Wednesday, November 3, 2010

3D or not 3D

3D may be an opportunity for theater screens to charge a premium and make more money, but does it make sense for TV Networks. So now ESPN is questioning whether it is a business they want to pursue. "But the 24-hour sports network is already making noises about the future of its 3-D effort, with one exec admitting that there's 'very little indication' whether the channel will continue in its present form—or indeed, even survive—for a second year." How well 3D TVs do this Holiday season may indicate to ESPN and other networks how much money they want to invest into another version of their current networks. The addition of an HD channel proved to be an expensive investment and Networks weren't able to get the cable operators to pay more for an HD signal. I'm sure the concern is that they won't get an extra penny for a 3D version either.

Others question how much the consumer wants 3D in the home, especially if they need to wear glasses to view. And viewers don't tend to watch TV without also multi-tasking; reading the paper, talking to their spouse or friends, eating, drinking, answering the phone. Well you can see that unlike the theater experience when the viewer has little distraction; at home, there are too many little things that divert from the viewing experience. Putting glasses on, taking them off, and putting them on can get tiring. Until 3D is accessed without glasses, I expect the investment in 3D Networks will also slow.