Sharp pulls the pin on all LCD televisions

[Halcyon]

Some disappointing news from one of my suppliers of AV gear; Sharp have apparently stopped all production and sales of LCD televisions (at least in Australia) period. No more! Rumour has it Sharp stopped all backorders last month and their Huntingwood warehouse has been cleared out of LCD's.

Apparently they were also the only supplier of 70" and 80" panels, leaving only 65" and 85" panels from over manufacturers.

This is really disappointing as I was eyeing off one of the 70" units for myself (should have bought it when I had the chance). They made great quality televisions without a lot of the bullshit 'Smart' features that seem to be plaguing other brands.

So now I'm looking for suggestions on a replacement make/model. At the moment, I'm considering Sony, Panasonic or Samsung. Picture quality and build quality are the most important aspects to me (and I don't mean over-saturated "vivid" colours). Needs to be wall-mountable, have HDMI and DVI inputs and capable of Full HD resolutions (support for 4K playback on a HD panel is optional). Speakers are not important and neither are any 'smart' functions. I don't need it to play media off removable media. Absolutely no built-in cameras or microphones.

[TerraHertz]

... without a lot of the bullshit 'Smart' features that seem to be plaguing other brands.
 Absolutely no built-in cameras or microphones.

That's the spirit. But you forgot to mention Internet connection.
It will be 'interesting' if all available TV brands end up with this big brother spyware cam & mic online crap, won't it? Never mind the excuses, like smart voice command or whatever.

Don't need it, don't want it, flatly and non-negotiably don't trust it and will not stand for it.
Personally, I don't even have any broadcast TV receiver/antenna. Just PCs and DVD & VHS players.

Ha ha... a phrase I came across recently, and like. "We're entering the hockey stick of evil."

[Halcyon]

That's the spirit. But you forgot to mention Internet connection.

I don't mind that so much because I can choose not to connect it or at least restrict it through the firewall. It makes firmware updates easier though.

[jwm_]

I think we will start seeing a lot more things like this

http://www.cnet.com/news/fridge-caught-sending-spam-emails-in-botnet-attack/

[amyk]

Buy a bare panel and one of those LVDS boards, and you'll have the farthest thing from a "smart" TV. You can build a nice case for it too. (Do you need a tuner as well, or would what is essentially a huge LCD monitor be fine?)

[Halcyon]

Tuner is optional (I run all my television over the network via a networked DTV tuner anyway).

I'm considering one of the "professional" NEC/Toshiba monitors.

[coppice]

Unless things change a lot, Panasonic and Sony won't be making TVs for much longer. Right now it seems everyone is losing money making TVs. Its a very messed up industry.

[zapta]

Sharp have apparently stopped all production and sales of LCD televisions (at least in Australia) period

Are they selling other kinds of TVs?

Speakers are not important and neither are any 'smart' functions.

Don't you want to watch internet content such eevblog videos, (your local) Netflix, etc, on your TV?

[IanB]

Speakers are not important and neither are any 'smart' functions.

Don't you want to watch internet content such eevblog videos, (your local) Netflix, etc, on your TV?

There's no requirement to have these functions embedded in the TV though. It's more flexible to have separate components for different functions and link them together. For example you could have a media center PC and plug it into your AV amp as an additional media source.

[rx8pilot]

All I want is a dumb 60" monitor that will display the images it is given. The whole IOT push is driving me nuts. The coffee maker does not need to send messages to my smart phone. The TV does not need the internet to work.

I am not paranoid or a techno-phobe, I just want simple when I go home that I don't have to manage a security scheme for.

[Halcyon]

Are they selling other kinds of TVs?

Nope. I found a place in Sydney which still had leftover stock of some of the 'Professional' range of Sharp LCD "Information Displays" but they aren't televisions.

Don't you want to watch internet content such eevblog videos, (your local) Netflix, etc, on your TV?

Not at all, it's all done via the computer.

All I want is a dumb 60" monitor that will display the images it is given. The whole IOT push is driving me nuts. The coffee maker does not need to send messages to my smart phone. The TV does not need the internet to work.

I am not paranoid or a techno-phobe, I just want simple when I go home that I don't have to manage a security scheme for.

Exactly. Everything these Smart TV's can do, my computer can do better, plus I can secure it and customise it any way I like.

After an initial browse, I'm strongly considering the NEC E654. It's a 65" display designed for the business/professional market. Specs look quite good. A bit more expensive but these types of monitors are designed to run all day, every day. The advantage with these monitors too is the RS232/LAN control; you can integrate these directly with high-end audio systems or home theatre PC's to fully automate the display control if need be.

It's a shame they are pulling out. From what I hear the margins are very thin on LCD panels and TVs, so they are trying to pivot their business so that they don't get swamped by LG and other cheaper manufacturers. Sharp put too many eggs in that basket and needs to restructure. It's been a big story in Japan for a few years now.

They are. But the thing is Sharp didn't need to undercut themselves. They could have charged more for their TV's and people would have paid it. I'm sorry but I don't put the likes of LG or even Samsung in the same league as Sharp when it comes to their LCD's. Those that specifically wanted top quality would have paid for it.

[saturation]

Model numbers vary by country, so it won't help to mention it, also the model may change in the coming quarter. 

The cost of the electronics is fairly small over the cost of the LCD panel, particularly if you decide on UHD resolution, flat not curved, LED array lit not side lit LED, localized dimming, are the way to go today, and is the most costly panel.  Even up to 80" is a great resolution because the pitch is so fine.  What size you get and other tradeoffs, e.g. side lit, is question of what you can afford.  At UHD LED backlit panels all the prior LCD issues like contrast ratios and viewing angle, ghosting, refresh rates etc., are all non-issues,  UHD panels and its drivers are "Plasma" like.  At UHD, all the makes technology become moot, it became a question of manufacturing at low cost and few dead pixels.

Most "monitors only" are < = 27".  Some large monitors do exist in commercial grade, but they tend to have more dead pixels and you pay extra for the uneeded industrial frame and hardened glass.  UHDTV at 50"+ is the same dot pitch as monitor grade, about 0.11mm.

Only 3 makers left of > 50"+ LCD panels: Samsung, Sharp and LG.  UHD technology has pretty much settled, so they all look fairly good, but IMHO the image produced by Samsung >= Sharp >> LG, and given Sharp's likely exit of the consumer market, Samsung as a brand is a one to get.  Samsung supplies all Sony's panels, and even Sharp supplies panels for Samsung.  But if you buy a Sharp HDTV set you could be orphaned, as if production ceases through an entire line, even if warranted, there may be no parts or new product to be honor a warranty with.

[Halcyon]

Most "monitors only" are < = 27".  Some large monitors do exist in commercial grade, but they tend to have more dead pixels and you pay extra for the uneeded industrial frame and hardened glass.  UHDTV at 50"+ is the same dot pitch as monitor grade, about 0.11mm.

I wouldn't even go as far as saying "most". There are stacks out there, almost as many models as televisions. Most consumers just don't need them though. I have to disagree with the dead pixel thing too; I've seen many more "consumer" models with issues than professional gear. Most decent manufacturers should also have a zero dead or bright pixel policy.

[zapta]

There's no requirement to have these functions embedded in the TV though. It's more flexible to have separate components for different functions and link them together. For example you could have a media center PC and plug it into your AV amp as an additional media source.

That's reasonable. We also use an external smart-tv box. It is connected also to the cable/Tivo box and the audio system and allows to control everything with a single remote control.

[Halcyon]

It would be a real shame to loose Sharp entirely. They've been known for their high quality electronics (not just TV's) for decades. Everything from Air Conditioning to Microwaves to Solar Panels. They are up there with the best of them. I think they even fabricate their own chips don't they? Or at least they used to.

Remember those old Sharp Carousel microwaves from the 1980's? I know people who still use them!
My parents still use a Sharp split system air conditioner which from memory was installed in about 1994/95? Still works fine (albeit not as economical as the gear these days).

[tom66]

Smart TV was one attempt to extend the life of the consumer TV market. But even that struggles. There is too much choice, no uniform "Android" as such for smart TVs. So every manufacturer developed their own platform, all platforms being incompatible with one another.

The other problem is the high-end market dropped out once plasma lost the race. OLED's still there, but not many people are jumping ship yet, and it's only available in 55" 1080p.

[coppice]

Unless things change a lot, Panasonic and Sony won't be making TVs for much longer. Right now it seems everyone is losing money making TVs. Its a very messed up industry.

They are trying to innovate their way out of it. For example, a few years ago Panasonic introduced a feature where they had multiple tuners so the TV could record everything being broadcast constantly. In Japan there are only 5-6 terrestrial channels in any given area, but they are all full HD. Quality over quantity. So with a few tuners and a big hard disk the TV can just record everything being broadcast 24/7 and keep it for a week, meaning you can instantly watch anything that was shown in that time frame without having to set up timers for recording or deciding what to watch in advance.

That's a pretty niche kind of benefit to add to a TV. It seems like a sign of a company that has run out of ideas to move forwards. That's not a slight against Panasonic. Nobody else seems to be coming up with interesting ideas, either. Samsung and LG are driving towards bigger and sharper right now, but they will run out of steam soon. Nobody I talk to in Japan would be surprised to see Panasonic drop out of the market. They only seem interested in things with an industrial angle to them.

Sharp were trying to do that as well, but what really screwed them was the margins on LCD panels getting too thin. Basically the two big manufacturers of high end LCD panels are Sharp and LG. Sharp put too much into that basket and didn't diversify enough. For example they have a popular line of mobile phones in Japan, but don't sell them anywhere else. They need to restructure, and so borderline parts of the business are getting cut or reorganized.

LG, Samsung, Chi Mei/Innolux and AU Optronics make most of the world's TV panels. Sharp has slipped from the leading player to insignificance. Things change quickly. Many people look down on LG TVs, but if you look at their 2014 and 2015 sets, especially the 4k ones, they are generally the ones to beat. Samsung's attempts at 4k TVs have been pathetic so far. I don't think any Japanese player has sold that many.

[Bassman59]

All I want is a dumb 60" monitor that will display the images it is given. The whole IOT push is driving me nuts. The coffee maker does not need to send messages to my smart phone. The TV does not need the internet to work.

I am not paranoid or a techno-phobe, I just want simple when I go home that I don't have to manage a security scheme for.

I agree. I've had a Mac mini hooked up to the TV for years. (Actually, I'm on the second one; the first was a PowerPC mini with an EyeTV 250 for NTSC-format DVR.) Let's see, it's a real computer, so updates are easy, it has a real user interface (Bluetooth keyboard and mouse), an HDMI port, networking, all that. We don't do cable TV, so it's all streaming, and those services (Netflix, Hulu, HBO Go, Amazon Prime) are run from Safari. (iTunes video is of course through iTunes.) An EyeTV One is my OTA tuner and DVR.

We can play video games on the Mac, and use its internal optical drive to watch DVDs. We're skipping Blu-Ray, because we don't see the point in owning discs that get watched once, especially when we can stream the content. That mini also runs my Subversion server.

No worries about whether the TV will need a firmware update to support a new service that comes online in the future, or to drop a service that dies.

[ivan747]

I've learned something ever since I've owned a handful of consumer products with firmware updates: if it's firmware, updates don't happen, no features get added. If anything, they release an obscure bug fix a couple of times and declare the product obsolete a year or two after the release.

[Halcyon]

I've learned something ever since I've owned a handful of consumer products with firmware updates: if it's firmware, updates don't happen, no features get added. If anything, they release an obscure bug fix a couple of times and declare the product obsolete a year or two after the release.

Actually come to think of it, this just about sums it up. I have a Samsung Bluray player and I think I might have updated the firmware 2 or 3 times. Yet each time it hasn't added (or removed) any additional functionality. Nor do they provide any kind of change log to tell you what has actually been updated. I just don't bother anymore. If it's not broken, don't touch it.

[Neverther]

Actually come to think of it, this just about sums it up. I have a Samsung Bluray player and I think I might have updated the firmware 2 or 3 times. Yet each time it hasn't added (or removed) any additional functionality. Nor do they provide any kind of change log to tell you what has actually been updated. I just don't bother anymore. If it's not broken, don't touch it.

Wait long enough, then buy a new Bluray and see if it will play. Search for "Avatar will not play." Maybe "unbricking a bluray drive" is also worth a read as with newer player the keys can come with the disk.

[amyk]

Actually come to think of it, this just about sums it up. I have a Samsung Bluray player and I think I might have updated the firmware 2 or 3 times. Yet each time it hasn't added (or removed) any additional functionality. Nor do they provide any kind of change log to tell you what has actually been updated. I just don't bother anymore. If it's not broken, don't touch it.

Wait long enough, then buy a new Bluray and see if it will play. Search for "Avatar will not play." Maybe "unbricking a bluray drive" is also worth a read as with newer player the keys can come with the disk.

Indeed, it is just DRM crap... of course they're not going to say "blacklist keys of ..." in their update!

[rx8pilot]

This business challenge in all this is trying to give consumers a reason to buy a TV every two years instead of every 9 years or so.

Today's selling points:

RESOLUTION:
This is an old argument with new energy from the 4k developments. Honestly, 4k is a tough sell because there is not much available yet AND to appreciate it your screen has to be HUGE or you need to be VERY close to it to perceive the difference. I am in the camera business in Hollywood and I am not motivated to go buy a 4k display for my house.

'REAL MOTION':
A gimmick that goes by numerous trade names where the DSP in the TV interpolates the motion between frames to make it look more 'real'. In practice it looks like SHIT and totally takes away the surreal feeling from 24fps acquisition. Movies are not supposed to look real, they are supposed to encourage a suspension of belief for the purpose of telling a compelling story. I don't want my TV show or feature film to look like the nightly news.

SMART TV:
Another useless gimmick that has a closed software system built into your TV that is a pain in the ass to use. It's like navigating the internet with an IR remote control - weak. These are listed as golden features on the higher priced sets.

BIG SCREEN:
This was once an exotic luxury - decades ago now. 50inch+ TVs are so cheap that most folks just buy the size that best fits the room since the price is less of a factor. The margins on the larger end are only slightly better for the manufacturer.

THINNER:
There is a small market for the ultra-thin OLED displays, but the majority will not pay a huge premium to save 1.5 inches.

These selling points are weak motivators for consumers. Margins are razor thin. The fashionable market for ultra thin and 'curved' (which is TOTALLY stupid) is tiny. If I was a multi-bazillionare looking for an investment - TV's would be very low on the list if options. TV makers will fall with all this useless marketing technology as consumers get smarter. It will become a far more simple display only business. Plug in something like a Google Chromecast or other network connected decoder and the TV is FAR smarter and can be controlled by any PC, MAC, tablet, or smart phone in the house.

[ivan747]

Of course they won't update the firmware: they want you to buy a new one, not bring new stuff to older models. And since nobody expects updates, it's great for them, they can get away with it. Unlike with a PC or a phone.

[Marco]

In practice it looks like SHIT and totally takes away the surreal feeling from 24fps acquisition. Movies are not supposed to look real, they are supposed to encourage a suspension of belief for the purpose of telling a compelling story.

I watch a couple orders of magnitude more high fps CGI than I watch TV or movies ... I can no longer find juddery pans doing anything for me except take me out of it and every pan judders at 24 Hz. Most of the time 24 Hz is fine, but in action scenes with camera motion and pans it just becomes a mess.

[TimFox]

Just as in the movie "Bull Durham", one must learn the cliches.
"Pulling the pin" refers to arming a grenade.
"Pulling the plug" refers to stopping life support in a medical facility.
The latter is a more appropriate cliche for this business decision.

[NiHaoMike]

RESOLUTION:
This is an old argument with new energy from the 4k developments. Honestly, 4k is a tough sell because there is not much available yet AND to appreciate it your screen has to be HUGE or you need to be VERY close to it to perceive the difference. I am in the camera business in Hollywood and I am not motivated to go buy a 4k display for my house.

GPUs that can do 4K for gaming are becoming quite affordable now. Besides, who wants to spend a lot on a big screen with less resolution than an iPad? What I would have liked to see are large 1440p ("2.5K") displays for those who don't need the full 4K and would like lower GPU requirements, but the niche is very small with the affordable 4K displays out there and Nvidia's (inverse) DSR works nicely to cut back on GPU requirements.

And then there are 5K displays, with even greater GPU requirements. Pretty sure inverse DSR can do wonders there as well, but at current prices, most 5K users are getting SLI anyways.

[TerraHertz]

Just as in the movie "Bull Durham", one must learn the cliches.
"Pulling the pin" refers to arming a grenade.
"Pulling the plug" refers to stopping life support in a medical facility.
The latter is a more appropriate cliche for this business decision.

Heh. Yes, I thought the same. Except I imagined Sharp standing there dumbly still holding the grenade after pulling the pin (and letting the lever flip off, for you weapons perfectionists.)

What's laughable about all the TV manufacturers blindly staggering around, searching for some kind of marketing gimmick that could keep the sales flowing (despite broadcast TV dying since fewer and fewer people want to watch the shitty programs and lying news), is that there's an obvious one they are missing.

What's the hottest market in the whole home computing field?
Top end 3D engines, for gaming.
So turn the 'TV' into a computer peripheral, that is a self-contained 3D engine. Include an ethernet port with 10/100/gigabit speed, and a protocol to allow a PC to offload the actual 3D scene drawing to the display. The PC just sends the scene model, textures, viewpoint, etc to the screen. Updates that dataset only when something changes. The engine in the screen does all the frame generation grunt work.

The screen should also be able to generate 2D screen images, for OS GUI interfaces, etc. Except it should be able to texture those 2D GUI images onto surfaces in 3D scenes. Viola... the basis for implementing a truly 3D OS GUI environment. At f-ing last.

Another benefit of this functional refactoring, is that with PC-to-screen data flow being TCP/IP, you could suddenly have any combination of multiple PCs and screens you liked, with screens showing duplicate or unique scenes. Or one screen easily used as an interface to many PCs. If there's no change of a screen's content, there's no data traffic.

A mating product would be a broadcast tuner as a standalone TCP/IP peripheral, with control and A-V-out via the LAN. Then people could have just one, or enough to capture as many channels simultaneously as they wished. Or none, for those not interested in broadcast garbage.

However I have no expectation that the consumer electronics industry could ever get such a concept working. They are the same ones that couldn't get HDMI to provide universal remote control capability for multiple devices over HDMI. Because they collectively have no imagination, or ability to construct flexible, extensible protocols. Also for 'universal remote control' there's a method they'd absolutely have to adopt since it's the only workable way to do it, but they never could since it's fundamentally incompatible with traditional ideas of product styling as a sales feature.

And let's not talk about USB being master-slave, instead of peer to peer. Shudder.

[Halcyon]

However I have no expectation that the consumer electronics industry could ever get such a concept working. They are the same ones that couldn't get HDMI to provide universal remote control capability for multiple devices over HDMI. Because they collectively have no imagination, or ability to construct flexible, extensible protocols.

Precisely why I opt to use SDI for audio/video transfer where possible. It's a standard that has been around for a long time on professional and broadcast gear, is far superior to HDMI and uses bog standard coax cable.

[rx8pilot]

How is SDI far superior to HDMI in a consumer application? You have to convert at every point since consumer displays do not have SDI/HD-SDI.

I have been in the broadcast TV (engineering) business for 25-ish years and saw the birth of SDI. I still to this day have not seen any reason to bring it home.

[Halcyon]

How is SDI far superior to HDMI in a consumer application? You have to convert at every point since consumer displays do not have SDI/HD-SDI.

I have been in the broadcast TV (engineering) business for 25-ish years and saw the birth of SDI. I still to this day have not seen any reason to bring it home.

The point I was making was the technology and design is superior, I think it should have been adopted in consumer gear instead of HDMI but that wasn't to be. Of course if you have to convert, there isn't much point. Thankfully most of my gear (including my PC) has native SDI support.

I can recall numerous issues I've had with HDMI including complete signal dropout for no apparent reason. I've had one issue with SDI where a specific make/model of camera wouldn't trigger recording to a hard disk recorder (although that was fixed later in firmware I believe).
 

[NiHaoMike]

What's the hottest market in the whole home computing field?
Top end 3D engines, for gaming.
So turn the 'TV' into a computer peripheral, that is a self-contained 3D engine. Include an ethernet port with 10/100/gigabit speed, and a protocol to allow a PC to offload the actual 3D scene drawing to the display. The PC just sends the scene model, textures, viewpoint, etc to the screen. Updates that dataset only when something changes. The engine in the screen does all the frame generation grunt work.

Even gigabit is way too slow to connect a decent GPU with. PCIe 3.0 x16 does 128Gbps. Don't forget the latency either, which is very critical in many GPGPU applications.

A mating product would be a broadcast tuner as a standalone TCP/IP peripheral, with control and A-V-out via the LAN. Then people could have just one, or enough to capture as many channels simultaneously as they wished. Or none, for those not interested in broadcast garbage.

Already exists:
http://www.hdhomerun.com/

[Halcyon]

Already exists:
http://www.hdhomerun.com/

I have one of these and have never been able to get it working correctly dispite all the software updates etc... It used to work through their own software but for some reason has stopped. I gave up. I'm going to buy a professional unit instead.

[mtdoc]

We've got a 52" Samsung "smart LCD TV" and it works great.

We have no broadcast TV, no cable or satellite. Our only "TV" is streaming Netflix (or occasionally Amazon video) over 1 Mbs DSL.  Prior to this TV, to stream Netflix, I was using a Mac Mini wired to a "dumb" flat screen for years. We got this Samsung a year and a half ago and with Netflix and Amazon built in things are much simpler. Yes it has a web browser which is a joke to use but for streaming Netflix or Amazon it works great.

[Towger]

The problem is when Youtube, Netflix and Amazon change their API and you find yourself back to needing an external box.
The majority of early smart tv no longer work with youtube anymore.

[rdl]

My TV is a 42" 1080p. It's connected to a mid-range gaming PC. The TV has no antenna or cable connected to it. Everything it puts on screen comes through the PC. All I need from a TV is a decent picture. Funny thing, I remember a few years ago John Carmack complaining about the PC to TV screen lag being worse than the internet to PC lag.

[AF6LJ]

... without a lot of the bullshit 'Smart' features that seem to be plaguing other brands.
 Absolutely no built-in cameras or microphones.

That's the spirit. But you forgot to mention Internet connection.
It will be 'interesting' if all available TV brands end up with this big brother spyware cam & mic online crap, won't it? Never mind the excuses, like smart voice command or whatever.

Don't need it, don't want it, flatly and non-negotiably don't trust it and will not stand for it.
Personally, I don't even have any broadcast TV receiver/antenna. Just PCs and DVD & VHS players.

Ha ha... a phrase I came across recently, and like. "We're entering the hockey stick of evil."

Television here in the states is a waste of time, money and an invasion of one's privacy. I have a twenty year old analogue TV, that has seen so little use that it smells new. If I want to watch something new and modern I'll do it from my computer, with no microphone, camera and behind a decent logging firewall.

My roommate has a "Smart TV" which has its MAC address blocked in my firewall, not to mention the WiFi only is on when absolutely needed. 

[NiHaoMike]

I have one of these and have never been able to get it working correctly dispite all the software updates etc... It used to work through their own software but for some reason has stopped. I gave up. I'm going to buy a professional unit instead.

Mine works just fine for what I need it to do. Though it does work best with wired Ethernet - Wifi N doesn't work very well at all and Homeplug works if the signal is great. In my case, I have the HDHomerun in a wiring closet with the antenna in the attic above and then run back to my PC using a pair of Homeplug adapters hacked to run on telephone wire - best I could do in rental property where I cannot rewire it.

[TerraHertz]

What's the hottest market in the whole home computing field?
Top end 3D engines, for gaming.
So turn the 'TV' into a computer peripheral, that is a self-contained 3D engine. Include an ethernet port with 10/100/gigabit speed, and a protocol to allow a PC to offload the actual 3D scene drawing to the display. The PC just sends the scene model, textures, viewpoint, etc to the screen. Updates that dataset only when something changes. The engine in the screen does all the frame generation grunt work.

Even gigabit is way too slow to connect a decent GPU with. PCIe 3.0 x16 does 128Gbps. Don't forget the latency either, which is very critical in many GPGPU applications.

You misunderstand the structure I meant. I didn't mean still have the CPU in the PC still managing 3D graphics generation by the GPU. I meant split off the entire 3D engine - CPU, GPU, RAM for 3D model structures, texture maps, and physics models, rendering memory, all in 'the screen'. The only connection to the PC would be to upload the mesh, lighting and textures to the screen (predictive precaching once before they are encountered in scenes), and also a high level scene control command stream, only containing things like viewpoint moves, etc.

The 'screen' would end up being equivalent of a high end PC core plus GPU. But it wouldn't need an OS like Windows. Just turn it on, and it listens for the scene-control protocol on the data link.
Splitting 3D graphics generation out of the PC and into the display devices, would change the update cycles needed to keep pace with improving graphics generation. PCs could remain useful much longer, while screens could be replaced as resolution and corresponding 3D GPU power advanced together.

Also for fairly static 3D scene models, such as for a 3D GUI for some future OS, there could be very low bitrate requirements between the 'screen' (3D engine) and user-interface master system.  Pre-load all the scene data in non-volatile memory in the screen, then just send info about changes. A PIC or something could handle running a full high-res interactive GUI, if the screen(s) were doing all the graphics frame-generation grunt work.

[Rmx77]

thats a shame. i recall there is a company that is or has pulled the plug on plasma tv's cause they dont sell well and the reason they dont is cause of burn in and the expensive bulbs. led tv's are just lcd panels with led backlight. i think also the reason for the drop in lcd is cause of the led technology and that everyone is trying to go to 4k. i myself dont even own an lcd or hd tv of any sort so i am stuck with standard def tv which is slowly going away since most electronics manufactures are going hdmi outputs only and most of the old tv's dont have hdmi ports which cripples the old tv's unless you want to search or build an hdmi to component or composite converter. most of the converters i have found are to convert the component or composite to hdmi not the reverse. i do feel that crt tv's outlast lcd and led tv's any day though cause of the fact they are built better and are a little easier to work on then an lcd or led tv.

[Halcyon]

That's what current graphics cards do. It's why they have gigabytes of RAM. In fact it's been that way for a long time now... Over a decade IIRC.

I think it was around 2000 that we started to get Transform and Lighting (T&L) hardware support. Upload the mesh to the graphics card, upload a transformation and lighting matrix and let it do the calculations. Then came full vertex shaders that basically replaced the fixed T&L functionality with a programmable system that allowed for much more than just basic transformations. Now GPUs do most of the heavy lifting, e.g. tessellation, interpolation, curve generation, particle effects etc. On top of that you have pixel shaders that as well as making things like texturing fully programmable allow for post-processing effects, more detailed lighting, shadowing etc.

The PC uploads meshes and textures to the card, sends it vertex and pixel shaders and then only does high level control. Having a high bandwidth, low latency link does help, but not as much as you might expect. People find that the performance of some cards barely drops when moved from a 16x PCIe slot to a 4x slot, as long as the card has plenty of memory to avoid needing to swap stuff in and out all the time. It's why Thunderbolt works reasonably well for external GPUs, despite the higher latency.

You make some good observations here. But I can see one day some "off-board" processing occurring inside displays, after all, you can fit so much more PCB into the back of a monitor/TV chassis than into a PC slot. Perhaps fibre optics would be a good link between PC and Monitor in this instance?

[TerraHertz]

That's what current graphics cards do. It's why they have gigabytes of RAM. In fact it's been that way for a long time now... Over a decade IIRC.

I think it was around 2000 that we started to get Transform and Lighting (T&L) hardware support. Upload the mesh to the graphics card, upload a transformation and lighting matrix and let it do the calculations. Then came full vertex shaders that basically replaced the fixed T&L functionality with a programmable system that allowed for much more than just basic transformations. Now GPUs do most of the heavy lifting, e.g. tessellation, interpolation, curve generation, particle effects etc. On top of that you have pixel shaders that as well as making things like texturing fully programmable allow for post-processing effects, more detailed lighting, shadowing etc.

The PC uploads meshes and textures to the card, sends it vertex and pixel shaders and then only does high level control. Having a high bandwidth, low latency link does help, but not as much as you might expect. People find that the performance of some cards barely drops when moved from a 16x PCIe slot to a 4x slot, as long as the card has plenty of memory to avoid needing to swap stuff in and out all the time. It's why Thunderbolt works reasonably well for external GPUs, despite the higher latency.

I know all this. Did I say anything that suggested I didn't? And you're making my own point - the 3D engine can be made an independent module from the PC, because at a higher level of scene control there doesn't have to be a huge bandwidth over the control channel.  And so, since 3D engine capability and screen resolution more or less rise in proportion, why not put the graphics engine in the screen? Along with a CPU capable of managing it, and enough memory to hold entire game scenery datasets.

One obstacle is that the software drivers for current 3D engines are only available in binary blobs, targeted at Windows, with Linux driver releases lagging behind. This has the effect that one can't do 3D in embedded systems (or experimental OSs), using current graphics cards. That was the saddest thing about nVidia buying out 3Dfx. 3Dfx made full driver source code available, and it could be ported to anything. It was plain C, with only a few tiny bits of ASM and not much OS dependency. nVidia so far as I know never release full source code. Except maybe to console manufacturers.

Perhaps TV manufacturers would have the leverage to get driver source code out of nVidia.
But I have a feeling Microsoft likes the current status quo, in which Windows is pretty much a requirement for PC gaming 3D, thanks to nVidia's Windows-specific binary blob drivers. So Microsoft may incentivise nVidia to keep it that way. If they aren't already.

[Halcyon]

Just ordered myself an NEC E585. http://www.necdisplay.com/p/large--screen-displays/e585

[tom66]

The 'screen' would end up being equivalent of a high end PC core plus GPU. But it wouldn't need an OS like Windows. Just turn it on, and it listens for the scene-control protocol on the data link.
Splitting 3D graphics generation out of the PC and into the display devices, would change the update cycles needed to keep pace with improving graphics generation. PCs could remain useful much longer, while screens could be replaced as resolution and corresponding 3D GPU power advanced together.

This would just make monitors obsolete more quickly.
I can upgrade my processor, GPU, etc. easily. PCI-E has stayed relevant for some time and is likely to remain dominant for at least the next 2-3 years before it is replaced.
So there is no need for me to replace the PC as I can upgrade parts as needed, individually...

Whereas your idea would make monitors obsolete, and I'd wager that monitors actually require more resources to make, what with them having an LCD panel, backlights, etc. You would throw away the whole monitor, because it could not be upgraded, like an iMac.

[rx8pilot]

Agreed. The display should be the bare-bones necessities to take an HDMI or MM fiber signal and display the pixels. Fast changing technologies like GPUs', CPU's, and software should be in a place that they can be altered and/or upgraded individually. You will never get trapped. If Hulu changed API or whatever, just download the new software to connect and decode.