Wanaaarghghghghhhg :-& X-S
I hate it, HATE IT, when the Beeb (or some other news source which should be knowledgeable), spout things out of their ass.
Quote:
But they tend to use more electricity and are considerably bulkier than the now more popular liquid-crystal display (LCD) and light-emitting diode (LED) TVs.
Yes they can - say, 500W versus 170W or something. Do you really care, with your electric ovens, halogen lights and other stuff? And if you buy something that's over 40" diagonally when you look at it, are you really going to feckin' care whether it's 5 or 3 cm thick after the initial "ooh look how thin it is" few minutes?
Quote:
"Plasma TVs can't be made a thin as LEDs, for example. People like stylish tellies."
I've seen some abysmal-looking thin LEDs, and some rather handsome plasma displays; oh wait, I own one of the latter. Look at it, it's sexier than me in cycling clothes, it's sexier than Jennifer Lawrence from most angles too*. Oh wait, you mentioned thin? So you make something thin so that it looks good on the wall, and then you cleverly ADD A FUCKING CURVE TO IT SO THAT IT NO LONGER SITS ON THE WALL PROPERLY?!?! WTF???
Quote:
"Home-cinema connoisseurs will always have a soft spot for plasmas, but they have simply been technologically superseded," he said.
What Ant said, just with added anger. The only non-plasma display that could hope to make this statement true (IMNSHO) is not even out yet - the Panasonic AX902, out this autumn hopefully. The OLEDs certainly have the potential to do this too, but they're still expensive and have a few niggling issues; oh, and they're curved. (rave)
*don't try to stick things into the TV
But you know what, there is, potentially, one good thing out of this: the "home-cinema connoisseurs" will let the wankxperts spout marketing diarrhoea out of their various orifices, and in the meantime those who actually have a clue will just enjoy their "technologically superseded" yet somehow mysteriously better gadgets.
Obligatory:
(hippo)
[...Insert Brain Here...] |