Educate me... why is a U3011 pricier than 50" LED TVs?

T

TigerLord

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Mar 11, 2007
Messages
1,085
I don't know enough about television manufacturing to understand that one... over a year ago I went from dual 22" TN monitors to a U3011+2x 2007WFP in portrait on the side. My life was forever changed, especially as a photographer.

I thought about adding two more U3011 yesterday, thinking "surely, prices have fallen."

Dell still wants 1400$ for each U3011. (Canada)

For the same price, I could get a Sony BRAVIA 46" 1080p 120Hz LED Smart or any number of bigger screens at Best Buy right now.

Are IPS panels THAT much more expensive to make?

What explains the disparity?
 
Is that all? The resolution?

The real estate space surely is nice, but since no material is ever released in 1600p it's not the main selling point of monitors like the U3011.

Or is it?
 
As an aside the u3011m goes on sale for $999 at least once every 2 months on dell.ca. Just watch out for it on redflagdeals or slickdeals.
 
I would say it has a lot more to do with the supply chain, demand, and amount of devices that are utilizing the same technology. 30" IPS has a small market demand, probably is not made in large quantities, so business like Dell are not going to be able to get as good of a price on parts.

Unlike the large LCD displays, which have parts used between multiple manufacturers, have a larger demand (although that is dropping as the market is saturated and most people have already invested in an HD tv), and thus are most likely made in much greater quantities, reducing prices across the board.

However, I am not an expert... this is just guessing based on economics and observations :)
 
Deinos said:
I would say it has a lot more to do with the supply chain, demand, and amount of devices that are utilizing the same technology. 30" IPS has a small market demand, probably is not made in large quantities, so business like Dell are not going to be able to get as good of a price on parts.

Unlike the large LCD displays, which have parts used between multiple manufacturers, have a larger demand (although that is dropping as the market is saturated and most people have already invested in an HD tv), and thus are most likely made in much greater quantities, reducing prices across the board.

However, I am not an expert... this is just guessing based on economics and observations :)
Click to expand...

All valid points.

I just can't believe manufacturing a panel capable of 1600p would explain the discrepancy when obviously a panel 16" larger would take more material to manufacture, be more expensive to store and therefore heavier, incurring bigger shipping and transporting costs.

If production runs are smaller due to low demand prices would undoubtedly be higher. Makes sense.
 
TigerLord said:
The real estate space surely is nice, but since no material is ever released in 1600p it's not the main selling point of monitors like the U3011.

Or is it?
Click to expand...
Material? What material? You don't buy such a monitor to watch videos.
2560 x 1440 is quite a bit cheaper though.
 
you cant just think of a 30" monitor as having higher resolution and a 50" tv being bigger. youre meant to sit about 2-3ft from a 30" monitor. youre meant to sit about 10ft from a 50" tv. the 30" is going to cover more of your field of view, and do it with more pixels. in both size and resolution it is better than a large tv. in addition, they are all high quality IPS panels, whereas whatever cheap 50"er youre referencing is probably a shitty TN or something panel. i personally dont care for IPS for the increase in price, but its there and thats part of it. lastly, a 30" monitor will usually have a usb hub, a scaler, and various ports which a tv will not. all of these drive the price up as well. the ONLY thing a tv is good for is watching from far away, which is good if you like to watch from a couch (relaxed) or with friends. in a chair a 30" monitor rules in every category. and like XTF said above me, its not for watching movies and tv. the higher res is for gaming, desktop space, and picture editing among other things. hope that helps. :)
 
XTF said:
Material? What material? You don't buy such a monitor to watch videos.
2560 x 1440 is quite a bit cheaper though.
Click to expand...

Yeah, that resolution is mainly going to appeal to developers and editors... gamers too, but they will most likely bulk at input lag and refresh rates.
 
TigerLord said:
What explains the disparity?
Click to expand...

1: Mass market vs niche product.

2: Money losing commodity product, vs profitable product.


Nearly everyone lost money selling TVs(Billions in some cases) in the last year. They have reached saturation, overcapacity, and brutal commodity pricing competition, with many panel manufacturers producing essentially the same interchangeable product to most buyers.

Chances are those big TVs did cost more to build, and they are losing money on every model they sell.

2560x1600 30" LCD panels are only produced by LG, so they really have zero competition, and can get a profitable margin selling them.
 
Snowdog said:
1: Mass market vs niche product.

2: Money losing commodity product, vs profitable product.


Nearly everyone lost money selling TVs(Billions in some cases) in the last year. They have reached saturation, overcapacity, and brutal commodity pricing competition, with many panel manufacturers producing essentially the same interchangeable product to most buyers.

Chances are those big TVs did cost more to build, and they are losing money on every model they sell.

2560x1600 30" LCD panels are only produced by LG, so they really have zero competition, and can get a profitable margin selling them.
Click to expand...

Fascinating. Thanks for this!
 
My thoughts:
-More pixels = more dead pixels per batch of LCDs. The U3011 has close to twice the pixels of a 1080p TV.
-Since this is a very high-end monitor, even 1 dead pixel is completely unacceptable
-Yields are thus low, prices thus high

Also, I'm going to guess that larger pixels (e.g. on 50" 1080p TVs) have higher yield rates by virtue of being larger (which probably makes it better tolerate manufacturing faults).
 
Not to mention that a chunk of the price markup comes from the merchants themselves (Dell etc). And LG quality control supposedly isn't the greatest which leads to many returns and exchanges. A niche product that has many returns/exchanges will earn itself a hefty markup, or just be discontinued.
 
I wish my 70" was 2560x1440 dammit. Wish they'd a done it right the first time. F 1080.
 
LG holds the patent to IPS technology as well, and up until now hasn't had much competition in terms of similar panels from Samsung. With PLS arriving on the scene, It's my opinion that displays of the 1440 and 1600 vertical resolution class will be less expensive, as AH-IPS promises better yields and Samsung prices their monitors aggressively.
 
From what I understand, panels such as these: http://www.ebay.com/itm/NEW-CROSSOVER-3020MDP-30-SPEAKER-MONITOR-WQHD-2560x1600-16-10-HIGH-RESOLUTION-/320878448917?pt=Computer_Monitors&hash=item4ab5d89115 cost about USD $500 to the general public in South Korea from what I remember reading in one of the Korean monitor threads. These all use the LG 2560x1600 panels. So the high prices you're seeing on the dell monitors are from importing the panels from South Korea and then slapping a nice little markup on them :p One thing to keep in mind is that these are A- quality panels and the ones put into dell and apple displays are the A or A+ panels if i recall correctly. The Korean vendors on Ebay are also marking up the prices on these 30inch beauties, but they're still sub 1k.
 
As an eBay Associate, HardForum may earn from qualifying purchases.
As an eBay Associate, HardForum may earn from qualifying purchases.
suiken_2mieu said:
Well no, they are 2560x1440 and 27", but yes, your assumption sounds correct.
Click to expand...

Actually, the one he linked is a 30" 2560x1600 Crossover, and its a bit cheaper than the 30" Dell/HP/ACD screens, but as someone above said these are A- panels.
 
Why is a Ferrari more expensive than a Dodge truck? It takes more metal to build the truck, it is like 6 times bigger, heavier, it hauls more stuff, sits more people, can tow more, has a bigger motor with much more torque etc.. etc.. etc...
 
randoman88 said:
LG holds the patent to IPS technology as well, and up until now hasn't had much competition in terms of similar panels from Samsung. With PLS arriving on the scene, It's my opinion that displays of the 1440 and 1600 vertical resolution class will be less expensive, as AH-IPS promises better yields and Samsung prices their monitors aggressively.
Click to expand...

Hitachi I believe invented it (in 1996), and holds the patents to IPS, and LG pays them royalties.

I don't know if Samhung pays them as well. I would theorize "no" (though unverified) due to the fact that they named it PLS.
 
Last edited:
As an Amazon Associate, HardForum may earn from qualifying purchases.
TigerLord said:
Is that all? The resolution?

The real estate space surely is nice, but since no material is ever released in 1600p it's not the main selling point of monitors like the U3011.

Or is it?
Click to expand...

Of course it is!?! The resolution is higher so is the price, that's the main reason why, what were u thinking??
 
AndreRio said:
Of course it is!?! The resolution is higher so is the price, that's the main reason why, what were u thinking??
Click to expand...

It's already been explained it wasn't the reason.

A 32" LED 1080p TV can be had for 500-700$ here.
The U3011 is, at regular price, 1400$.

For a 48% gain in resolution, the price increases by at least 100%.

It's not the resolution per say, it's the supply that is low, hence the price is high.
 
TigerLord said:
For a 48% gain in resolution, the price increases by at least 100%.
Click to expand...

That's only 48% in linear resolution. Compare the total amount of pixels:
1920*1080 = 2,073,600
2560*1600 = 4,096,000

That's 97% more pixels. That's more potential dead pixels per panel, and yields are thus lower.
 
Im really surprised at the amount of people just quoting supply and demand. I'm most certainly no expert, but I can't imagine that a 1000$ 50 inch TV can possibly display the type of picture equivalent to a high end 30 inch computer monitor. It's the quality of the display that increases the price, not just the higher resolution.
 
Baconstrip said:
Im really surprised at the amount of people just quoting supply and demand. I'm most certainly no expert, but I can't imagine that a 1000$ 50 inch TV can possibly display the type of picture equivalent to a high end 30 inch computer monitor. It's the quality of the display that increases the price, not just the higher resolution.
Click to expand...

Owning both, I can definitely tell you "quality of display" is very subjective.
 
A 50" 1080p LED TV has a resolution of 1941 PPI²
A 30" 1600p Monitor has a resolution of 10126 PPI²

The 30" hence has 5.2 times the resolution of the LED TV.
 
Bastich said:
You people are calculating resolution wrong.

A 50" 1080p LED TV has a resolution of 1941 PPI²
A 30" 1600p Monitor has a resolution of 10126 PPI²

The 30" hence has 5.2 times the resolution of the LED TV.
Click to expand...

exactly. its a much more difficult manufacturing process, in addition to additional features.

just think about it. if it was just a supply/demand problem, that would mean that they dont really cost all that much to produce, and are being sold for a much higher price. if this was true, more companies would copy dell and make 2560x1600 panels to get in on the action. DUH. like apple making huge profit margins on all their products and every manufacturer is trying to copy them. only a couple other companies have ventured into this market, with gateways spectacular in barely a year failure being an obvious example of how difficult it is to make a good, profitable product in this market.
 
Bastich said:
A 50" 1080p LED TV has a resolution of 1941 PPI²
A 30" 1600p Monitor has a resolution of 10126 PPI²

The 30" hence has 5.2 times the resolution of the LED TV.
Click to expand...

WTF kind of logic is that? the new iPad has 69696 PPI², so 36 times the resolution (sic) of the TV? and by that logic more expensive than either the TV or the 30" monitor? :rolleyes:

Pixel density increases the price by some premium when all else is equal, but that isn't what is going on here. It almost certainly costs more to build a 50" TV screen, than a 30" desktop monitor.

TV is mass market commodity product, that is losing money for the manufacturer, 30" 2560 is a niche product that is making money. That explains why the prices are so close.

You can sell things much cheaper when you are selling them for less than they cost to build.
 
Snowdog said:
WTF kind of logic is that? the new iPad has 69696 PPI², so 36 times the resolution (sic) of the TV? and by that logic more expensive than either the TV or the 30" monitor? :rolleyes:

Pixel density increases the price by some premium when all else is equal, but that isn't what is going on here. It almost certainly costs more to build a 50" TV screen, than a 30" desktop monitor.

TV is mass market commodity product, that is losing money for the manufacturer, 30" 2560 is a niche product that is making money. That explains why the prices are so close.

You can sell things much cheaper when you are selling them for less than they cost to build.
Click to expand...

Your response is a straw man. I said NOTHING about price.

Feel free to keep arguing with yourself if it's giving you some sort of catharsis or builds your self esteem in some way though. I wouldn't want to stand in the way of your therapy.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top