AfterDawn: News

LCD TVs outsell plasmas 8 to 1 globally

According to data compiled by research firm DisplaySearch,, global LCD TV sales outsold plasma TV sales by a huge 8-to-1 margin for the Q1 2008 and that gap doesn't seem to be getting any smaller anytime soon.

Over 21 million LCD TVs were sold during the timeframe compared to a measly 2.8 million plasma sets, says the report.



The total number of TVs sold during the period was 46.1 million, about equal to year-over-year sales for 2007. Overall revenue jumped 8 percent however, to $24.8 billion USD thanks to increasing sales of larger, more expensive LCD and plasma displays.

Aging CRT TVs were still the best selling, with 22.1 million sold, with LCD closely behind at 21.1. Plasma and rear projection televisions brought up the rear with 2.8 million and 134,000 sold respectively. Year over year CRT sales were down 21%, LCD up 45%, plasma up 20% and RPTV down 79%.

In terms of brands, Samsung led in revenue for the 9th straight quarter, with huge 39 percent year over year growth.

Written by: Andre Yoskowitz @ 23 May 2008 2:23

• Previous article

• CinemaNow now available through Windows Media Center

• Next article

• Zhongsou is guilty of copyright infringement

• 26 comments

• Gradical

  I think this was a more interesting format war, and one with the consumer getting the beneffit from

  23.5.2008 03:55 #1

• grkblood

  well what do you expect when you see about 8 LCDs in a store while theres only 1 plasma. this is no surprise really, they market LCDS ways more. its a shame really.

  23.5.2008 08:18 #2

• DXR88

  I think its the fact that plasma display production has been in a slump latly.
  
  however plasma's life expectancy, and word of mouth by representatives. has left plasma technology with a bad name.

  23.5.2008 09:26 #3

• lxfactor

  well you want a tv that will last 30 years?
  
  or one that last forever

  23.5.2008 09:30 #4

• DXR88

  Originally posted by lxfactor: well you want a tv that will last 30 years?
  
  or one that last forever
  thats just it. thats a common misunderstanding lcd can last 30 years but most won't. the backlight will fail before 30 years for most lcd sets.

  23.5.2008 10:03 #5

• A_Klingon

  Originally posted by lxfactor: well you want a tv that will last 30 years?
  or one that last foreverWhat in heaven's name would lead you to believe you'll ever live long enough to see either?

  23.5.2008 10:38 #6

• chaos_zzz

  Originally posted by DXR88: I think its the fact that plasma display production has been in a slump latly.
  
  however plasma's life expectancy, and word of mouth by representatives. has left plasma technology with a bad name.at first plasmas only lasted 20000 hours but now they last 60 000 wich matches lcd's life, but those first models gave plasma a bad name, most ppl say buy that lcd and they don't even know what they talking about
  
  i mean they do burn when u leave paused or something, but if ur going out or something, turn off your tv!!

  23.5.2008 11:16 #7

• DXR88

  Sorry,chaos_zzz. i was refering to the early models as it started a negative trend toward plasma's

  23.5.2008 11:53 #8

• BludRayne

  Why would you even want to keep a tv for 30 years?

  23.5.2008 12:25 #9

• pirkster

  Originally posted by DXR88: Sorry,chaos_zzz. i was refering to the early models as it started a negative trend toward plasma'sThat wasn't the main factor.
  
  The largest factor was price. Plasma had by far the best picture, yet also carried the highest price tag.
  
  LCD was always more accessible on price, to both manufacturers and consumers.
  
  Now that the quality gap has closed since LCDs have gotten better, and the price gap has closed - plasmas are now only marginally more expensive for a marginally better picture.
  
  Even though they're now somewhat comparable, LCD was able to attract customers and manufacturers sooner. There aren't as many plasma manufacturers compared to LCD manufacturers because of the higher startup costs. Therefore, there are many more LCDs available to the market. Had it been the other way around and it less expensive for plasma, the bandwagon would have been turned in the other direction and you would have seen a huge gap in favor of plasma. It's all about the cost to manufacturers, which infuences price to customers.
  
  I just feel sorry for all the folks that bought inferior rear projection sets, who felt they had to jump to HD first and went with the cheapest cost sets available at the time.

  23.5.2008 12:33 #10

• lxhotboy

  I have been looking at the LCD and plasmas alot lately. I did notice also that they sale a lot more lcd's than plasma. In my local walmart they had about 20 or more lcd and 1 plasma. I also noticed, while comparing two 50 in phillips, that the plasma picture was the clearest and cripist picture of the two as well as being better than every other lcd brand walmart had. Are plasma's really better picture wise or what? I wll probably still buy a LCD.

  23.5.2008 16:00 #11

• lynchGOP

  Quote:Originally posted by DXR88: I think its the fact that plasma display production has been in a slump latly.
  
  however plasma's life expectancy, and word of mouth by representatives. has left plasma technology with a bad name.at first plasmas only lasted 20000 hours but now they last 60 000 wich matches lcd's life, but those first models gave plasma a bad name, most ppl say buy that lcd and they don't even know what they talking about
  
  i mean they do burn when u leave paused or something, but if ur going out or something, turn off your tv!!
  Plasmas consume more power compared with LCD. LCDs are brighter and sharper than plasma (negligibly so I might add but sharper none-the-less). LCD are less expensive tit for tat and will become even less in the future as it's a technology that is mass produced daily for the home computer. Plasmas are nice but LCDs have blacker blacks in general............except the Kuro which IF YOU WANT HD 1080 then you must pop 5 grand for their smallest available model @ 50". Most aren't willing to pay that.

  23.5.2008 17:08 #12

• Ryu77

  Originally posted by pirkster: That wasn't the main factor.
  
  The largest factor was price. Plasma had by far the best picture, yet also carried the highest price tag.
  
  LCD was always more accessible on price, to both manufacturers and consumers.
  
  Now that the quality gap has closed since LCDs have gotten better, and the price gap has closed - plasmas are now only marginally more expensive for a marginally better picture.
  
  Even though they're now somewhat comparable, LCD was able to attract customers and manufacturers sooner. There aren't as many plasma manufacturers compared to LCD manufacturers because of the higher startup costs. Therefore, there are many more LCDs available to the market. Had it been the other way around and it less expensive for plasma, the bandwagon would have been turned in the other direction and you would have seen a huge gap in favor of plasma. It's all about the cost to manufacturers, which infuences price to customers.
  
  I just feel sorry for all the folks that bought inferior rear projection sets, who felt they had to jump to HD first and went with the cheapest cost sets available at the time.Actually it is Plasma TV's that are less expensive and as far as I know it always has been. I work in Audio Visual Sales. A 50" Panasonic Full HD Plasma retails for about $3,000, where a 52" Sony or Samsung Full HD LCD TV will be around the $4,500 mark (Australian $$).
  

  
  
  "Dream... Believe... Achieve"
  
  PS3 compatible video creation thread... mkv2vob, tsMuxeR etc.: http://forums.afterdawn.com/thread_view.cfm/621809
  The complete HD (Blu-ray/HD-DVD) back-up thread.: http://forums.afterdawn.com/thread_view.cfm/639346

  23.5.2008 17:12 #13

• CNDLG

  Personally i would like to know more numbers within specific sizes of TV. Lets face it most LCD sales are probably in the 15-37 inch range where there are little or no plasmas available!! And someone said they are sorry for people who bought rear projections? Just like LCD or plasma there are crap rear projection and great rear projection. You show me where i can buy a 60" LCD or Plasma in 1080p with the brightness, contrast, and response of my Sony 60A2000 SXRD AND at a resonable price!

  23.5.2008 17:46 #14

• iluvendo

  Has anyone (brave enough) told MysticE this yet ?

  23.5.2008 22:21 #15

• atomicxl

  Thats gotta be a crushing blow to plasma makers, although they likely already knew of this. Interesting that total HD > total SD tv sales and that one type of HDTV almost equals total SDTV sales.

  23.5.2008 22:33 #16

• ripxrush

  I agree this is a more interesting format war with no major losers if your "format" doesn't win you still have a t.v. that will show your HD format choice! The 1st plasmas & there short life span did give them a bad name! but really how long did you keep your old t.v. before you replaced it with that new HD t.v. you have? mine was prolly 7 years old! i still have 1 left but i want an HD within 5 years!Plasmas still use more power per inch than LCD's, have to be handled a LOT more carefully! generate more heat, but they do have better contrast but LCD is Quickly catching up on that too & them selves are getting even more energy efficient!

  24.5.2008 01:57 #17

• eggbert52

  Seriously, if totally lowball profits and say that for every plasma they turn an average profit of $200...the industry would be worth 560 million in profit.
  
  No company that I know of is going to leave an industry that is making them $560 million and keep in mind I'm lowballing the crap out of it.
  
  With cheap labor it's probably more like 50% of each set minimum.
  
  Plasma lovers are safe for some time to come. Heck, minidisc is still around with the IPod outselling it 100,000 to 1.

  24.5.2008 02:52 #18

• abncp

  Originally posted by CNDLG: Personally i would like to know more numbers within specific sizes of TV. Lets face it most LCD sales are probably in the 15-37 inch range where there are little or no plasmas available!!The most popular size for flat panels is the 40-44" size. - in this range, LCD is the winner. "Last fall LCDs outsold plasmas in the sweet spot of the market--40-to-44-inch panels--for the first time ever, according to DisplaySearch." http://tech.msn.com/products/article...mentid=5222404

  24.5.2008 06:55 #19

• Xian

  I still prefer plasma, and at least one manufacturer has went the other way. Panasonic has dropped LCD over Plasma except for a few small screen sizes.
  
  To my perception, the contrast is much better on plasma. They seem to be the closest in viewing quality to the old CRT sets. In a dark scene it is especially noticeable and I can see many details that are missed on an LCD display. They also seem to have a better viewing angle since the colors start washing out the greater the angle. I also see some small amount of motion blur even on the 120hz sets on fast moving scenes, which is absent on the plasma. I want the best possible picture quality when viewing, and even though LCD is narrowing the gap, Plasma still has the edge in my opinion.

  24.5.2008 08:54 #20

• grkblood

  I prefer plasmas as well. I own one and I personally like the picture better than LCDs.Its all about preference though. Fortunately for me, I dont see one side or the other losing. This is a totally different scenario than Bluray DVD /HD DVD was. There would be no reason to stop production because unlike formats you are not hampered by what data you can view or listen to on either. As long as some people are buying plasmas and theres a market they will be around.

  24.5.2008 09:31 #21

• jedimind

  Originally posted by CNDLG: Personally i would like to know more numbers within specific sizes of TV. Lets face it most LCD sales are probably in the 15-37 inch range where there are little or no plasmas available!! And someone said they are sorry for people who bought rear projections? Just like LCD or plasma there are crap rear projection and great rear projection. You show me where i can buy a 60" LCD or Plasma in 1080p with the brightness, contrast, and response of my Sony 60A2000 SXRD AND at a resonable price!Here you go... http://www.olevia.com/en-us/Products/2Series/265TFHDLCDHDTV.aspx

  26.5.2008 18:49 #22

• Docarut

  I agree there are merits to both types. I remember seeing article on Afterdawn awhile ago about Laser TV. Would be cheaper and better picture than LCD and Plasm. Here is link about upcoming Laser TV from Mitsubishi:
  
  http://www.engadget.com/2008/01/08/mitsubishi-laser-tv-unveiled/
  
  This technology may be the future soon.

  26.5.2008 18:59 #23

• leady

  Are you really sure that you want to keep a tv for 30 yrs?
  
  I just care about the price and the definition.

  27.5.2008 07:40 #24

• iluvendo

  Hey MysticE has not chimed in yet !?
  

  If it wasnt for bad luck, Id have no luck!
  "The flimsier the product,the higher the price"
  Ferengi 82nd rule of aquisition

  27.5.2008 20:01 #25

• Z0r0b

  This is very disappointing. LCD panels are fine for PC displays, but for TVs, plasma still kill them. LCD pictures look over processed and unnatural. Pioneer's upcoming Kuro 2 series will be the best HD TV ever made, but sadly they will probably not sell well.
  
  There's so many cheap LCD panels available now, but 95% of them have terrible picture with so many flaws. Yet 1st time HD buyers have no idea what to look for and so will buy solely on price.

  27.5.2008 20:07 #26