Laser TV News 06 Jul 2009 08:42 pm

LaserVue Laser TV Price Cut

Several sites are reporting the average retail price of Mitsubishi’s 65-inch LaserVue laser-powered Laser TV have been slashed by $500. (Update: has for a few weeks offered varying discounts, so perhaps the ultimate in high-tech big screen pleasure is on the verge of becoming a little more affordable.)

Debuting in 2008, the LaserVue was billed as a hip 3-D-ready TV boasting a color range twice as broad as a typical HDTV, while using less energy than a plasma or LCD HDTV. Sales have obviously been disappointing, and production numbers for the Laservue’s first two full quarters of sale have not been publicly released. Given the economic climate, the production plans of a previously announced 73-inch model ‘Vue have been stalled as Mitsubishi re-evaluates the market.

9 Responses to “LaserVue Laser TV Price Cut”

  1. on 08 Jul 2009 at 2:59 am 1.ID4 said …

    Anyone that have this TV can tell me if the SD resolutions like 480i are show “AS IS” (true multisync) or it is scaled like LCDs???

    Thanks ;-D

  2. on 09 Jul 2009 at 7:35 am 2.JS said …

    Is there any way to contact Mitsubishi ? Put me on the list for the 73 inch LaserVue.

  3. on 09 Jul 2009 at 2:57 pm 3.Danny said …

    “slashed by $500″ LOL!

    try again mitsubishi

  4. on 11 Jul 2009 at 6:04 pm 4.ebg51 said …

    There is no reason for this tv to be so expensive. It is a standard DLP with Lasers instead of a color wheel and bulb. The lasers are relatively inexpensive. I could see $3999 as starting price but $6999 is just gouging the public. The thing is, people that understand this technology enough to want it also know what it costs. So until the price comes WAY down I’m on the sidelines.

  5. on 12 Jul 2009 at 5:38 am 5.brian said …

    Danny is right, who is Mitsubishi kidding. Laser TV is never going to materialize into mainstream unless the price comes down considerably. Mitsubishi lost my business twice now due to their lack of concern for the consumer. Since the release of Laser TV and its ridiculous price tag, I have purchased 2 LCD TV’s (52″ Sony XBR and 65″ Sharp SE) which, combined, are 2K less than the 10″ thick rear projection Laservue. The recent marketing in LED TV suggests that people are now more concerned with thin picture like TVs than insane contrast ratios. They need to sell this TV for 4K or less and take a loss and make it up in volume. Word of mouth from existing consumers is the greatest form of advertising if your product is any good. Mitsubishi needs to get with the program.

  6. on 16 Jul 2009 at 11:26 am 6.Henry said …

    They should make 100 inchs LaserTV for $7000

  7. on 07 Aug 2009 at 10:27 am 7.David said …

    New article released on the 08/04/09.

    Nothing new, but post worthy.

  8. on 13 Nov 2009 at 4:38 am 8.Foster3D said …

    I attentively and absolutely agree with most of the critical commentary contained above. However, while I currently critize Mits with their most recent marketing pricing policy, I astutely agreed with the initial decision to start with the $6999.99 price point policy.

    You see, whenever a new technology is introduced within any given market, a skimming pricing policy is generally the best pricing program to pursue in the initial phase. The technology with the laservue was still perceived as potentially problematic, thus the tendency to try to slowly and carefully establish a marketing program projected to pursue the innovators and early adopters–those whho thrill in trying the new-new thing. Thus, these types traditionally take a profoundly perverse price perception and an inelastic attitude with regards to most new technologies.

    Therefore, they tend to triumphantly thrill in being the first on the block with the best(?) or better-said: the most bleeding edge electronic entertainment equipment, and they take particular pride and pleasure in paying the most for it. As a result, most electronic entertainment enterprises use this curious capricious cachet to recoup the R&D and marketing costs as quickly as is prudently or perceptively possible. As a result, on the face of it Mits marketing mindset for Laservue was logical and reasonable–”Leaving money on the table”, so the speak, is not necessarily the best way to basically stay in business, but…I need to noticably note that this type of product pricing period and initial introdiction interval does not usually last this long!

    Additionally, as asserted, Mits was managing a more or less new product into an already essentially established electronic market (LCD & Plasma with (O)LEDs coming soon) were on-the-whole already known commodities. So it is reasonable for there to be a question as how should Mits market the machines? What price possibilities or points are provided or providential? We see that ultimately under this useful construct, the best price policy to promote the product is to give it a price more or less equal to the top of the line displays demanded in the dollar demonations of the best product on the current market.

    Mits was managing and had masterfully made a clever “Kuro-Killer”, and as all experts ajudicated that truely the totally trustiest best display–hands down–in the display market 2 years ago was the “Kuro Plasma” display (Made in Kuro Japan), and by all acounts Mits had magically managed to make the Laservue specs to be basically beyond those technical specs possessed by the Kuro Plasma, and so it was essentially eminently and entirely logical to price the Laservue units ultimately to this upper scale of comparability. Consequently, it was to be taken as simple textbook marketing to fully equate or evidently establish a profound price parity level of comparability between the “Kuro Plasma” and the luminious and lovely Laservue units.

    This is where I perversely and particularily part with the pricing polity mandated by Mits marketing plan!

    As some have curiously commented elsewhere, the production pricing equation for the Laservue units is very low. Some say that the total cost of production–inclusive of labour, parts, and all aspects of intellectual property is probably about $300 to about $400 dollars.

    Thus, iron logic in the current economic environment and with the ensuing onslaught of the soon to follow lower cost LEDs dictates that the tactics of Mits to keep to the high cost policy supposedly to keep the perception of value higher is fundmentally and fatally flawed (Demand has demonstratably gone down since the economic downturn!). If the economy were still stable, then the skimming pricing structure would seem to make some supposed scintilla of sense, but it no longer makes cents, much less any dollars!

    Yes, I know that earlier this year Mits had a period of problematic production where the factory was shut down, but they denied it had to do with either quality or bugs, and while I tend to believe them, it is possible that teething problems within the manufacturing production process was initially less than percise. Though those technologists, whom I have talked, tell me that this possibility is not likely. Production is supposedly strictly straightforward, strikingly simple, and the particular procured parts are rather rugged and really robust, and completely child’s play to put together; thus, the thinking is that this is not the real reason for the pronounced production problems, quite the contrary, for it points the path to greater production and profits!

    What this tells me is that after literally and liberally linking Laservue’s quality with the then top-of-the-line Kuro Plasma units last year, then after some strategic skimming to help the bottom line and recoup some start-up costs, then the truely strategic response would have been a massive–and I do mean MASSIVE–drop in price.

    Mits should have taken the policy with the problems in the current market to close and cut all the losing lines of older LCDs and permanently put-down the primative projection lines and concentrate on Laservue. Mits has for years lost market shares in LCD and Plasmas and their Rear-Projection units were also all-together losing share horrendously. Thus, my thinking is that Mits should have, mabe a bit recklesly and ruthlessly, removed the Rear-Projection production plants, the Plasma plants, and significantly scale-back the LCD plants and stridently stake their plans and profits with Laservue!

    They have had more than enough time to make the marketing mindset of the public to essentially and effectively equate the Laservue units as having or possessing the exact same quality as seen with the top-of-the-line Kuro Plasma units, and once the pricing parallels in the prospective minds of the consumers is critically created, then when the price drops to say…$500 dollars for a 65″ Laservue, then the thoughts of the magic of “Experience Curve” pricing comes on line and in play.

    Also, I need to crucially comment that most intellectual property contracts has a clause concerning and containing a consistent detail in regards to a specific doubling or tripling of units sold and then this situation calls for the initial licensing rates to dramatically decrease. Thus, literally lowering one of Mits most major costs with the Laservue units–licensing costs of intellectual property.

    So, I am stating that with armed with the understanding that production is supposedly very simple and can likely be automated to a factor not favored or forseen in LCD or LED or Plasma production processes, then this thought when combined with the knowledge that this seems to stridently arm Mits with the potential to lower costs to a deliberate degree impossible to their rivals using or employing other technologies (LED, LCD, Plasma), thus Mits has the profound and prospective potential to do siignificantly better by adopting a low-cost “experience curve” costing program policy in pricing than that of their rivals.

    Yes, I know that the Laservue has problems (esp in Asia and Europe) with the large size (vis-a-vis) the ultra-thin LED and LCD units, but I feel that the laser technology is capable of going from ~ 10″ depth of the units to about 3″ in a year or so and this is not tht much worse than the ~1.5 inches of the competing display technologies, and I need to necessarily note that the weight is really about the same as comparable LED and LCD units and much better than the thick Plasma units. Within the confines of a “Greener” world, I should make measly mention of the miserly energy consumption for the Laservue which we will note is vastly better than Plasmas, and as we will or have seen essayed in scientific sources, it is immensely better that LCD or even the evidently envied LED units.

    Thus, I was thinking that after a troubling teething period that the prospective pricing policies at Mits for their Laservue units was ultimately to undergo a shrewdly significant and strategic change to charging a certainly lower ammount than we have seen up until now. Furthermore, I was thinking that this Christmas season would be the time and the reason to dramatically drop the price to profoundly shock the world!

    Before I leave, I should comment that The Laservue units are equipped for 3D by virtue of the Nvidia 3D Vision–the LCD shutter style glasses. This system is simply so superior to the Red/Blue coloured analyglyphic system as to be foolish to compare them to each other. However, it is seen that the move toward 3D is pervasive and profound. 3D films are the only types of films that are really making money in Hollywood currently, and they are still seeing increases essentially in each and every year.

    Thus, the trend toward TVs with a 3D option, and for the short-term–if not the long-term–this technique for 3D seems to be the best and most economical elecronic technology available, and I perceive that in this pattern or prospective, Laservue has many advantages over other display technologies.

  9. on 27 Dec 2009 at 9:04 am 9.Websters said …

    Thank you, Captain Verbosity.

    Translation: Mitsubishi artificially inflated the price to appeal to the rich techno-nerds who want their friends to ejaculate on their living room carpet over a product they currently cannot afford.

    There – same commentary, and it fits neatly into most overhead storage compartments.

Trackback This Post | Subscribe to the comments through RSS Feed

Leave a Reply