3D Laptops Fail To Ignite Consumer Interest

Movie studios and display manufacturers have both been pumping 3D viewing as The Next Big Thing for over a year, but the market as a whole has yet to display much interest. According to the analyst group IDG, 3D notebooks are typically priced well above $1000, despite the fact that in 2009, notebook ASPs were ~$569 after netbooks were removed from the equation. The price difference alone is enough to hurt consumer interest, but there are also questions regarding the future of 3D technology. Potentially interested buyers who aren't put off by the cost, are still leery of spending a substantial amount of money on a feature that could shrivel up and die in a few years. According to John Jacobs, an analyst with DisplaySearch, 3D isn't a particularly good fit for mobile systems. "If there's a reason you buy a notebook, it is because you need a notebook, not because you need a 3D notebook," Jacobs told Computerworld.

This doesn't sit particularly well with various manufacturers who've bet on widespread 3D uptake after giving up on OLED technology as a near-term must-have technology. Current information indicates that approximately 100,000 3D laptops have been sold thus far in 2010, out of a total of 100 million. By the end of 2010, DisplaySearch predicts total sales of $180,000 laptops, a whopping 0.08 percent market share. One problem with 3D notebooks is that they tend to favor lower screen resolutions like 1366x768. DisplaySearch believes this is part of why they don't appeal to gamers; a question we'll examine in more detail in the near future when we review the Lenovo Y560D.

New way of interacting with film—or just a blurry mess?

One point that's perhaps glossed over more than it should be is that 1366x768 panels have spread like a noxious disease into every notebook manufacturer's inventory. Ironically, if you compare modern notebooks to notebooks from 2-3 years ago, resolutions have gone backwards. It's now common for 15.6" notebooks to use 1366x768 (rather than 1280x1024, 1680x1050, or even 1440x900). Even 17" notebooks, which used to feature 1680x1050 or even 1900x1200, are all-to-often now 1600x900.

The news on smaller resolution screens isn't all bad--it's one way to ensure lower-end discrete GPUs can produce good framerates--but it's enough to annoy most serious gamers. Given the degree of lousy 3D titles and the historical fact that 3D content is something that tends to become more popular and then die off in 20-30 year cycles, we're not remotely convinced that 3D laptops will ever capture more than a small minority of sales. Those of you who are planning to buy multimedia laptops in the not-too-distant future, is 3D capability something you care about, or is it not worth the additional premium? 
Via:  ComputerWorld
SmogHog 4 years ago

When I go to purchase a new monitor for my desktop or a new notebook the screen resolution is at the top of my priority list.

The less page scrolling I need to do the better I like it.

My 24" BenQ 240W(1920x1200) is getting old and will definitely be replaced by a Full HD 120hz model hopely ISP/VA panels are LED by that time.

My next notebook will also have a FHD 120hz display.

The next generation of technology needs to be implemented as soon as possible to feul the economy by inticing consumers to spend money.

Right now there's too much old tech clogging the channels without low enough prices to help move it.

Look at how many notebooks are still being made with DX10 GPUs with DDR3.

The nvidia GT300s need to be retired..

Bring on:

DX11 GPUs w/DDR5

Bluetooth 3



PCI-e 3

120hz displays


I've seen 3D movies and games and I'm underwhelmed.

I do like the 120hz refresh rate and will buy it because it's better than 60hz.

bob_on_the_cob 4 years ago


Wait wait no I'm not.

animatortom 4 years ago

They would have know this if they just followed the Hot Hardware forums:P

Joel H 4 years ago


Your nomenclature is a bit strange. A "Full HD" moniker has nothing to do with refresh rate and 120hz monitors aren't automatically "better" than 60hz. A screen labeled "full HD" typically has a resolution of 1920x1080; 120 pixels smaller than your current monitor.

Also, don't put too much emphasis on buzzwords. The actual SATA 3 standard is still quite some ways from market, PCIe 3 is utterly unnecessary, and DX11 doesn't really get you much when the vast majority of mobile solutions (by market share) can't run it fast enough to use.

SmogHog 4 years ago


Where in my post do I tie Full HD to 120hz?

I simply stated what I have now and what I intend to buy in the futher to replace an aging monitor.

IMO 120hz is better than 60hz because it eliminates the blank frame that is inserted into 60hz every other frame.To me having no blank frames is an advancement in technology I'd like to have.

What you consider buzzwords and unnecessary others consider improvements.

All but PCI-e 3.o are in products currenly shipping.

Maybe it's time to replace your 386 lol.

Post a Comment
or Register to comment