I must first admit to not being a fan of 3D movies. Despite its excessive price tag, I find the glasses uncomfortable and the viewing experience unsatisfying. That being said, its popularity in the theaters has helped ticket revenues and encourage even more 3D movies to be made. And while 3D is a value added to the theater business, I wonder if it is as important for the little screen.
Sales of 3D TVs have not been as impressive as sales of HDTV. And it is the slower rate of adoption that makes me wonder if it is necessary for the home. Obviously the greatest impact would be on the most watched genres: movies, sports, news, and perhaps music/concerts. Is 3D just as necessary for documentaries, TV series, and other programming? Sony, Discovery, and IMAX think so. "A general entertainment service, 3net will feature natural history, documentary, action/adventure, history, lifestyle and cooking, to name a few genres."
Its first carriage agreement is with DirecTV. But do they support enough 3D sets to deserve a license fee? And what about the commercials? I doubt that many will be filmed in 3D. Today many are still not filmed in HD. For these companies, the belief is that 3D is the next generation of device in the home, for others, it may simply be a fad that will lose steam. Like the video phone, it may take many, many attempts before it is more embraced. A more realistic 3D experience, without glasses. For now, Discovery and DirecTV are putting down a placeholder for the future.
And to answer the question. No, I would not watch 3D TV. Not in its present form. Give me my big screen HDTV any day.