Expect $699 42-inch LCDs this holiday season
LCD prices just keep on dropping and it looks like they might hit rock bottom before the '07 Christmas spending season. Reports suggest that they will finally cost less than their CRT counterparts and bargain shoppers should be able to pick up a 42-inch "second-tier" (aka cheap, no-name house brands) LCD for around $699. The 32-inchers should go for around $299-399 which would officially make 'em less expensive than those 'ol CRTs. Walmart/Costco shoppers might be happy with these prices on the cheaper models and honestly, if a person is satisfied with the picture these sets produce; great, buy the less expensive LCD and start enjoying high definition.
[Via TGDaily]
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
mike @ Aug 24th 2007 3:02PM
Personally I wouldent go near those wal-mart no brand tvs with a 10 foot pool. Would much rather pay over $1000 more for a brand name quality tv that does it all.
Then again, the general public feel differently. With just about every product, #1 sellers are always the cheaper priced goods. People are thrify I guess. I expect these to sell very well
Michael @ Aug 25th 2007 5:35AM
Is that "pool" ten feet deep or ten feet wide...?
mcrexx @ Aug 24th 2007 3:18PM
I'd rather buy a CRT tube TV than a no-namer from Wal-Mart/Costco. The picture quality is so terrible. Here's a little snip of a conversation I had with a Costco salesperson about a generic 42" LCD.
ME: "What's the contrast ratio on this?"
Salesperson: "Ummm, it goes up to 100. It goes really bright."
ME: "Not contrast in the menu, I mean contrast ratio. You know, colors, white levels, black levels?"
Salesperson: "Black levels? What's that?"
Nuff said. I'll stick to buying brand names.
Craig @ Aug 24th 2007 3:58PM
not that i'm defending costco or no-name-brand lcds, but your logic is terribly flawed...
of course a costco employee isn't going to know shit about HD. they may not have even been trained. most employees working at electronics stores understand far less than the average engadgethd reader. "never listen to the salesperson" is lesson number one.
and the fact that he doesn't know anything about HD does not in any way affect the quality of the panel. some second-tier brands look decent if you're looking to save some money.
Streaker @ Sep 18th 2007 11:12PM
You should have told him you were looking for a TV that went to 110.
Mike @ Aug 25th 2007 10:45PM
Costco also sells Sharp...how do you think that conversation would have went? Would he know the black levels are on a Sharp?
SimbaDogg @ Aug 24th 2007 3:28PM
Wow....that'll be the day, once flat panels start to dip before the price of CRTs, we'll finally see the end of a 90 year reign.
Delusional @ Aug 24th 2007 3:49PM
Wow. $299 LCD TV + $199 HD DVD = $500 bucks for Hi-Def experience!
The Pepto Pimp @ Aug 24th 2007 3:55PM
Might as well buy a cheap one if your signal is something other than OTA or HD-DVD/BluRay. Everyone else is compressing their signal down into xxMb/s. That's about 60:1, right? Based on 1.5Gb/s...
Michael @ Aug 25th 2007 5:39AM
Craig, I completely agree with you. Our Costco has some darn good prices on some quality name branded HD sets: Panasonic, Pioneer, Toshiba, etc. Those warehouse stores are just that - warehouse stores. They are designed to strip out all of the customer service one might get at a local independent retailer. So, decide if you want information and service and then pay for it at another store or do your homework online (or elsewhere) and then go to the warehouse and just pick it up.
Easy enough?
JeffDM @ Aug 24th 2007 4:00PM
I don't think it makes any sense to ask the contrast ratio of a TV. Usually contrast ratios are optimistic or carefully measured under circumstances that the TV would ever see. In short, lies. Even the big brand names are known to do this. I really don't expect any retailer other than the boutiques to hire people that know the particulars of a TV and what they mean.
The Pepto Pimp @ Aug 24th 2007 4:06PM
Amen!
1) Look at the TV.
2) Watch some content.
3) Tweak the settings.
4) Does it make you happy? If so, then buy it. If not, take three steps to your left and try again with the next TV.
harrellnukeem @ Aug 24th 2007 4:03PM
You would be surprised. I got last Christmas time period a brand new Panasonic Plasma for $700 with a combination of deals. I think it will be even less than this report for Christmas...
Region Free HD @ Aug 24th 2007 8:19PM
I hope this means we'll see the price of 42" plasmas continue to drop as well.
Ashraf @ Aug 25th 2007 3:11AM
vizio is a brand name that wasn't really popular.
now it is and i herd its the #1 selling brand for LCD tvs.
Vizio is also sold at Circuit City
GhostDoggy @ Aug 25th 2007 8:55AM
Its amusing those taking a poke at the notion of inexpensive flat-panels. To them, flat-panels are like 24" wheels on their Denali, gold and diamonds in their teeth, etc., etc., etc. (oh, I think they call it 'bling'). But, for a lot of folks when flat-panels become this inexpensive they begin to become an alternative to boob-tube displays in the family room. So, why would one pay "an additional $1,000" for something relegated to boob-tube activities? I'd rather spend the extra money on something in the home theater and not the family room.
Kieran Coghlan @ Aug 27th 2007 11:57AM
I think this is a travesty. CRTs are way, way better at SD material than cheap quasi-HD lcd panels. There oughtta be a law against selling LCD panels with shitty processing. The picture is atrocious on most of these very low-end sets. Most people still watch SD programming, even if they could be watching HD for free (e.g. OTA antenna, or clear-QAM cable) because they just don't know any better. Just look at all the sports bars out there with REALLY nice Pioneer and Panasonic widescreen flat panels, that are stretching an SD image of major sporting events that you KNOW are broadcast in HD. You think the average Joe buying a $400 32" 16:9 LCD is REALLY going to get a picture that's better than what a comparable CRT would put out? No way.