TV market stalls as LCD sales slow
Brakes on in the demand cycle
World TV shipments slipped last year - for the first time since 2004, said market watcher NPD DisplaySearch - presenting a picture of a business that's stalling.
The number of sets shipped during the year totalled some 247.7m units. That represents an overall decline of just a third of a percentage point on 2010's total - only 740,000-odd sets, in other words.
While the decline of CRT continued - down 34 per cent year on year - and shipments of sets based on niche flat-panel technologies, including plasma, OLED and reverse-projection, also slipped, LCD shipments continued to grow: up seven per cent to just over 205m units. However, past years have seen double-digit LCD growth.
TV Vendor Market Shares in Q4 2011
Data source: NPD DisplaySearch
Focusing on Q4, LCD shipments were up just one percentage point, year on year, while overall TV shipments were down four per cent, DisplaySearch said, to 74.2m units.
All screen types but CRT showed big quarter-on-quarter growth - OLED in particular, leaping 470 per cent - but that's to be expected since the run-up to Christmas is traditionally a good time for TV sales and the summer months are not.
That may change in 2012, as the Olympics and Euro 2012 tournaments spur sales of bigger sets.
TV shipments in the developed regions - North America, Japan and Western Europe - declined 21 per cent year on year in Q4 2011, compared to a 12 per cent increase in other markets.
Samsung was Q4's best-selling brand globally, taking just over a quarter (26.3 per cent) of the TV market. It was followed by LG (13.4 per cent), Sony (9.8 per cent), Panasonic (6.9 per cent) and Sharp (5.9 per cent).
Only the first two showed year-on-year growth, and only two per cent in LG's case. Sony, Panasonic and Sharp experienced double-digit declines. Samsung was up 18 per cent. ®
COMMENTS
Hardly surprising...
...given the economic climate and the fact the demand to replace bulky CRT sets and those without digital tuners has tailed off. Now I've got my 50" plasma I don't intend to replace it until it breaks and I'm sure I'm not alone.
The manufacturers have been kidding themselves that 3D is the magic bullet to keep sales going but I'm sorry, it's just not for me!
Re: Hardly surprising...
Hell, to be honest, I'm still on a CRT and don't really care (and it's a 4:3 CRT at that!).
I can see the picture, in enough detail that I can't spot pixels (but I can spot MPEG decompression artifacts from the digital TV box plugged into it!), from my usual sitting place as can three-four people seated comfortably on the sofa. I don't need to manage another computer so I'm quite glad it can't get on the net or plug into an HDMI or whatever.
I have a remote-control SCART switcher, even, because it only has one SCART slot. Total setup cost? About £30, including the TV which was rescued from the skip. I pay more than that each month for my TV license + cable subscription. Cheapest similar TV would cost about 5-10 times that now. Cable box does all the fancy stuff (digital conversion, go on iPlayer, pay-per-view, etc. which I don't use anyway) and the final screen width - even when watching widescreen - is comparable to a decent widescreen LCD ( I think I measured it once and would have to have something like a 36" widescreen in order to even start competing).
If I do upgrade, it'll be to a basic model to keep me going on the same kind of lines. I have no need for anything larger, louder, lighter, slimmer, brighter, higher-res, or more fancy. I don't even OWN a piece of HDMI kit unless you include the one next to my laptop's VGA port which I've never used. Obviously, my lack of interest in 3D is what's killing the industry!
What I have is good enough and does everything I need at the distance I need. I work six-inches from a 1900x1600-res screen all day long and can spot a dead pixel at fifty paces. But the TV... well... it plays motion images in a way that I can't fault or spot a problem with unless it's a ridiculously contrived test. I suspect most people upgraded to LCD just for footprint - hanging the damn thing on the wall, but I don't need that. Past that, what does the average person gain from upgrading or buying a new TV nowadays? Junk that they don't want to have to deal with (HDCP, net-connectivity, etc.).
One day, yeah, I'll go for LCD when this TV blows up, but to be honest, that's only because there won't be any free CRT's going by then. Considering in its previous life it was a classroom TV in a primary school for 10+ years, I think I have a while to go yet. It's enjoying a relatively quiet retirement compared to its heyday.
And not just a better screen.....
They will have to significantly improve one particular aspect to tempt me into the market - the programmes.
I was staying somewhere with a TV for the last 2 weeks, and hardly switched it on apart from news and weather (and that mainly because the internet was only 2g, so very slow.
I have a great stack of DVD's to play at home - why would I bother with a TV and all the cost of a licence?
OLED?
Surely not, where can you buy one? Do you think this should read LED backlit?
Re: Hardly surprising...
Actually, that is incorrect. The energy differential is not that great, and people tend to replace CRT TVs with larger LCD ones, which use more energy, and plasma TVs use much more.
Quote:
According to the California Energy Commission, the average CRT uses about 0.23 watts per square inch of the screen. By comparison, the average LCD uses 0.27 watts per square inch, and plasmas, which are the least energy efficient, use 0.36 watts per square inch. This means that a flat-panel TV that is the same screen size as a CRT will use more power. The typical CRT screen is 30 inches, and the unit consumes about 101 watts of electricity, according to the California Energy Commission. By comparison, the average LCD is 36 inches and consumes 144 watts, while the average plasma is 48 inches and consumes 361 watts.
http://www.ehow.com/info_12140201_power-consumption-flat-screen-tv-vs-crt.html
