Why are people still buying LCD's?

Discussion in 'Plasma TVs Forum' started by Davidgilmour, Apr 30, 2007.

  1. Davidgilmour

    Davidgilmour
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2004
    Messages:
    782
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    21
    Location:
    Amsterdam
    Ratings:
    +15
    I am still wondering why people still are buying LCD screens. Even though LCD's from today are not as bad as 3-4 years ago I still have not seen a *single* LCD screen that can convince me with SD material like analog/digital TV or DVD. And for most of the people that's 95% or more that the telly is used for. And still people are buying LCD's for more than 700-1,000 quid when a Panasonic 37 / 42 inch plasma can be bought for 600-700 quid nowadays.

    Sure, HD looks good on some LCD's but still not as good as HD on a 700 quid Panasonic or 1200 quid Pioneer.

    But I have never read a single post from someone who said: My Panasonic/Pioneer/Fujitsi plasma was so bad so I decided to buy this LG/Samsung/Sharp/Sony/Philips LCD and it's much better.
    So I wonder why are people still buying LCD screens? Ignorance?
     
  2. lazymatt

    lazymatt
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2006
    Messages:
    1,999
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    66
    Location:
    Croydon
    Ratings:
    +188
    Not just still buying, but LCD is now dominating the TV market. Obviously that's a lot to do with the range of sizes available, but also, I think, because of LCD's generally greater brightness, they tend to look better on the shop floor.
     
  3. jon_c0

    jon_c0
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2005
    Messages:
    1,078
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +85
    I own neither, but I know the things that I see as LCD benefits versus plasma as I consider my future purchase:

    * A larger range of 1080p screens at more sane prices.
    * Not having to even entertain the thought of screen burn and/or retention or having to think about convoluted "running-in" procedures.
    * Non-reflective screens (on the whole).

    Obviously there are plenty of negatives too, as you point out, but these days I don't think it's quite the "black and white" distinction between the two that you're painting. As a future purchaser of a 46"+ screen, I'm looking at both options... As a heavy MCE user with lots of static on-screen images, although I appreciate screen burn and retention are much, much less of an issue with plasmas than they once were, I'll applaud the day that a manufacturer doesn't feel the need to blat a disclaimer related to it across their warranty information...
     
  4. nil102

    nil102
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Dec 14, 2005
    Messages:
    869
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    43
    Ratings:
    +95

    Not ignorance but personal preference
     
  5. jetinder

    jetinder
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Sep 16, 2006
    Messages:
    1,594
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Ratings:
    +139
    The newer LCDs out now look as good if not better than 6 month old plasmas.

    If i had to get a tv now (as long as motion blur has been fixed) i'd be very tempted to get a 42 inch LCD as the ones from Phillips, Samsung and Sony look as good as plasma versions.
     
  6. Yannis

    Yannis
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2006
    Messages:
    1,341
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    66
    Location:
    Greece
    Ratings:
    +106
    I believe that it all comes down to personal preferences. When i compared for example Sony 40V2500 to Panasonic 42PX60 in a shop , the SD picture seemed to be equally good on the Bravia. Others might not agree.

    If you check the LCD subforum many people say that LCDs have better PQ than plasmas.
     
  7. Fusewire

    Fusewire
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2005
    Messages:
    1,617
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Ratings:
    +104
    I have one for the conservatory, it works better then the PWD8 for afternoon viewing in birght sunlight. :)

    The PWD8 blows it away in the evening though for movies. :thumbsup:
     
  8. angelislington

    angelislington
    Active Member

    Joined:
    May 14, 2003
    Messages:
    1,553
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    66
    Location:
    Kent
    Ratings:
    +234
    Although personal preference does come into play and if someone prefers LCD then different strokes and all that but in my opinion Plasma is by far the better option.

    As the OP said, why would you buy an LCD when you can get a similar priced plasma from Pana or Pioneer? Black levels on an LCD are non-existant, motion blur is appalling, colours are totally unnatural and off axis viewing means you have to sit exactly in the middle or lose contrast, but other than that they are ok :D

    Seriously though, in a bright showroom (Comet et al) LCD's DO look brighter and that can attract people who are not well versed in these things.
     
  9. gizlaroc

    gizlaroc
    Well-known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 26, 2001
    Messages:
    9,529
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    136
    Location:
    Norwich
    Ratings:
    +986
    I totally agree with Richard here, most people can not get there head round how the image will look at home, and LCD does tend to look better than plasma in shops, under flouresent lighting LCD has a snap to it that Plasma doesn't, and also under these conditions black level really isn't a problem either.
    And to be fair this is where 99% of buyers make their mind up, standing on a shop floor.

    I have loads of mates who have seen my set up and they all agree it is absolutely spot on, and still when they go and buy a plasma they end up coming back with an LCD, reasons???
    "It looked more colourful"
    "It was Brighter!"
    "The HD clips looked amazing!"
    "The guy in the shop said that I need 1080p"

    They then start to moan when they get it home...
    "By the time I have knocked the contrast down so it isn't too bright to watch the image looks flat?"
    "When I watch football it all goes blurry!"
    "When I watch a dark film I can't really see what's going on!"
    "When I turn the colour down so people look normal and grass isn't flouresent it looks washed out"

    Only last week someone I know went to get a PX70 and ended up coming back with a Sony 46" and he wants me to go round and set it up cause he can't get a picture he likes, doesn't look anything like mine, I gave him the settings recommended on here though so I am sure it is how it is??
     
  10. hottstuff

    hottstuff
    Banned

    Joined:
    Dec 20, 2005
    Messages:
    3,617
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    86
    Location:
    Rep. of Ireland
    Ratings:
    +149
    :rotfl:
    Ignorant to what exactly?
    That plasmas are cheaper/less popular?

    One thing they are not ignorant to is the silly cost of repair and screen burn/retention.
     
  11. gizlaroc

    gizlaroc
    Well-known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 26, 2001
    Messages:
    9,529
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    136
    Location:
    Norwich
    Ratings:
    +986
    I would say with that comment it is indeed ignorance! :D

    A new breed of plasma will not get screen burn.
    Repairs?? repairs for what??
     
  12. hornydragon

    hornydragon
    Well-known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 19, 2001
    Messages:
    28,345
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    136
    Location:
    Somewhere near the M4 most of the time......
    Ratings:
    +1,218
    :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl:
    YEah Plasma are cheaper :suicide: less popular in the same way fewer people own Ferraris, Bentleys, Jaguars , than own Fiat, VW, Fords etc COst of repair whats makes LCD cheaper to repar? PSU same issues Backlight issues LCD only Dead pixels far worse on LCD. so i dont get it, as for Latent image retention totally different to burn (both technologies can be damaged bt static images) The best plasma are far and away ahead of the best LCD's when it comes to image more accurate more natural keep you 37" 1080p screens and give me a 852x480 42" Panny panel any day

    Those that know, know those that dont are blinded
     
  13. Osamede

    Osamede
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2007
    Messages:
    805
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    28
    Ratings:
    +41
    Maybe you dont think LCD and Plasma are similar quality but if you look at some of the more recent ones they are quite competitive. And no one has to worry about screen burn etc.

    Moreover, you should expect more people using LCD's now than a coupel of years ago since the amout of HD content available is actually increasing over time. So your focus on SD is really looking backwards rather than forwards, which is where you should be looking to answer your question.

    And obviously plasma is practically non-existent below 32", ceding that entire market to LCD. Yet of course the smaller TV's are where you would see the bulk of puchases and it is the entry level of the market.

    So I dont find it surprising at all. You would in fact expect all these people who are buying 2&" or 32" LCD's today to be prime candidates to get a 42" LCD in a year or two, especially so as the technology continues to improve.
     
  14. ozzzy189

    ozzzy189
    Well-known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 1, 2006
    Messages:
    7,779
    Products Owned:
    1
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    136
    Location:
    North Lincolnshire
    Ratings:
    +1,241
    1080p lcds are pointless, when it moves, it`s all gone away .................:hiya:
     
  15. gizlaroc

    gizlaroc
    Well-known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 26, 2001
    Messages:
    9,529
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    136
    Location:
    Norwich
    Ratings:
    +986

    I just replied to your post in the LCD forum, have a quick read. :smashin:
     
  16. mrm3

    mrm3
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 29, 2004
    Messages:
    2,034
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Cobham
    Ratings:
    +95
    There are so many variables and to assume everyone is in the same position as yourself is ignorant. So I would agree with you.

    LCDs offer a wider range of sizes, inputs, styles and costs. Some are better suited for HTPCs etc etc etc
    ...plus random factors like the wife usually has a say !

    I would buy a Fuji, Pioneer or Panny plasma if I had the choice and in the market for another 40"+ screen.
     
  17. Miles High

    Miles High
    Standard Member

    Joined:
    Jan 22, 2007
    Messages:
    99
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    6
    Location:
    Sussex
    Ratings:
    +0
    Because most TVs are bought be Mr & Mrs Average, who dont understand the shop floor to home contrasts, and who may even be more concerned with how it looks while turned off than PQ!

    One entreprenuer once said (& if they didn't, I am saying it) 'Nodody ever went broke under estimating the general ignorance of the general public'. No offence to anyone, people have the right to not be bothered by these things if they so choose...
     
  18. punkymunky

    punkymunky
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2007
    Messages:
    610
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    46
    Ratings:
    +170
    It's all down to the power of marketing and consumer ignorance, it's so easy to be sucked in to the LCD myth in a brightly lit shop with HD footage I am surprised that plasmas are selling at all to Jo public, it's probably to a large extent thanks to these forums :thumbsup:

    I have just returned from a holiday in the States at a mates house - he has a brand new Phillips 42" LCD - after watching it for a week I concluded that it was much better than previous LCDs with regard to motion blur, however the range of colours available, the depth of contrast and the accuracy of colour were really, really terrible. Yes you can watch it but you are missing out on so much.

    Watching the plasma when I got home just highlighted the MASSIVE difference. It was nothing short of glorious, even the missus said the picture was amazing compared to what we had been getting used to. Funny everyone says that when they come round.
     
  19. Silver Serpent

    Silver Serpent
    Well-known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 17, 2006
    Messages:
    2,924
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    106
    Ratings:
    +415
    High Definition is the future, that's why people are buying LCD's.

    If you want to view SD at its best, then stick with a CRT.

    The majority of plasmas have a lower resolution to LCD's, so that's why SD material looks better on a plasma, athough plasmas do have better colour reproduction.

    LCD's are better for gaming and HD material (in my opinion).

    People are buying LCD's because they are the way forward (but still by no means perfect). The question should be, why are people still buying Plasmas, as it is the aging technology really?

    The Panasonic PZ700 looks like it will be a match for any LCD though, but I have no doubt it will suffer in the SD department due to its 1080 resolution.
     
  20. Silver Serpent

    Silver Serpent
    Well-known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 17, 2006
    Messages:
    2,924
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    106
    Ratings:
    +415
    Black levels on an LCD are no longer non-existant.

    The new Samsung M86/87 has black levels as good as the PH9 and PX70/700 series, if not better, according to *.
     
  21. davidac

    davidac
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2005
    Messages:
    349
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    28
    Location:
    Watford
    Ratings:
    +44
    You could also ask "why are people still buying Plasma's?"

    I think CRT's are still the best option for most SD analog and digital channels if you have the room for it. Plasma is the best option for a good SD source such as a decent DVD or a good SD digital channel. HD is less clear cut. A large 1080 LCD will show that a bit more detail but probably won't have as good blacks especially if you watch TV in a darkened room.

    If SD quality was most peopled primary concern the shops would still be full of CRT's.
     
  22. roberte

    roberte
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2004
    Messages:
    177
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    18
    Ratings:
    +10
    SILVER
    1.HAVE YOU CHECKED HI DEF MATERIAL ON A PLASMA ITS STUNNING,360
    PS3 HDTV

    2.ON EVERY SOURCE PLASMA BEATS LCD DUE TO COLOUR ,CONTRAST AND MOTION .

    3PLASMA AGEING? IT JUST MEANS DEVELOPMENT IS AHEAD OF LCD

    SILVER YOURE JUST KIDDING YOURSELFMATE PLASMA IS STILL THE FLAT SCREEN TO BEAT
     
  23. hornydragon

    hornydragon
    Well-known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 19, 2001
    Messages:
    28,345
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    136
    Location:
    Somewhere near the M4 most of the time......
    Ratings:
    +1,218
    That really is rubbish HD isnt new its only new to the mass market and you dont need a 1080p screen to enjo HD HD done well looks better on a SD top end plasma than HD done well on a 1080p LCD IME. People LCD cause thats what is in the shops shops sell LCD cause thats what comes out of the factory there is no free choice in the matter why are there more LCD plants than plasma? Thats because they are cheaper. LCD is older than plasma as a technology plasma is only 12 years old LCD 20+ (colour screen) monchrome is older for both Betting on the future is huge business too much money at stake for it to left in the hands of Jo Public
     
  24. Silver Serpent

    Silver Serpent
    Well-known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 17, 2006
    Messages:
    2,924
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    106
    Ratings:
    +415
    The second point you made I agree with, but not the first. Hi-def on a plasma can't possibly be better than a 1080p LCD due to the resolution issue.

    The majority of plasmas are at a resolution of 1024x768. That's alot of detail lost compared to 1920x1080.

    However you could argue the point that colour reproduction, and black levels come before resolution according to the ISF.

    Plasmas are still a very good screen, but the part from the original post by the thread maker which made me have my say was the SD issue.

    If you want SD then stick with a CRT.

    PS - Do you always use CAPS, are were you just ticked off that someone elses opinion may differ to your own? :D
     
  25. andrewfee

    andrewfee
    Well-known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 27, 2004
    Messages:
    3,066
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    136
    Ratings:
    +500
    It's not *just* ignorance though - there are people that are well informed that buy LCDs because they suit their needs better.

    LCD has caught up to Plasmas in terms of black level now. That's not opinion, it is fact. Sharp's 2000:1 static panels are as good as Panasonic plasmas for black level now. (and they have 2500:1 panels out in USA / coming here) That's not to say everything else matches up, but black levels have caught up.

    Resolution. Now, you could argue that while LCDs are offering 1080p they don't actually show 1080p while it's moving, but for computer use in particular, this is a big advantage over a 1024x768 plasma.

    Image retention, burn-in. While this is almost non-existant on the latest plasmas, it's still a concern for many buyers, and it's nice to be able to just buy an LCD and not have to think about it, particularly if you play a lot of games, or intend on using the TV as a large monitor for a HTPC etc.

    Noise. The best LCDs are almost totally silent now, even just being a foot or two away from them, whereas Plasmas tend to buzz based on the average picture level (louder the brighter it is) and many models still have fans in them.

    Ambient light. Not everyone watches their television in light-controlled rooms, where Plasmas tend to really shine. Some people like to watch TV during the day, or have the lights on in the room when watching, which tends to cancel out the backlight on an LCD, improving the black levels further. (to the point where you can't tell if they're on or not by looking at them) Due to their screen design, LCDs are far more visible and the images pack a lot more punch in daylight than Plasmas do.

    Motion handling. Now, I'm not here to argue that LCD is better than Plasma, or vice-versa, but they both handle movement differently. With LCD, it's pretty much constant - it doesn't matter if it's slow movement, or fast movement, it all trails/smears roughly the same amount. 100/120Hz processing has noticeably improved this though. The trails on LCD are generally the same colour as whatever it was that's moving.

    With Plasma, slow movement tends to hold its sharpness much better, to a point, but then things start to get bad. With very fast movement, Plasma is arguably worse, leaving big trails behind moving objects. Not only that, but due to the way Plasma works, these trails tend to be bright green.

    Here's a comparison using very fast movement:
    [​IMG]
    120Hz LCD on top, regular LCD in the middle, and Plasma at the bottom. (Panasonic TH42PH9)

    More information on that here: http://www.*/news/2007/04/01/plasma-phosphor-trail/

    There's also the fact that Plasmas flicker, and LCDs don't, which can cause headaches/eye-strain. As much as I wanted to like the Panasonic plasma I bought earlier this year, I just couldn't stand to watch it due to the flicker, buzzing and trailing when playing games.

    Apparently not everyone can see these problems, but this video captures pretty much exactly what I was seeing: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3kyllx3VaI8

    Also: while I don't disagree that colour on Plasma tends to be more accurate than the majority of LCDs (particularly the latest ones that use stuff like "Wide Colour Gamut" technology) Panasonic's Plasmas, which tend to be the most popular, oversaturate their cyans, greens, yellows and reds quite a bit:

    [​IMG]
    (TH42PH9 again - the "ideal" gamut / saturation level is the dark triangle, whereas the white one is what the display's is like)

    Of course Plasmas are significantly better at viewing angles than even the best LCDs, which only offer maybe 30-60º before you start seeing noticeable shifts in the image, and the glossier screens give the appearance of more depth. (though some LCDs are now coming out with glossy screens, like the latest Samsung panels)

    As for SD handling. It's really nothing to do with Plasma or LCD - it's all about the television's processing. Cheap LCDs have bad processing, and cheap Plasmas can also have bad image processing. I won't argue that cheaper plasmas tend to have better SD handling than cheaper LCDs, but the fact that they're LCDs or Plasmas has nothing to do with it.


    I know you're all probably thinking I'm biased towards LCDs, and perhaps I am a bit, but I do want to like the plasma image. Pioneer's current plasmas have fantastic colour reproduction, and the 8G panels are said to have significantly better blacks than any flat-panel out there just now, which I'd love to see. I'm fully prepared to spend up to £4k for a 50" 1080p one (I hear they're going to be expensive) if they get everything right, as they're claiming, but if I still end up seeing green trails behind things, and they buzz loudly / flicker, I'm going to have to buy another LCD. (and good LCDs are getting a lot harder to find now, as manufacturers just seem to be focusing on bright, vivid colours, rather than accurate ones)
     
  26. gizlaroc

    gizlaroc
    Well-known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 26, 2001
    Messages:
    9,529
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    136
    Location:
    Norwich
    Ratings:
    +986
    So Andrew, what are you using now, from memory you are the guy on ntsc-uk who seems to swap screens every two weeks??!!
    Problem with that is a plasma needs 750 hours to really get bed in, I hate them for the first few hundred hours, phospher lag is at its worse and you get that digital fizz.
     
  27. andrewfee

    andrewfee
    Well-known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 27, 2004
    Messages:
    3,066
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    136
    Ratings:
    +500
    That's me. :) I've had a Toshiba 37WLT68 LCD for the last 6 months or so, and I'm looking to upgrade again.

    The colour reproduction is pretty good, for an LCD, as it's not got overly bright, vivid colours, unlike the BRAVIAs, Samsungs etc.

    [​IMG]

    As you can see, it's not perfect, but far from the super-saturated colours you get on most LCDs now. As it's got RGBCMY hue/saturation adjustments, I've been able to dial it in quite nicely now, though the brightest reds are about 3.5% undersaturated, as you can see.

    It was the first LCD with 100/120Hz processing (I believe) so it handled motion a lot better than everything else out there at the time, and I was absolutely fed up with returning TVs every few weeks, so I stuck with it.

    When I bought it black levels weren't a huge concern, as I was viewing in a fairly bright room most of the time, but that's changed now, and the Toshiba was never a great performer in that regard.

    I'm really wanting to get one of the 8G Pioneers if the black levels are as good as they claim, because otherwise, I don't know what I'd replace it with, other than a Toshiba Z series, which isn't coming out until the end of September (the new C / X series don't have 100Hz) and I'm still not convinced about the quality of LCDs in the 46-52" range justifying the price tag.
     
  28. Osamede

    Osamede
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2007
    Messages:
    805
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    28
    Ratings:
    +41
    Just for the record, if you have a job, a life, you and go to work and watch say 3-4 hours of TV a day on average.....that is between half a year and two thirds of a year. At which point the next model is already on sale , the press release for that one is out and we are getting bombarded with news that 2,234.550.83p/i/x/q is the "real high definition" and your nicely bedded-in plasma screen is about as up to date as Margaret Beckett's wardrobe.

    But no, I'm not cynical at all.....nah! ;) ;)
     
  29. chemphysics

    chemphysics
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    173
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    18
    Ratings:
    +6
    There is too much credit being given to the LCD buyers. The simple reality is that, below 42 inches, LCD is virtually the only option. Computer monitors are all LCD now, everyone has them. TVs in traditional sizes are all LCD. For these reasons the technology is unquestionably popular and rightly so. When it comes to buying a TV, most people will fall into 'statistical purchasing' - if there are a million LCDs and one plasma, chances are they will buy an LCD irrelevant of whether the plasma is superior in every way.

    Most people do not know the first thing about plasma vs LCD. They do not know about black levels, motion blurring, image retention etc. They just go out and buy the tv they see producing the brightest and boldest image. The combination of those factors result in people buying large LCDs and not plasma. The fraction of people who buy LCD actually understanding the advantages/disadvantages is so small as to be insignificant.
     
  30. scoob101

    scoob101
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 8, 2006
    Messages:
    167
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    18
    Ratings:
    +12
    Thats the key point - size. Most everyday consumers still think 32" is quite a large TV and you simply can`t get 32" plasmas.

    If the massess switched their buying preference to 42" and beyond, then I`m sure plasma would get a much bigger slice of the action. Unfortunatley, most think that 42" is way too big.

    And then theres the point that panny are the only ones making a 37" plasma right now.

    I looked for a HDTV for 2 years, and spent most of that time looking at LCD after LCD and laughing at the frankly awful quality of SD pictures on them. When i discovered that Panny did a plasma in 37" I was there like a shot. But before realising about panny`s plasmas - I was behaving like lots of others and looking for a 32" TV, thinking that was as big as I could go.

    It takes alot of marketing power to convince consumers that they can fit a large TV into their room - it takes evem more to convince them they should re-arrange their living space to acommodate one!
     

Share This Page

Loading...