Category Archives: Display Technology

Tidbits: Cuts at Nokia, Rumored Cuts at Avaya

Nokia

Nokia says it will shed about 10,000 employees globally by the end of 2013 in a bid to reduce costs and streamline operations.

The company will close research-and-development centers, including one in Burnaby, British Columbia, and another in Ulm, Germany. Nokia will maintain its R&D operation in Salo, Finland, but it will close its manufacturing plant there.

Meanwhile, in an updated outlook, Nokia reported that “competitive industry dynamics” in the second quarter would hurt its smartphone sales more than originally anticipated. The company does not expect a performance improvement in the third quarter, and that dour forecast caused analysts and markets to react adversely.

Selling its bling-phone Vertu business to Swedish private-equity group EQT will help generate some cash, but, Nokia will retain a 10-percent minority stake in Vertu. Nokia probably should have said a wholesale goodbye to its bygone symbol of imperial ostentation.

Nokia might be saying goodbye to other businesses, too.  We shall see about Nokia-Siemens Networks, which I believe neither of the eponymous parties wants to own and would eagerly sell if somebody offering more than a bag of beans and fast-food discount coupons would step forward.

There’s no question that Nokia is bidding farewell to three vice presidents. Stepping down are Mary McDowell (mobile phones), Jerri DeVard (marketing), and Niklas Savander (EVP markets).

But Nokia is buying, too, shelling out an undisclosed sum for imaging company Scalado, looking to leverage that company’s technology to enhance the mobile-imaging and visualization capabilities of its Nokia Lumia smartphones.

Avaya

Meanwhile, staff reductions are rumored to be in the works at increasingly beleaguered Avaya.  Sources says a “large-scale” jobs cut is possible, with news perhaps surfacing later today, just two weeks before the end of the company’s third quarter.

Avaya’s financial results for its last quarter, as well as its limited growth profile and substantial long-term debt, suggested that hard choices were inevitable.

Is Li-Fi the Next Wi-Fi?

The New Scientist published a networking-related article last week that took me back to my early days in the industry.

The piece in question dealt with Visible Light Communication (VLC), a form of light-based networking in which data is encoded and transmitted by varying the rate at which LEDs flicker on and off, all at intervals imperceptible to the human eye.

Also called Li-Fi — yes, indeed, the marketers are involved already — VLC is being positioned for various applications, including those in hospitals, on aircraft, on trading floors, in automotive car-to-car and traffic-control scenarios, on trade-show floors, in military settings,  and perhaps even in movie theaters where VLC-based projection might improve the visual acuity of 3D films. (That last wacky one was just something that spun off the top of my shiny head.)

From FSO to VLC

Where I don’t see VLC playing a big role, certainly not as a replacement for Wi-Fi or its future RF-based successors, is in home networking. VLC’s requirement for line of sight will make it a non-starter for Wi-Fi scenarios where wireless networking must traverse floors, walls, and ceilings. There are other room-based applications for VLC in the home, though, and those might work if device (PC, tablet, mobile phone), display,  and lighting vendors get sufficiently behind the technology.

I feel relatively comfortable pronouncing an opinion on this technology. The idea of using light-based networking has been with us for some time, and I worked extensively with infrared and laser data-transmission technologies back in the early to mid 90s. Those were known as free-space optical (FSO) communications systems, and they fulfilled a range of niche applications, primarily in outdoor point-to-point settings. The vendor for which I worked provided systems for campus deployments at universities, hospitals, museums, military bases, and other environments where relatively high-speed connectivity was required but couldn’t be delivered by trenched fiber.

The technology mostly worked . . . except when it didn’t. Connectivity disruptions typically were caused by what I would term “transient environmental factors,” such as fog, heavy rain or snow, as well as dust and sand particulate. (We had some strange experiences with one or two desert deployments). From what I can gather, the same parameters generally apply to VLC systems.

Will that be White, Red, or Resonant Cavity?

Then again, the performance of VLC systems goes well beyond what we were able to achieve with FSO in the 90s. Back then, laser-based free-space optics could deliver maximum bandwidth of OC3 speeds (144Mbps), whereas the current high-end performance of VLC systems reaches transmission rates of 500Mbps. An article published earlier this year at theEngineer.com provides an overview of VLC performance capabilities:

 “The most basic form of white LEDs are made up of a bluish to ultraviolet LED surrounded by a yellow phosphor, which emits white light when stimulated. On average, these LEDs can achieve data rates of up to 40Mb/sec. Newer forms of LEDs, known as RGBs (red, green and blue), have three separate LEDs that, when lit at the same time, emit a light that is perceived to be white. As these involve no delay in stimulating a phosphor, data rates in RGBs can reach up to 100Mb/sec.

But it doesn’t stop there. Resonant-cavity LEDs (RCLEDs), which are similar to RGB LEDs and are fitted with reflectors for spectral clarity, can now work at even higher frequencies. Last year, Siemens and Berlin’s Heinrich Hertz Institute achieved a data-transfer rate of 500Mb/sec with a white LED, beating their earlier record of 200Mb/sec. As LED technology improves with each year, VLC is coming closer to reality and engineers are now turning their attention to its potential applications.”

I’ve addressed potential applications earlier in this post, but a sage observation is offered in theEngineer.com piece by Oxford University’s Dr. Dominic O’Brien, who sees applications falling into two broad buckets: those that “augment existing infrastructure,” and those in which  visible networking offers a performance or security advantage over conventional alternatives.

Will There Be Light?

Despite the merit and potential of VLC technology, its market is likely to be limited, analogous to the demand that developed for FSO offerings. One factor that has changed, and that could work in VLC’s favor, is RF spectrum scarcity. VLC could potentially help to conserve RF spectrum by providing much-needed bandwidth; but such a scenario would require more alignment and cooperation between government and industry than we’ve seen heretofore. Curb your enthusiasm accordingly.

The lighting and display industries have a vested interest in seeing VLC prosper. Examining the membership roster of the Visible Light Communications Consortium (VLCC), one finds it includes many of Japan’s big names in consumer electronics. Furthermore, in its continuous pursuit of new wireless technologies, Intel has taken at least a passing interest in VLC/Li-Fi.

If the vendor community positions it properly, standards cohere, and the market demands it, perhaps there will be at least some light.

RealD’s 3D Promise and Peril

I should have an opinion on RealD’s IPO today. Fortunately, I do have one, and I will share it with you now.

If 3D goes big, RealD will scale right along with it. The company is the leading purveyor of 3D projection systems for digital cinemas. By its own estimates, it owns more than half of that market, holding off competitors such as Dolby, Laboratories, Inc., IMAX Corporation, MasterImage 3D, and X6D Limited.

It’s interesting to see Dolby among RealD’s primary competitors. In many respects, RealD is emulating the approach Dolby used to dominate the stereoscopic sound market in cinemas worldwide. RealD has read Dolby’s playbook, and heretofore it’s done better applying it to 3D cinema than Dolby has done.

You can peruse RealD’s prospectus yourself, but here’s an excerpt to whet your appetite:

As of December 25, 2009, there were approximately 16,000 theater screens using digital cinema projectors out of approximately 149,000 total theater screens worldwide, of which 4,286 were RealD-enabled (increasing to 5,966 RealD-enabled screens as of June 1, 2010). In 2009, motion picture exhibitors installed approximately 7,500 digital cinema projectors, an approximately 86% growth rate from 2008, and in 2008, motion picture exhibitors installed approximately 2,300 digital cinema projectors, an approximately 36% growth rate from 2007. Digital Cinema Implementation Partners, or DCIP, recently completed its financing that is providing funding for the digital conversion of up to approximately 14,000 additional domestic theater screens operated by our licensees AMC, Cinemark and Regal. We believe the increasing number of theater screens to be financed by DCIP provides us with a significant opportunity to deploy additional RealD Cinema Systems and further our penetration of the domestic market.

The salient point is that the addressable market is large, the overall penetration rate for 3D projection systems is relatively low, and the market stage is nascent. Moreover, this is worldwide opportunity, not one restricted to the North American marketplace.

That’s a good thing, too, though RealD — like everyone else with valuable intellectual property — is concerned about the fate that might befall it in China. Among noted risk factors in the company’s prospectus, we find the following:

Our business is dependent upon our patents, trademarks, trade secrets, copyrights and other intellectual property rights. Effective intellectual property rights protection, however, may not be available under the laws of every country in which we and our licensees operate, such as China.

Even though that’s a legitimate concern, it isn’t RealD’s biggest worry. The real worries in my view are industry dynamics (namely, 3D’s spread from cinemas to consumer electronics such as televisions, PCs, cell phones, and game consoles), the quantity and qualify of 3D entertainment fare (also known as content), and the ability of the industry ecosystem and consumers to foot the 3D bill.

3D has proven marketable in cinemas, but now it is trying to expand its empire into consumer electronics. That’s an opportunity and a threat for RealD, which obviously wants to extend its hegemony beyond the three-dimensional silver screen.

RealD will have to rejig its business model and its technologies to capture consumer-electronics markets. It will have to enter into new relationships, build or buy new products and capabilities, and market and sells its wares differently. And that’s presuming that 3D makes a successful commercial leap into living rooms, mobile devices, and other display-bearing devices. Much remains to be done on that front.

Then we come to the content issue. You might have noticed that not all 3D films have the box-office wallop of Avatar. Movie exhibitors like the premium they charge consumers for watching 3D movies (though they are less enamored of the added cost of 3D projection systems), but the willingness of the masses to pay more per view is contingent on cinemas offering them experiences they deem worthy of the 3D surcharge.

I’ve scanned the lineup of 3D films slated to hit theaters over the several months. I am noticing — how shall I say? — the pungent whiff of ripe schlock arresting my olfactory senses, even though, incredibly, RealD has not entered the “Smell-O-Rama” business yet.

Sadly, a lot of cheesy horror movies are queued up for the 3D treatment. That’s not good. I’m of the aesthetic view that ostentatious protrusive effects, used to goose the shock value of severed heads and buzzing saws, aren’t the best utilization of 3D technology. I like the immersive depth 3D can bring to quality entertainment and live sports, but I’m not sold on the viability of cheap gimmicks, or of 3D as ornamental gossamer for bad content. Look, a crap movie is crap movie. A 3D turd is still a turd.

And a proliferation of 3D turds will not do the 3D industry any good. Does anybody in Hollywood remember the 1950s . . . or perhaps read history?

Anyway, presuming that 3D is used naturally, that it is applied to good movies rather than as a decorative wrapper for bad ones, RealD still will have to contend with the nasty array of macroecoomic uncertainties that beset all us all.

There’s considerable risk in RealD as an investment vehicle, and there’s also a commensurate measure of promise. Today, on their first day of trading, RealD shares were snapped up eagerly by investors who see more promise than peril. The stock was up sharply from the open, and the company was able to price its offering well above expectations.

That’s an important consideration, by the way. Earlier in this post, I mentioned that RealD intends to take its 3D technology to consumer electronics. As part of that foray, the company is also looking at developing autostereoscopic (3D without glasses) technologies to eventually supersede its stereoscopic (3D with glasses) technology.

All things considered, I don’t think the glasses are going to cut it for casual television viewing in living rooms; nor do I think anybody but the geekiest of geeks will want to be wearing 3D glasses for extended periods while using a mobile device or playing a game console. The company that does autostereoscopic 3D right stands to reap massive rewards. RealD wants to be that company, but it’s not alone — Sony, Samsung, Dolby, 3M, Nintendo, and many others are in the mix, and their advances are closely monitored by HP, Dell, Apple, IBM, Cisco, and other major players.

RealD needs a warchest to fight that battle. Today’s IPO delivers it, as the company makes clear:

We will continue to develop proprietary 3D technologies to enhance the 3D viewing experience and create additional revenue opportunities. Our patented technologies enable 3D viewing in theaters, the home and elsewhere, including technologies that can allow 3D content to be viewed without eyewear. We will also selectively pursue technology acquisitions to expand and enhance our intellectual property portfolio in areas that complement our existing and new market opportunities and to supplement our internal research and development efforts.

Today’s IPO will help RealD pursue its strategic plan. Numerous external factors, however, are beyond its direct control.

Components Shortages Affecting Vendors Worldwide

At the moment, components shortages seem to be pervasive in the technology industry. Vendors large and small, throughout most of the world, have been affected by them to greater or lesser degrees.

The problem appears to be with us for a while. To be best of my knowledge — and I will concede at the outset that my research hasn’t been definitive — vendors everywhere in the world are having difficulty sourcing adequate numbers of many types of components. The only exception is China, where vendors in telecommunications, cleantech, and other fields have not reported that same component-sourcing difficulties that have hobbled their counterparts in Europe, North America, and other parts of Asia.

That doesn’t necessarily mean that Chinese companies aren’t affected by components shortages. All it means is that they haven’t reported them, at least in the English-speaking media I’ve perused. Still, it’s a development that bears watching. In that China does not ascribe to the tenets of unfettered capitalism, it sometimes operates according to a unique set of rules.

Today’s component shortages span various semiconductor types, including but not limited to DSPs, FETs, diodes, and amplifiers. Vendors of solar inverters, particularly those based in Europe, also have been affected.

Meanwhile, Reuters reports that a shortage of basic electrical components could last into the second half of 2011, limiting the ability of telecommunications-equipment manufacturers to respond to improving market demand.

Reuters reports that memory chips and other fundamental components such as resistors and capacitors are in short supply after their makers slashed output, fired staff, put equipment purchases on hold or went out of business during the recession.
The shortages already have been blamed for weaker-than-expected results last quarter at telecommunications-equipement vendors Alcatel-Lucent and Ericsson, which really don’t need the added grief.

Alcatel-Lucent blamed components shortages for a large loss that it posted in its first fiscal quarter. Alcatel-Lucent’s CEO Ben Verwaayen said the said the shortages involved “everyday” low-cost components. He explained that most components come from China, where the manufacturing industry hasn’t been revamped since major cuts that followed the severe global downturn. 

We already know that the supply-chain issues that afflicted Cisco’s channel partners and customers were blamed partly on component shortages.
What’s more, Dell partly blamed shortages and higher costs of components, including memory, for its inability to maintain gross margins during its just-reported quarter.

And AU Optronics, Taiwan’s second-ranked LCD manufacturer and a supplier to Dell and Sony, reported that an LCD panel shortage is likely to last into the second half of this year.

By no means are those the only vendors affected. You only have read the recent 10-Qs or conference-call transcripts of companies involved in computer networking, telecommunications gear, personal computers, smartphones, displays, or cleantech hardware to understand that components shortages are nearly everywhere.

I just wonder — and I make no accusation in doing so — whether Chinese manufacturers are as affected by the shortages as are their competitors in other parts of the world.

DOE Sounds Alarm on Rare-Earth Metals for Cleantech

The devil is in the details. We’ve all heard the saying, and we know what it means. It’s great to have a big picture and a bold plan, but getting the details and execution right ensures our success.

As the U.S. and other Western countries pursue a future in which clean technologies and renewable energy will play integral roles in economic growth, industrial strategy, environmental sustainability, and societal wellbeing, the details will be increasingly important.

Here’s a detail that’s been overlooked until recently: China produces more than 95 percent of the global supply of rare-earth metals. Some reports suggest that China controls, through ownership of foreign sources as well as those on its own territory, nearly 100 percent of the global market. That’s an important detail, because rare-earth metals are essential ingredients in a wide range of technology products.

Rare earths are integral to the development and manufacture of a wide range of technologies and products used in medicine, consumer electronics, mobile phones, computer networking, data storage, and — last but not least — cleantech (wind turbines, photovoltaics, HVEC batteries and engines, among others).

Without an adequate supply of rare-earth metals, or suitable substitutes for them, the future of cleantech (and many other kinds of technology, too) is compromised.

All of which explains why the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) yesterday issued a request for information (RFI) pursuant to development of “its first-ever strategic plan for addressing the role of rare earth and other materials in energy technologies and processes.”  The purpose of the RFI is stated clearly:

The purpose of this RFI is to solicit feedback from industry, academia, research laboratories, government agencies, and other stakeholders on issues related to the demand, supply, use, and costs of rare earth metals and other materials used in the energy sector. DOE is specifically interested in information on rare earth elements (e.g., lanthanum, cerium, neodymium, terbium, europium, samarium, dysprosium and ytterbium), gallium, lithium, cobalt, indium, tellurium and platinum group metals, as well as other materials of interest identified by the respondents to this request.

During the Cold War, the U.S. pursued a strategic interest in rare-earth metals, ensuring their exploration, mining, separation, refinement, alloying, and manufacture domestically and in countries such as Brazil, South Africa, Canada, and elsewhere. Then, the Cold War ended, and the focus shifted, primarily because rare-earth metals had been strategic defense considerations in the showdown with the U.S.S.R, which no longer existed. With no need to worry about the U.S.S.R., and cleantech not yet considered strategically important, rare-earth metals were deemphasized.

In the interim, however, cleantech — and especially renewable energy — has become a top-of-mind strategic concern. During the same period, China — emerging as the global manufacturing foundry for a panoply of technology products — seized control of the market for rare-earth metals. China realizes that demand for those key ingredients outstrips supply, and it has been increasingly taking measures to restrict their export. China’s goal, it seems, is not only to control the market for rare-earth metals, but also to control the downstream markets for the products and technologies made from them.

That is why the DOE has issued an RFI and why it feels the urgent need to draft a strategic plan. In a keynote address at the Technology and Rare Earth Metals Conference 2010, David Sandalow, the DOE’s assistant secretary for policy and International affairs, said that it was imperative to globalize supply chains, to develop substitutes for rare-earth metals, and “to promote recycling, re-use and more efficient use of strategic materials.”

Fortunately, rare-earth materials aren’t especially rare. They’re widely found in the earth’s crust. The problem isn’t so much that they can’t be found, but that they’re not being mined, refined, processed, and manufactured outside China. With crisis comes opportunity, of course, and several mining companies in the U.S.A. have plans to reopen abandoned or disused mines.

It’s worth noting that rare-earth materials differ in their commercial applicability and market value. Although not openly traded — not yet, anyway — recent valuations in China suggest “heavy” rare-earth metals are worth more than their “light” rare-earth counterparts. As mentioned in an article in The Australian, covering the recent Toronto convention of the Prospectors & Developers Association of Canada:

Among the “heavy” rare earths, europium (which gives you red on your TV or computer screen) was bringing over $US475/kg; terbium (used in magnets) was worth at least $US340/kg; and dysprosium (magnets and lasers) could bring upwards of $US107/kg.

By contrast, the “light” rare earths are in a different price bracket. Lanthanum (used in re-chargeable batteries) brought under $US6/kg, cerium (used in glass) under $US4/kg, with neodymium (magnets, lasers, glass) fetching around $US14/kg.

If the concerns of the DOE are well founded, market prices for all of the above will rise. If you’re in cleantech or information-technology hardware vendor, you’ll probably want to track these developments closely.

It’s interesting to note that China has used its rare-earth advantage as a lever to draw companies and projects onto its soil. Facing the threat of supply bottlenecks and export controls, some U.S. and European technology vendors have relocated some initiatives to China.

ESPN to Go 3D

I wrote yesterday about the marketing push behind 3D television. Understandably, consumers, even in the best of times (which these are not), will be reluctant to part with their hard-earned cash for a 3D television set unless they have a reasonable expectation of being able to use it for the enjoyment of 3D content.

For that to happen, consumers would have to make investments in 3D Blu-ray players, and they’d want 3D movie titles, delivered by DVD or over the Internet, from the film industry. They’ll also want to see support for 3D content coming from television channels and networks, as well as from their cable and satellite providers. Presuming that’s made available, consumers also might have to purchase new 3D set-top boxes.

Essentially, for 3D to become an attractive proposition in the living room, all the vendors in the ecosystem must work together to provide a compelling, seamless experience to the consumer — from hardware and content availability to content distribution and delivery.

Then, of course, they’ll have to hope the consumer is willing to tolerate the inconvenience of having to wear 3D glasses to partake of the in-home spectacle. That’s the last hurdle, and perhaps the biggest one. Even so, I wouldn’t want to underestimate any of the other challenges. If 3D is destined to become a cash cow for all the industry players in the food chain, everything must come together in perfect synchrony. Anything less will result in failure.

Fortunately for the nascent industry, ESPN is jumping aboard the bandwagon. 3D movies have obvious appeal to a mass audience, but sports entertainment is a huge business in its own right. What’s more, most major sports events — football, soccer, basketball, hockey, baseball — could arguably benefit from the 3D treatment. Having accurate depth perception, much less protrusive visual effects, would enhance viewing enjoyment of, let’s say, the World Cup soccer tournament.

ESPN obviously agrees. It is one of the organizations, to which I alluded in yesterday’s post, that has done extensive research into consumer acceptance of 3D television. It now has decided to launch ESPN 3D, which will provide at least 85 live 3D events in a one-year span, starting on June 11 with the broadcast of a World Cup soccer match between South Africa and Mexico.

Other soccer games likely to be part of the broadcast mix, as will Summer X Games (extreme sports), NBA games, college basketball, and college football. ESPN will not provide reruns of sporting events. When there are no live events to show in 3D, the channel will remain dark.

Will 85 (or slightly more) live events be enough to make the channel a commercial success? Will they be sufficient to motivate consumers to take the plunge on 3D home entertainment?

One wonders about how the channel will be priced for subscribers, and about how many cable and satellite providers will pick it up and on what terms. Consumers will be sensitive about paying a subscription charge for a channel that’s available on a part-time basis, as well as one that carries only some content in which they might have strong interest. After all, it’s a rare bird who’s interested in World Cup soccer, X Games, the NBA, and college sports.

According to a USA Today news item, ESPN expects deals with distributors will be in place prior to the channel’s launch. It’s not only availability that will matter, though, but also the terms of that availability. It will be interesting to see how ESPN shares risk with, and potentially defrays costs for, its distribution partners, who might be reluctant to pick up the channel without a reasonable expectation of success.

As the USA Today article mentions, 3D broadcasts cost more than high-definition productions. You need two cameras (or specialized 3D cameras) rather that one, for instance, and you have think about whether camera placement should be different for a 3D production than for conventional sports coverage. The USA Today article notes that broadcasters might require a separate set of announcers for 3D productions, but I’m not sure I agree. It should be possible to use a single set of announcers in the broadcast booth, presuming there’s enough space for the additional camera equipment.

One interesting aspect to this story is that ESPN is committing to the 3D network only through June 2011. At the end of one full year of operation, ESPN will decide whether and how to extend the service.

Will ESPN keep the service going? It all depends on how it’s received in its first year. If I were forced to make a wager on the outcome, I’d say ESPN 3D doesn’t get renewed.

I’m not sure 3D home entertainment is ready for prime time, and I’m not confident that cash-strapped American consumers have the disposal income to upgrade from the HD gear they’re just now beginning to enjoy on a regular basis.

3D Television Touted at CES 2010

With the annual edition of the Consumer Electronics Show (CES) in Las Vegas almost upon us, marketers are working diligently to engender consumer interest in a range of new products and technologies. Their job is to make you want things you don’t really need.

3D televisions are getting a big push. I’ve worked in 3D-visualization technology, so I feel qualified to offer an opinion, learned or otherwise.

For 3D television sets to succeed commercially, content must be widely and readily available, the devices themselves should not inconvenience consumers, and the prices of the sets should not be prohibitive.

Sony says 2012 will be year of 3D television, and it might be right. Even then, I wonder whether enough content will be available for delivery to consumers. More to the point, I question whether consumers will want to make the compromise of wearing specialized goggles to enjoy the 3D experience. For me, that is the litmus test. It’s why I believe 3D television, at least in its first incarnation, will fail to make the commercial grade.

When people flock to a cinema to see a 3D movie, they go for the big-screen spectacle. They’re willing to pay to enter that dark cathedral, to don their 3D glasses, and to settle into plush seats alongside other congregants for approximately two hours of immersive entertainment. Then, at the end of the movie, they take off the 3D eyewear, leave the theater, and return to the real world.

A lot of research into 3D home entertainment has been done by cable companies, satellite broadcasters, and television networks. They’ve all looked into the tolerance level of consumers for 3D glasses. What they’ve found, for the most part, is that consumers are willing to wear the glasses at movie theaters, but are disinclined to wear them in their own homes.

That’s because of the disparity between the cinema experience and the home-viewing experience. People bring a different set of attitudes expectations to the theater than they bring to their own living rooms. What they’ll accept at the cinema, where they get a larger-than-life entertainment experience for a limited period of time, is different from what they’re willing to tolerate in their own homes.

Besides, consumers behave differently while watching television. For the most part, filmgoers give their undivided attention to what;’s on the big screen. (Yes, we all have been in the same theater with rude talkers and senseless jabberers, but those cretins belong to a small minority of the audience, thankfully.) Television viewing tends to be more episodic, less focused. Your attention is diverted occasionally from the television set to other things in your home. During a commercial break, for example, you might walk to the kitchen or to the washroom, or you might take or make a phone call.

Given how you watch television and how you live within your home, would you be wiling to wear 3D glasses for extended periods? Ubergeeks among you might say yes, but most of you would be reluctant to make the sacrifice. That’s why ubergeeks are the earliest of early adopters, and why everybody else isn’t.

Consequently, we won’t see widespread adoption of 3D televisions until they can be viewed autostereoscopically (without glasses). That will take a few years. Autostereoscopic technology needs to improve, and standards for it need to coalesce. Effective and simple means of converting stereoscopic (requiring glasses) cinematic 3D content into autostereoscopic formats must be brought to market, too.

None of those challenges is insurmountable, but each will take time. The glasses-based 3D-television products on the market today are necessary precursors for their glasses-free successors of the future.