« Can H-P Keep Printing Money With Ink Cartridges? | Main | Softening Sony Handycams »
LCD Television Price Crash
Electronics | Jun 23, 05
It has been repeatedly reported in this space that we're seeing a stunning example of a technology price decline in the flat screen television market, particularly for LCD sets. But in the last couple of months, some LCD televisions have dropped so sharply they merit special mention.
Consider for example the Polaroid LCD-2000, a 20-inch model with with HDTV 720 and native resolution of 1280 x 768. At the end of 2004 it was going for about $800, but that price has now been cut by more than 50%, and right now its offered by vendors on PriceSCAN for less than $400.
Time Period: 10/18/2004 through 6/20/2005
Each tick mark represents one week
Red = High Price, Blue = Average Price, Green = Low Price
Or check out a rather more up-market model, the 45 inch Sharp LC-45D4U AQUOS Widescreen LCD Television, with HDTV 1080 and 1920 x 1080 native resolution. In this case the drop is from about $5,500 to under $4,250 currently, a decline of about 23%.
Time Period: 11/29/2004 through 6/20/2005
Each tick mark represents one week
Red = High Price, Blue = Average Price, Green = Low Price
There are scores of similar cases you can find just by exploring LCD televisions here. We seem to be seeing a lot of buying at these price levels, so one wonders if these price declines will continue at this same breakneck pace. So this begs an obvious question – how cheap do LCD's need to get before you'd pick one up?
Posted by jeffrey.trester (Permalink)
Comments
Well, how much is a disposable TV worth? These things aren't built to last unless you have a fully temperature controlled room with absolutely no sunlight.They surely are not more valuable than a CRT which might last three times as long and are much more capable of delivering a really nice picture ala my Bang & OLufsen 27" with the built in Faroudja line doubler.Just stunning.
Posted by: David Gohman LUke at June 28, 2005 10:20 PM
the prices might be down on the interent stores
but not the big retail stores
like circuit city and best buy
for example 1600 versus 2400 on
th42pd50u
Posted by: mick at July 1, 2005 12:42 PM
I just ordered the Phillips 42PF9996 HD ready LCD from COSTCO. That's within $100 of the Phillips 42" plasma & within a couple of hundred of Dell's 42" plasma. I've been watching the prices of the Sharp LC45s & they seem to dropping approximately $100 per week over the last few weeks. If I don't like the Phillips I'll return it & get one of the Sharps.
Posted by: Bill at July 4, 2005 10:28 PM
I just ordered the Phillips 42PF9996 HD ready LCD from COSTCO for $3000. That's within $100 of the Phillips 42" plasma & within a couple of hundred of Dell's 42" plasma. I've been watching the prices of the Sharp LC45s & they seem to dropping approximately $100 per week over the last few weeks. If I don't like the Phillips I'll return it & get one of the Sharps.
NOTE: I added the missing price to this 2d post (note to self: proofread before posting)
Posted by: Bill at July 4, 2005 10:36 PM
I personally prefer to stick with tubes. First, they are more dependable, as they have shown over decades of use. If I am asked to fork out 4 bigones for a TV set I want it made under MILITARY SPECIFICATIONS. Secondly, I see SONY and JVC starting offering HD video cameras. In what TVs are we going to watch those home movies. I am sure that if we go HD we will never go back. So what technology do we need to adopt for an item that will do our job for 10-15 years? I personally like the PIXEL PLUS technology of the philips 32 and 36 inch wide TVs. To my eyes, they are comparable to a standard LCD plasma view. A few months ago I bought a 32 Grunding at 429 euro, instead of a 36 pixel plus philips. In the last 10 months the the 36 philips went from 2600 euro to 1300. I am waiting for it to go to 700. The I will buy it. My last comment is this: The main advantage of flat TVs is their small footprint, but isn't true that buyers of flat TVs are people who can afford expensive items, therefore rich and living in big houses where space is abundant? Why is there the need to spend 3 times as much for 8 sqare feet?
Posted by: Georgios at July 10, 2005 2:53 AM
