3-D T.V. Are you serious?

The 2010 Consumer Electronics Show which took place Jan. 7-10  in Las Vegas had a few interesting surprises, worst among them was the 3-D T.V.

There are a few reasons I believe this new platform won't work: timing, price and usability.

Timing:

Last year the government forced the switch to digital signal only broadcasts forcing many people to buy new T.V.'s or adapter boxes.

Not only will 3-D T.V.'s fail, but the move might doom other products  that we're already enjoying some success such as Blu-ray players and high-definition (HD-T.V.'s).

Why would I buy a 3-D T.V. when I just bought an HD one in the last couple of years? High-definition televisions have only recently  become popular and have yet to hit market saturation. On the other hand, why would I bother to buy an HD-T.V. if they're already obsolete?

Blu-ray players face a similar crisis. They survived the hurdles of coming shortly after the DVD players became popular, and competed with the now defunct HD-DVD format for use.

However, current Blu-ray players are will be replaced with 3-D capable ones by manufacurers such as Sharp leaving early adopters high and dry. This leads me to believe those same early-adopters may become angry and forego the upgrade.

Price:

High-definition T.V.'s  have only recently come down to the $200 and up range. Now the manufacturers are expecting us to throw those still new boxes in the trash and spend yet more money for a 3-D upgrade. Samsung for instance quoted a price range of $7-12 thousand at the show.

As you will recall, the recession is still going on leaving few with that kind of cash.

Last week, the Associated Press reported that the unemployment rate was over 10 percent nation wide and closer to 17 percent if adjusted for the people who have simply given up on finding a job.

Usability:

Let's face it, this is where everything falls apart for this format.

3-D television sets will require glasses, several manufacturerers are working on proprietary designs, but they all work on the same basic principle--seeing an image with only one eye at a time to give the illusion of depth.

If you already wear glasses, like UGA student Jamie Diamond, 20, of Athens, Ga., this won't work.

"It would be horribly uncomfortable to wear 3-D glasses over my own," Diamond said. "I won't do it. It's stupid."

Another issue to worry about are epilepsy. The rapidly flashing images could lead to seizures, though the industry will probably find ways to make glasses that risk.

Finally, there is the vanity issue. How many americans will want to put on dorky head sets for a slightly better look at John Stewart's desk? I won't.

Whether the 3-D T.V. lives or dies will be determined in the next couple of years, but I wouldn't head to the store for one anytime soon.