sessions.

mLod down (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#45294517)

This post brought NIGGER community another charnel4 of the founders of

Fighting Game Players Going to Be Bummed (1)

Kagato (116051) | about 5 months ago | (#45294519)

A lot fighting game fanatics swear by the Plasmas for big screen displays. The input lag on a quality Panasonic is 16ms, whereas the lag on a quality LCD is 30-40ms (substantially worse on the cheap brands).

Air conditioner sale will also be down (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#45294553)

The power consumed by these monsters is ridiculous and, give the recent price rises in electricity (100% in Australia), it doesn't surprise me that no one wants to buy them.
Almost everyone who bought one of the early sets had to go back and buy an air conditioner to keep the room cool as well.

Into the abyss (1)

Slugster (635830) | about 5 months ago | (#45294659)

Plasmas were my last best hope--but when I went browsing online some months back, I couldn't find any dedicated PC monitors for sale and didn't want to pay for a TV.... -and couldn't find much of any high-quality CRTs either. Is there any PC screens (for desktop use) that don't have the LCD viewing angle issue?

{-that being, that the image at the top edge is never the same color as the image at the bottom edge-}

A few years ago I "upgraded" my CRT Viewsonic monitors to new-fangled fancy widescreen LCDs. The wide-screen part is nice, but I've come to realize that the LCD part sucks.

OLED is the only answer now for us (3, Insightful)

AbRASiON (589899) | about 5 months ago | (#45294781)

The marketing spin has been incredible, specifically over the last 5 years against plasma, somehow the entire "LED vs LCD" thing managed to paint the LED lit panels as the definitive display technology (those of us who understand colour depth, contrast, banding and just plain old "moving nicely" / refresh rate know this is simply not the case)

I managed to pick up earlier this year the second best display in the 2012 / 2013 (ST50) series, 65" - I love the thing, apparently the last Panasonic the ST60 has display lag, bad for gamers- however that could be unfounded and surprising for a plasma.

So for those of us that detest LCD screens (and that's mostly the plasma buyers and video enthusiasts) - we all best hope the OLEDs take off. I finally did some actual research for about 8 hours a few months back to get a better understanding of OLED and yeah ok, I finally get it. We've got a plasma and CRT killer here, finally (LCD and LED were never in the running) the blacks are incredible, the colour range is apparently larger / wider than what the high end digital video cameras can even capture for film, the refresh rate is in the tens or hundreds of thousands of times per second (?!) it's also the thinnest and it uses little power. Viewing angles astonomical, Burn in is a potential issue (slowly getting better) and overall display life is also a potential issue (again, slowly getting better)

We finally have one available to actually buy, in TV form (55" OLED in Korea is now on sale, a measly $10,000) - but considering it's a new tech, I'm actually surprised it's that cheap.
My guess is that in ... around 5 years, we'll see 70 / 80 / 90 / 100" OLED displays for about 2 to 6k$ - same old premium price for the big HDTV boys budget who can afford a new toy.
I do hope to see them on PC desks eventually too. LCD / LED movement is horribly grainy and nasty, I just can't deal with it.
(One more thing, I'd heard Panasonic was doing a joint research lab with someone to move to OLED? So perhaps their days as a premium display manufacturer are not over)

Either way, hope my Panasonic doesn't die for at least 3 or 4 years.

Lack of double-scan models in North America (1)

toejam13 (958243) | about 5 months ago | (#45294901)

One problem with plasma televisions is that manufacturers started switching to short-decay phosphors a few years ago. While that helps prevent trailing ghosts when you have high-contrast objects moving across the screen, it also makes the low 60Hz refresh much more noticeable. It is like viewing an old SVGA monitor from the early '90s.

In countries with 50Hz mains, you can easily find 100Hz "double scan" models that completely alleviate the issue, running all content at 100Hz. But in North America, the closest we have are some 120Hz 3D models that have the undocumented feature of accepting 1080p120 inputs over HDMI. But as soon as you switch back to the integrated tuner, you're back to 60Hz.

I would love to upgrade my old 42" plasma to a newer, larger plasma screen, but I can't because the glare from the newer screens give me a headache after 20 minutes.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...