02:01
htc
It’s been a long wait for the HTC Thunderbolt, Verizon’s first LTE 4G smartphone. After a delay of almost a month, Verizon has finally made the phone available today for $250 with a two-year contract.
First expected around late February, the Thunderbolt was delayed for weeks without explanation. One reason for the delay could have been trouble with the phone’s battery life, which testers reported at around two to three hours, Engadget reported.
The Thunderbolt is HTC’s Verizon spin on its popular Evo 4G phone on Sprint. This time around, though, it will be packing support for Verizon’s LTE 4G network, instead of Sprint’s WiMax 4G network. It’s somewhat fitting that Verizon’s first 4G phone would resemble the Evo, which was Sprint’s first 4G device.
The phone sports the same 4.3-inch display as the Evo as well as a slightly newer 1 gigahertz Qualcomm processor. It ships with Android 2.2 and, being a flagship HTC device, runs the company’s Sense 2.0 user interface. The Thunderbolt has about 50 percent more RAM than the EVO, 768 megabytes versus 512 megabytes, which should make it a little zippier in day-to-day use. It also sports an 8 megapixel camera with HD video recording capabilities — although I hope it’s a higher quality camera than the Evo’s.
Laptop Magazine describes the Thunderbolt’s 4G speeds as “freakin fast.” The phone saw download speeds between 4Mbps and 13.8Mbps, or somewhere between two and seven times faster than Verizon’s typical 3G speeds.
If the phone’s $250 price sounds too high, you can also find it for less at online retailers. Amazon, which currently has the Thunderbolt backordered, was offering it for $180 earlier today. It’s also available for $199 at wireless reseller Wirefly.
Well, well, well. For months now TV manufacturers have been trying so, so hard to convince us—and by “us” I mean Real America—that 3DTV is all kinds of great. Not so! Every 3DTV I’ve seen ranges from “meh” to merely “OK.” It’s a technology that’s still finding its legs. Maybe in the future 3DTV won’t be so, well, trash, but for now? I’m sorry, but no dice. And now I have numbers to back up my healthy skepticism. DisplaySearch, part of the NPD Group, says that 3DTV is not growing as fast as TV manufacturers had hoped. The beauty is, you probably already know why that’s the case.
But first, let’s look at the numbers.
It’s estimated that TV manufacturers will have shipped 3.2 million 3DTVs in 2010 in North America. That works out to 2 percent of all TVs sold this year being of the 3D variety. That’s not exactly devastating, but manufacturers were hoping for a bit more.
It’s expected that 3DTV will make up approximately 40 percent of all TVs sold once 2014 rolls around.
So it’s not like 3DTV is going to die or anything, just that it’s going to take a little bit longer for people to jump on the bandwagon.
And why’s that?
Oh, you know, because there’s next to no compelling 3D content out there. Sports broadcasters are still trying to figure out how to shoot in 3D, which is a tremendously important deal because live sports are really the only reason to even have a TV in 2010.
The quality of 3D movies have even taken a dive. The first big 3D movie was Avatar, a film that was directed by James Cameron, had a gigantic budget, and was designed for 3D from the word “go.” If you think Jackass 3D is worth the extra $5 or whatever the theaters charge, well, you’re crazy—maybe you’re in the movie?
It seems to me that people saw that Avatar was a huge hit, and figured that 3D was the savior of humanity. Again, to think that you can slap some rubbish 3D effect to your otherwise rubbish movie and start buying gold boats with the increase in revenue, ja!
3D technology is still too, too new, and pretty much nobody knows how to use it effectively yet.
Well, nobody except James Cameron.
Avatar may be one of the highest grossing movies of all time, but the prospect of seeing it in 3D at home isn't pushing sales of 3-D televisions.
Between a sluggish economy, lack of standards and few movie offerings, the latest and greatest in television technology is likely to remain a niche product, according to Riddhi Patel, principal analyst for television systems at iSuppli Market Research.
Three-D televisions made their debut in January at the Consumer Electronics Show in Las Vegas. Panasonic, Sony and Samsung all rolled out their models. Sony and LG plan rollouts for the summer. Avatar's runaway success - the film had already hit the $1 billion mark at the box office by January - fueled speculation that 3-D movies could drive people to plunk down $2,000 for a new television.
But so far the first quarter of 2010 has been anything but a blockbuster. According to iSuppli, only four percent of the TVs shipped to retailers in the first quarter of 2010 -- about 1.8 million out of 46.5 million -- were 3-D. Samsung is currently leading the field, having sold 90 percent of all 3-D TV sets. In a press release, the company said it expects to sell 600,000 of them in the first six months of this year.
Patel says part of the problem is that there just aren't that many 3D movies out there. Avatar is just one, and the latest Shrek movie isn't likely to generate anywhere near the same DVD sales. And nobody, Patel says, is going to spend a lot for the sake of a single film. "There's some out there... but not enough to justify the price," she says.
Another issue is standards. There aren't any. One company's 3D glasses won't work with another brand. The glasses are priced in the hundreds of dollars per pair - Panasonic's 3-D glasses re $149 - so it's a large investment for an accessory.
The other major reason for the low sales numbers is the cost. Most 3-D TV models cost in the $2,000-$3,500 range. Patel said most consumers aren't willing to go beyond $1,000 for a TV.
A Best Buy sales manager in New York City (who chose to remain anonymous) said sales on 3-D TVs have been slow so far. The manager said a lack of consumer knowledge on the product has stunted sales. People don't always know what they are getting - and are anxious about putting down that much for an unproven appliance for a very few games, channels or DVDs.
Patel also speculates that home theater 3-D TVs are simply inferior to the theater experience. "Most of us, when we think of 3D we think of Avatar and the experience we had while viewing Avatar in the theater. What we forget is that was a big screen. When you bring it in your home, your set will be 40-60 inches. That may not give you the same immersive experience you had when you watched the movie at the theater."
Although initial sales have disappointed, iSuppli's projections show that 3-D TV sales will grow quickly. By year-end 2011, the number of units sold will triple from 2010, to about 12 million. By 2015, it will reach 78.1 million, a growth rate of about 80.2 percent.
First expected around late February, the Thunderbolt was delayed for weeks without explanation. One reason for the delay could have been trouble with the phone’s battery life, which testers reported at around two to three hours, Engadget reported.
The Thunderbolt is HTC’s Verizon spin on its popular Evo 4G phone on Sprint. This time around, though, it will be packing support for Verizon’s LTE 4G network, instead of Sprint’s WiMax 4G network. It’s somewhat fitting that Verizon’s first 4G phone would resemble the Evo, which was Sprint’s first 4G device.
The phone sports the same 4.3-inch display as the Evo as well as a slightly newer 1 gigahertz Qualcomm processor. It ships with Android 2.2 and, being a flagship HTC device, runs the company’s Sense 2.0 user interface. The Thunderbolt has about 50 percent more RAM than the EVO, 768 megabytes versus 512 megabytes, which should make it a little zippier in day-to-day use. It also sports an 8 megapixel camera with HD video recording capabilities — although I hope it’s a higher quality camera than the Evo’s.
Laptop Magazine describes the Thunderbolt’s 4G speeds as “freakin fast.” The phone saw download speeds between 4Mbps and 13.8Mbps, or somewhere between two and seven times faster than Verizon’s typical 3G speeds.
If the phone’s $250 price sounds too high, you can also find it for less at online retailers. Amazon, which currently has the Thunderbolt backordered, was offering it for $180 earlier today. It’s also available for $199 at wireless reseller Wirefly.
Well, well, well. For months now TV manufacturers have been trying so, so hard to convince us—and by “us” I mean Real America—that 3DTV is all kinds of great. Not so! Every 3DTV I’ve seen ranges from “meh” to merely “OK.” It’s a technology that’s still finding its legs. Maybe in the future 3DTV won’t be so, well, trash, but for now? I’m sorry, but no dice. And now I have numbers to back up my healthy skepticism. DisplaySearch, part of the NPD Group, says that 3DTV is not growing as fast as TV manufacturers had hoped. The beauty is, you probably already know why that’s the case.
But first, let’s look at the numbers.
It’s estimated that TV manufacturers will have shipped 3.2 million 3DTVs in 2010 in North America. That works out to 2 percent of all TVs sold this year being of the 3D variety. That’s not exactly devastating, but manufacturers were hoping for a bit more.
It’s expected that 3DTV will make up approximately 40 percent of all TVs sold once 2014 rolls around.
So it’s not like 3DTV is going to die or anything, just that it’s going to take a little bit longer for people to jump on the bandwagon.
And why’s that?
Oh, you know, because there’s next to no compelling 3D content out there. Sports broadcasters are still trying to figure out how to shoot in 3D, which is a tremendously important deal because live sports are really the only reason to even have a TV in 2010.
The quality of 3D movies have even taken a dive. The first big 3D movie was Avatar, a film that was directed by James Cameron, had a gigantic budget, and was designed for 3D from the word “go.” If you think Jackass 3D is worth the extra $5 or whatever the theaters charge, well, you’re crazy—maybe you’re in the movie?
It seems to me that people saw that Avatar was a huge hit, and figured that 3D was the savior of humanity. Again, to think that you can slap some rubbish 3D effect to your otherwise rubbish movie and start buying gold boats with the increase in revenue, ja!
3D technology is still too, too new, and pretty much nobody knows how to use it effectively yet.
Well, nobody except James Cameron.
Avatar may be one of the highest grossing movies of all time, but the prospect of seeing it in 3D at home isn't pushing sales of 3-D televisions.
Between a sluggish economy, lack of standards and few movie offerings, the latest and greatest in television technology is likely to remain a niche product, according to Riddhi Patel, principal analyst for television systems at iSuppli Market Research.
Three-D televisions made their debut in January at the Consumer Electronics Show in Las Vegas. Panasonic, Sony and Samsung all rolled out their models. Sony and LG plan rollouts for the summer. Avatar's runaway success - the film had already hit the $1 billion mark at the box office by January - fueled speculation that 3-D movies could drive people to plunk down $2,000 for a new television.
But so far the first quarter of 2010 has been anything but a blockbuster. According to iSuppli, only four percent of the TVs shipped to retailers in the first quarter of 2010 -- about 1.8 million out of 46.5 million -- were 3-D. Samsung is currently leading the field, having sold 90 percent of all 3-D TV sets. In a press release, the company said it expects to sell 600,000 of them in the first six months of this year.
Patel says part of the problem is that there just aren't that many 3D movies out there. Avatar is just one, and the latest Shrek movie isn't likely to generate anywhere near the same DVD sales. And nobody, Patel says, is going to spend a lot for the sake of a single film. "There's some out there... but not enough to justify the price," she says.
Another issue is standards. There aren't any. One company's 3D glasses won't work with another brand. The glasses are priced in the hundreds of dollars per pair - Panasonic's 3-D glasses re $149 - so it's a large investment for an accessory.
The other major reason for the low sales numbers is the cost. Most 3-D TV models cost in the $2,000-$3,500 range. Patel said most consumers aren't willing to go beyond $1,000 for a TV.
A Best Buy sales manager in New York City (who chose to remain anonymous) said sales on 3-D TVs have been slow so far. The manager said a lack of consumer knowledge on the product has stunted sales. People don't always know what they are getting - and are anxious about putting down that much for an unproven appliance for a very few games, channels or DVDs.
Patel also speculates that home theater 3-D TVs are simply inferior to the theater experience. "Most of us, when we think of 3D we think of Avatar and the experience we had while viewing Avatar in the theater. What we forget is that was a big screen. When you bring it in your home, your set will be 40-60 inches. That may not give you the same immersive experience you had when you watched the movie at the theater."
Although initial sales have disappointed, iSuppli's projections show that 3-D TV sales will grow quickly. By year-end 2011, the number of units sold will triple from 2010, to about 12 million. By 2015, it will reach 78.1 million, a growth rate of about 80.2 percent.
0 comments:
Post a Comment