AfterDawn: News

Vizio moves to second place in HDTV sales

Vizio has announced that they have surpassed Sony as the second-biggest seller of HDTVs in the United States, as of the 4Q 2008.

According to figures from iSuppli, Vizio accounted for over 14 percent of LCD and Plasma shipments, up 3.11 percent from the Q3. Sony fell 0.42 percent to 13.5 and Samsung remained the leader at 20.2 percent despite a small drop of 0.62 percent from the Q3.



Panasonic rose 3.12 percent for the quarter to settle in fourth place.

"Vizio's success in the fourth quarter was partly due to increasing brand recognition, courtesy of the company's strong marketing efforts and retail strategy," iSuppli analyst Riddhi Patel added.

"This is an indication that in the present tough economic climate, consumers are becoming less brand conscious and prefer televisions that they perceive to have good picture quality and that are less expensive compared to the competition, rather than seeking models with a lot of extra features," Patel concluded.

Vizio also recently announced it was bowing out of the plasma business to focus on LCD sales.

Written by: Andre Yoskowitz @ 22 Feb 2009 16:26

• Previous article

• God of War III confirmed for 2009 on PS3

• Next article

• Xbox 360 RROD a thing of the past?

• 13 comments

• atomicxl

  I like that the underdog has now become one of the leaders.

  22.2.2009 17:52 #1

• emugamer

  It's definitely economy driven. Lots of members here complain of the Vizio's quality. I guess that's it's good in a way. May force Sony and Samsung to lower their prices.

  23.2.2009 08:13 #2

• looser_ur

  Ok..........so you can "see" a picture on a Vizio and "hear" sound. Doesn't make Vizio a good tv. They have a substandard picture quality and have an average life of about 5 year before becoming crippled. They aren't bad for the money but HEY, it's not like Payless Shoe Source where the product is SOOOOO inexpensive that you can replace every so often. I decent 46+" Vizio will still run ya' 1000 bucks. I'm not willing to go out and pop another grand in a few years. I just bought a 52" Samsung 850 series and the picture makes a Vizio look no better than a tube television.
  
  Notice what establishments use Vizio too.............restaurant, public places. They're cheap. You want piece of mind.............STAY AWAY FROM VIZIO. Education is key when buying a tv.
  
  Lastly, people don't usually know this but Samsung is one of 3 companies in the ENTIRE WORLD that manufacture the "Crystal" of a Liquid Crystal Display (LCD for anyone technically inept). Fujitsu is another one and the 3rd is a no namer. The crystal is the most important and most expensive part. I trust Samsung with LCD quality more than anyone..........including Sony.........AND I LOVE SONY.

  23.2.2009 09:33 #3

• lxhotboy

  Just wondering if you had any proof to validate the claims that the vizio's dont hold up. Not saying i dont believe you but i do like to see proof sometimes. You are right about most vizio tv's and picture quality. Samsung is way better but vizio does have a higher end lineup of TV's now with higher contrast ratios to compete with the better tv's like samsung and phillips.
  
  I wouldnot say sony is all that great myself. Good quality product so far as holding up but hellified overpriced as far as picture quality. You can buy a phillips that has better picture than both the sony and samsung for a cheaper price. I give samsung their props though as their picture is better than sony's at a comparable price but check out the phillips. I some of the best prices considering most phillips have a picture clarity and contrast way higher than even samsung.

  23.2.2009 16:10 #4

• tvs4U

  spam removed

  23.2.2009 19:16 #5

• emugamer

  Originally posted by lxhotboy: Just wondering if you had any proof to validate the claims that the vizio's dont hold up. Not saying i dont believe you but i do like to see proof sometimes. You are right about most vizio tv's and picture quality. Samsung is way better but vizio does have a higher end lineup of TV's now with higher contrast ratios to compete with the better tv's like samsung and phillips.It's not something you prove. You just read reviews from a variety of sites and draw a conclusion. And in some cases you see for yourself when you go to a store that has TV's displayed side by side. I've read more bad reviews on Vizio TV's than Sumsung TV's, I can tell you that much. And there are many forums you can browse to read about what people think about different TV's. And while I may not have the personal experience of owning one, I probably won't due to those reviews and the fact that I've seen that they don't look as good when sitting next to another LCD in the same class.

  24.2.2009 06:21 #6

• looser_ur

  I have to thank "emugamer"
  
  This is not something you prove. What........now am I supposed to go to the Vizio production facility and show proof that they are engaging in planned obsolescence? Uh uh..........Toshiba got busted for the 5 years ago regarding laptops and lost hundreds of millions from consumer lawsuits.
  
  Your proof is in the pudding my friend. Vizios have been around for years and my hotel chains bought a bunch of them and when I was consulting, so did the businesses and banks we did IT work for. They do have an average lifespan of about 5-6 years. Picture starts wearing down, contrast, sharpness and brilliance start to deteriorate. Read the reviews. They are set for the consumer that wants to be ghetto rich and businesses that can't/don't want to spend twice the amount on a better set. No complaints because I agree with everyone.............they instigate competition and nothing is worse for a consumer than the lack thereof. BUT.....if you want a quality tv and you're only buying one and you have a few extra bucks to spend...........buy a brand name. Better tv, lasting quality, more comprehensive warranty.
  
  I can't believe I'm having to explain this............isn't this CCS ???? (Consumer Common Sense)
  
  But buy one if you will and you see on Vizio's claimed "High end" (which is non existent - check the website) In fact an LCD TV contrast ratio STATIC ratio is about 10-20% of the dynamic. My 850 series is dynamically 50,000:1 so about 7500:1 static (ballpark average). The Vizio's HIGHEST END TV is only 1400:1
  
  It's a good tv....................for a doctor's waiting room.

  24.2.2009 10:16 #7

• SProdigy

  Okay gentlemen, I have to throw my hat in the ring. Contrast ratios are a marketing ploy that companies use to sell you a "higher" end TV or monitor. They mean little anymore and should have less bearing on your purchase, considering measurement of the contrast ratio is inconsistent:
  
  http://tech.yahoo.com/blogs/null/29651
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contrast_ratio
  
  Regarding the lifespan of HDTV's in general (LCD or Plasma) it's typically 60,000 hours, or about 20 years (if used 8 hours per day.)
  
  I can say I've had my 42" LCD Vizio for 3+ years and my 32" for 6 months, both with no issues. As for those who write negative comments online, you have to take some of it with a grain of salt. As the old saying goes with word of mouth advertising: One customer who has a positive experience will tell at least one friend, while a customer with a negative experience will tell at least EIGHT friends.
  
  Not buying that? Lookup ratings for the Xbox 360. It's obviously a popular console, but it has high failure ratings. Those that are giving it low ratings have had hardware problems. You can see it even in the Hardware Forum here on AD.
  
  Welcome to the Age of Disposable Electronics.

  24.2.2009 11:23 #8

• emugamer

  Originally posted by SProdigy: Okay gentlemen, I have to throw my hat in the ring. Contrast ratios are a marketing ploy that companies use to sell you a "higher" end TV or monitor. They mean little anymore and should have less bearing on your purchase, considering measurement of the contrast ratio is inconsistent:
  
  http://tech.yahoo.com/blogs/null/29651
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contrast_ratio
  
  Regarding the lifespan of HDTV's in general (LCD or Plasma) it's typically 60,000 hours, or about 20 years (if used 8 hours per day.)
  
  I can say I've had my 42" LCD Vizio for 3+ years and my 32" for 6 months, both with no issues. As for those who write negative comments online, you have to take some of it with a grain of salt. As the old saying goes with word of mouth advertising: One customer who has a positive experience will tell at least one friend, while a customer with a negative experience will tell at least EIGHT friends.
  
  Not buying that? Lookup ratings for the Xbox 360. It's obviously a popular console, but it has high failure ratings. Those that are giving it low ratings have had hardware problems. You can see it even in the Hardware Forum here on AD.
  
  Welcome to the Age of Disposable Electronics.Most definitely. Contrast ratios are a marketing ploy. Care should be taken to view the television you are buying and compare the image you are viewing with other televisions. Having read lots of reviews and complaints, a lot of the people who post good reviews usually say "love the TV! Suits my needs!" or on the converse side, "this TV sucks - went dead." Everyone should be able to read through enough of these to filter through those and find the intelligent people who at least know how to list specs and understand what they mean. Since I've never owned a Vizio, I can't attest to the poor craftmanship, but the less-than-stellar reviews made me look at their line more carefully to determine if the picture quality was worth taking a chance on.
  
  Of course, if you don't care, this all doesn't matter.
  
  btw....don't you love it when someone raves about the superb image quality of a television but then gives it 2 out of 5 stars because "retail chain had a poor delivery service" - ROFL

  24.2.2009 12:37 #9

• looser_ur

  Originally posted by SProdigy: Okay gentlemen, I have to throw my hat in the ring. Contrast ratios are a marketing ploy that companies use to sell you a "higher" end TV or monitor. They mean little anymore and should have less bearing on your purchase, considering measurement of the contrast ratio is inconsistent:
  
  http://tech.yahoo.com/blogs/null/29651
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contrast_ratio
  
  Regarding the lifespan of HDTV's in general (LCD or Plasma) it's typically 60,000 hours, or about 20 years (if used 8 hours per day.)
  
  I can say I've had my 42" LCD Vizio for 3+ years and my 32" for 6 months, both with no issues. As for those who write negative comments online, you have to take some of it with a grain of salt. As the old saying goes with word of mouth advertising: One customer who has a positive experience will tell at least one friend, while a customer with a negative experience will tell at least EIGHT friends.
  
  Not buying that? Lookup ratings for the Xbox 360. It's obviously a popular console, but it has high failure ratings. Those that are giving it low ratings have had hardware problems. You can see it even in the Hardware Forum here on AD.
  
  Welcome to the Age of Disposable Electronics.
  I'm just going to say that you're a big dummy for saying that about contrast ratio being a ploy. You have no business EVER suggesting or giving tv buying advise to anyone. Man O man the saying "the blind leading the blind" comes to mind.
  
  Contrast ration is not a ploy. If it is then so is clarity, sharpness, brightness, etc. So pull your head out of the vaccuum tube. Contrast ration is ABOSOLUTELY, DEFINITIVELY a legitimate quality and aspect of a good tv. Let me dumb it down for ya'.................Contrast ratio = Blackest blacks vs whitest whites. Even more dumbed down for ya'............when you're watching a movie/tv/whatever, and someone is wearing a black shirt or the sky is black then whether or not you're seeing grey or black will depend on your contrast ratio.
  
  I'm done with this.........you're hopeless and enjoy your P.O.S. Vizio Mr. Cheapo.
  
  And NEVER site anything from Wiki. Though I put some faith into it, it am aware it is changeable by any one ........ ANY ONE at any time.
  
  That Yahoo article is bogus. It's an opinion of someone who doesn't care about brightness and see it as a legitimate upside to a tv. It is.
  
  This is AFTERDAWN people.............you all are supposed to be the cream of the crop when speaking technically. Putting your dumb opinions aside and giving a fair and balanced and technically proficient OBJECTIVE outlook about certain technologies. I am being disappointed day after day seeing all the lame comments here. This being one of the main ones. I know my TVs and hope some here do too. Retail employees know their TVs too and MANY MANY MANY aren't commissioned so there's no point in BSing the customer. It is what it is and Vizio is NOT a quality tv for the long run and contrast ratio IS a legit standard to determine quality of one over another.

  25.2.2009 13:08 #10

• emugamer

  No one here is a dummy. In your comment, you didn't mention the difference between static and dymanic contrast ratio, nor the actual capability of the human eye. You mentioned that Vizio has "only" 1400:1 static. Let me know what the human eye is capable of perceiving. Advertised contrast ratio is really just a numbers game -a way to sell televisions by throwing out absurdly high numbers (the majority of consumers will always think bigger is better). A lot is determined by ambient lighting and all is dependant on indivudual human eye response.
  
  This is a response to a news article. Not a tech thread on TV's. Not every post should be expected to contain technical details like you are expecting. I'm sure SProdigy's comment assumed that everyone knew why it's a "gimmick." Really, there are ways to share knowledge without insulting or taking offense.
  
  Here's one of many good sites you can look to for more information:
  
  http://www.highdefforum.com/flat-panel-tvs/
  
  Depsite the impressive contast ratio specs, you don't want to spend extra money on differences that you will never be able to percieve. So as I stated earlier, the best thing to do is test the TV you want in person. Contrast ratio is important to a certain degree. It can be manipulated by a combination of brightness and room lighting to achieve certain effects/perception. If anything, motion blur should be up there as one of the important factors in choosing a television.

  25.2.2009 14:12 #11

• MomoAngel

  you get what you pay for. Vizio sucks and that won't change. People are just wanting to see better or equal picture in lower priced tv's and that is cause the economy and it's happening. Point will stand that Samsung and Sony are the best. Sony still only sells on history and Samsung sells on quality and price. They aren't exp by any means when compared to sony or LG even. I'm getting away from the topic now. Vizio = P.O.S. It's good for an average or below average tv. Nothing more...
  I love it how people try and fight for Vizio just cause they wasted there money on one. rofl
  
  Another thing to think about. Consumer reports rates Insigina the better tv than Vizio. Does that mean that Insigina will become better and more bought brand than Vizio? Would you buy insigina over sony or samsung or lg or Panasonic? Negative... People are just SETTLING FOR CHEAPER TV'S.
  
  End of story.

  2.3.2009 02:53 #12

• SProdigy

  Contrast ratio can also be perceived differently by the brightness/contrast settings of the TV in question, such as "movie" "warm" "cool" etc. and as mentioned, the lighting of the room. I have a windows overhead of my one HDTV and in the morning, it's hell to watch anything sometimes. I corrected it by getting a window blind, NOT by purchasing a TV with a higher contrast ratio! :-)
  
  As for that perception of Sony and Samsung being the best, you do get what you pay for: the brand name. Sure, some of the TV's are technically superior, but compare a low-end Samsung/Sony to the same size Vizio: same resolution, contrast, amount of inputs, and I can go on for days. It's rather simple: you are paying for the Sony label.
  
  As I quoted before, we are in an age of disposable electronics. If buying Sony gives you piece of mind, go right ahead and purchase one. Sony is no less prone to damage, and I doubt that Sony will care when your TV breaks down outside of the warranty period. That is my only point and I've said enough...

  2.3.2009 12:50 #13