LCD outsells plasma 8-to-1 in Q1 2008
by Steven Kim 
posted May 22nd 2008 at 6:01PM
Not so long ago, the good people at DisplaySearch were forecasting good times for plasma. But there's no way around the first quarter of 2008 global sales numbers that show LCD outsold plasma by an 8 to 1 margin. Take a breath -- those are global sales numbers -- but it still isn't the most encouraging news for plasma fans. Worldwide, plasma has a frenemy in good old CRT, though, which actually edged out LCD on its way to the highest sales volume. Click on through for all the numbers, but globally it looks like this: LCD is taking over, plasma is moving into a very small niche, RPTV is all but gone and CRT is going down with a fight.
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
Nfinity @ May 22nd 2008 6:06PM
And the reason? PRICE!!!!!!
StealthMonkey @ May 22nd 2008 6:10PM
Your icon perfectly matches your yelling.
And yes, price is a huge factor. However, I don't think I would ever buy LCD for my main TV, dead pixels scare me. Bedroom TV, sure. Main TV, I dunno about that.
coasterswim @ May 22nd 2008 8:58PM
Dead pixels scare you more than burn-in does?
rick @ May 22nd 2008 9:04PM
coaster, I think you're much more likely to wind up with a stuck pixel than you are to see burn-in on a modern plasma - unless you don't have any common sense and think torch mode looks good
Paul @ May 22nd 2008 10:40PM
I've been using a plasma for more than 9 months. Burn-in is a problem with a 5 second fix even after watching hours and hours of ESPN or video games with HUD's.
As for dead pixels, the entire LCD has to be sent back to the manufacturer to be properly repaired.
SimbaDogg @ May 22nd 2008 10:58PM
are you kidding me? inch for inch LCDs are way more expensive that plasma tvs. so no, its not price, its consumer bias/brainwashing/fud (i heard the poisonous gas can escape and kill me and my kids is the screen ever breaks, trust me...i've heard em all).
compare basic prices @ bestbuy...samsung plasma 58" 1080p = 4000, samsung LCD 57" 1080p = 8000. and the same size disparity holds true for 42 vs 40 as well.
it is NOT price
SimbaDogg @ May 22nd 2008 11:10PM
@Paul
if you're experiencing burn in, you didn't break in your plasma properly. Trust me, i've spent hours playing ps3, and have even hooked up my computer to surf the next for a good hour or two on end, never had any problems. The one thing that i've told all my old customers, and friends/family that have bought plasmas. When you buy the tv, and get it home, dont turn it off for the first week and a half. 24 hours a day for a good 7-10 days or so and i can promise you wouldn't have had any problems w/ burn in.
James @ May 22nd 2008 11:53PM
How is price a factor that is anything but in favor of plasma? You will pay far less for a plasma of similar size above 40 inches, unless you're going high end. Then its about equal.
Cole Mitguard @ May 23rd 2008 9:19AM
Price is not the key, they are close to being the same now, when you consider the Samsung LNA52550 is going for $2000 this week at Frys, and the Panasonic TH-50PZ80U is about 1899, they are very comparable. The deal is size, Plasmas, with the exception if the brand new Panasonic line, goes 42, 50, 58(Panasonic), 60, 65 while with an LCD you can get 19,26,32,37,40,42,46,47,52,65(Sharp 94U), 70(Sony XBR). And on top of that, it seems like with the exception of Panasonic and Pioneer, the other manufacturers of Plasmas, Samsung and LG, really seem to focus there efforts on LCD. And then probably the WORST PART of the whole thing is, you walk into Best Buy, Circuit, Frys, or any other electronics store, and you see all the TV's on wall... under florescent lights... with lots of flashing lights all around... and you are in the worst possible condition for a Plasma. There arent many store, Magnolia being the exception, that has a more "ideal" plasma viewing environment. And people make their impressions of TV's quickly, and the darker TV, with glare, is never going to attract the same off the bat attention as the big bright LCD with no glare. And combine that with, as metioned earlier, there are a lot of negative thoughts about Plasmas, its usually up to the employee to see a customer a Plasma over a LCD... and the LCD is usually cheaper... and in stock.. so how often does that sale happen, lol.
Paul @ May 23rd 2008 11:35AM
@ Simbadogg
I'm not having a problem with real burn-in. It's just slight image retention that last for a few seconds. I usually solve it by watching something else when I'm done.
DoesntMakeSense @ May 22nd 2008 6:20PM
Of course LCD will outsell plasma. LCDs come in all sizes, whereas plasma can only be purchased in sizes 42" and above. It is only fair to compare the sales for LCD and Plasma in the 42+ category.
I have a feeling LCD will probably still win, but not by this large margin.
gus @ May 22nd 2008 6:52PM
lcd wins because alot of customers are uneducated and sales associates scare the crap out of them with fake info to get the sales
plasma is better in every perspective its hardly a factor for a lcd moniter to be good for a tv viewing.... it was design solely for text and graphficing... so pc and that it .....
lcd needs an edge to get to plasma by using alot of add ons .. look at samsung 81 series
and on top of everything lcd is more expensive ! *
Britton @ May 22nd 2008 7:12PM
Thats becayse only 1 out of 8 people are smart enough to look past specs and hear-say.
Rick @ May 22nd 2008 9:01PM
It's a shame only 1 in 8 care about picture quality
mOe @ May 22nd 2008 9:45PM
Well I know Plasmas are better than LCDs but sometimes I game more than look at TV (the only reason I dont have a Pioneer Kuro). So I tried to get the best LCD I could, I got a 46 Sony XBR4 (soon to be professionally calibrated). Plasma is better but LCD has closed the gap some. When it comes to HDTV you have customers (who have no clue) and enthusiast.
CharlieX @ May 22nd 2008 11:00PM
LCD's are better price per performance. Hands down. And frankly if you calibrate a decent LCD correctly, there's little reason to worry about getting a plasma.
I work in a film studio. I've got a $20K sony reference CRT on my desk and a 46" panny pro plasma sitting in the back of the room. I know what good looks like. But I bought a 46" Samsung LCD for home - it was budget friendly, it's light and easy to move, and after calibrating the heck out of it, it looks pretty freaking spectacular. The key is calibration: basic settings are TRASH.
LCD is a very viable technology. It terms of specs it's creeping up on CRT and Plasma just as quick as it can.
kcjones @ May 22nd 2008 11:51PM
Given that you can purchase LCDs in sizes from 13" to 52", while plasmas only come in 42" to 65" it only makes sense that LCD sales would trounce Plasma. An 8:1 ratio also represents the amount of size variations in LCD vs Plasma. The sales ratio doesn't say as much as the flight away from manufacturing plasma displays.
vdogg89 @ May 23rd 2008 3:23PM
you know they have 32" plasmas now...
mda20 @ May 23rd 2008 6:59AM
Here we go again, The people is this group are NOT the general public. We look for what matters to use. The common person is just getting a 32 - 40 inch to replace a CRT. They will not have HD, 5.1, BD, or even HD locals. Just a flat panel to plug in their crappy cable signal to. Only about 2 - 5 % of people give a S**t about this stuff. 32" under $500, plasma doesn't stand a chance. I also bet you will find that 90% of all LCD's are 720p. Antother reason BD isn't picking up speed. Upconvert a DVD to 720 or downconvert 1080p. On a 720 LCD they are alomost the same, to the general public. Which is the group of people that matter. We who check specs and purchase better than normal equipment are not the majority here.
Hooterman @ May 23rd 2008 10:34AM
Um, like 90% of all LCD's above 40" are 1080p, plasmas are still kicking out big 720p sets not LCD.
And DVD's are nowhere near BD PQ even on a 720 set. You don't have to be a tech head to see the BD difference. Now between seeing the 720/1080 BD difference is arguable depending on screen size.
DrXym @ May 23rd 2008 12:23PM
The cited advantage of plasma is better response times and higher contrast ratios. However modern brand name LCDs have acceptable contrast and response times. The biggest risk for an LCD TV is dead pixels.
I don't see much reason I would want to go plasma especially with the real threat of causing irreparable burn in just for the crime of watching a channel with a logo for too long or pausing a video.
Is some are wondering why plasma might not be so popular as it was, I suspect burn in and power consumption are the main reasons. Some of the advice given here such as leaving the plasma on for a week to "break it in" is scary. It's just crazy advice. If such a thing breaking a set in were beneficial or necessary, it should be done before it leaves the factory, not by end users.
Andy Sullivan @ May 23rd 2008 1:13PM
Every professional review I've read in the last two years, including reviews in the last two months refer to LCD's "common shot falls". Off axis viewing and motion blur. Yes motion blur even in the latest 120-hz displays. Keep in mind that most affordable LCD's are still showing 60-hz performance, especially the screens 40" and below. In the October 2007 review of the Samsung LN-T5265F display "Home Theater Magazine" reviewer Geoffrey Morrison said. "like most 60-hz LCD's there is a fair amout of motion blur, anything on the screen that moves above a certain speed appears NOTICEABLY softer". "Despite copious efforts by marketing departments to claim 170-degree viewing angles with LCD's, this is bunk. Well, to be fair you can watch them at off angles, you just won't want to.
Jean @ May 24th 2008 8:11PM
numbers can be twisted into anything you want to say. what screen sizes are we talking about here? 40"+? or LCD being 7"+
burkey @ May 26th 2008 2:59PM
CharlieX - a properly calibrated plasma blows away a properly calibrated LCD, every day of the week. Calibration cannot help at all with LCD's shortcomings which are black levels, motion resolution and contrast. There's nothing you can do on an LCD to make black bars disappear while maintaining the OAR of any 2.39:1 movie.
Doesn'tMakeSense - excellent points. With LCD's available in 19" sizes, of course LCD is winning the global market. But, look at sets in the 42" and up market and that 8:1 figure will look resoundingly different.
Plasma is still cheaper than LCD in a price per inch 50" and up and a far better picture.
http://www.hometheatermag.com/lcds/208hdface/
These are the seven sets tested:
Samsung HL-T6187S LED DLP RPTV
Sharp LC-52D64U LCD HDTV
JVC LT-47X898 LCD HDTV
Mitsubishi WD-57833 DLP RPTV
Sony KDS-60A3000 SXRD HDTV
Panasonic TH-50PZ750 Plasma HDTV
Pioneer PDP-5080HD Plasma HDTV
Now the Pioneer won this match-up, but it was both the Pioneer and Panasonic plasmas that were rated as being in a league of their own over the other sets. You can read all the opinions on the last page of the article. Here are some highlights:
But there was no doubt about it—plasma is king.
~David Birch-Jones
Deep blacks and a viewing angle that allows more than one viewer to watch are big sellers for me, which explains why I was drawn to both the Pioneer and the Panasonic. Go with either, and you'll be happy.
~John Higgins
I kept going back and forth between the two plasmas: Pioneer and Panasonic. I knew they both looked the most natural and pleasing to me, with excellent blacks as well. I couldn't decide which I preferred.
~Maureen Jensen
What this Engadget article fails to mention is that during Q1/08, the same time span being discussed here, global plasma sales were up at an all time Q1 high, up 53% from Q1/07
Samsung and LG saw their global plasma sales jump over 10 times what they were in 2006 as a whole.
Duncan @ May 27th 2008 10:15PM
DrXYm - no plasma needs to be "left on for a week" to be broken in.
The plasma breaks itself in every time it is on.
The warnings with plasma to avoid damage to the panel are basically to not use it as a florescent light in your kitchen!
Honestly, with any viewing habits that can be considered normal, there is no danger of burn-in on a plasma and the "acceptable" levels you're speaking of must be a lot different than mine. LCD is bearable when you're watching in a brightly lit room, but as soon as you're watching a movie in low lighting it's simply ghastly.
Common sense would tell you not to crank your contrast and brightness to 100%. Does not taking a car up past 5,000rpm's during its first 5,000km scare people from buying a new car?
andyg8180 @ May 27th 2008 9:48AM
it shows 7 out of 8 are reading engadget posts from keyboard know-it-alls instead of reading facts, specs, and looking at them side by side...
PS, my plasma has yet to burn in and it gets lots of 360 play-time... and i mean lots of it... did a white screen and got absolutely no fragments of burn-in... good job LCD losers... (ohhh you need an lcd if you play games, youll get burn-in!!!) losers lol at least i dont have to get my TV calibrated to get a decent picture...