Why do LCD Computer monitors expensive?


Recommended Posts

Lately, I've been looking for an LCD computer monitor and the cheapest one I found was $220. Why are they still so expensive after they've been out for so long? LCD monitors are just so expensive that I just ordered a brand new computer instead with an LCD included. Only cost me $650 total for everything. It seems to be cheaper that way rather than buying a monitor separately.

I remember CRT monitors used to cost only $50-60. Why don't LCDs ever go that low?

Edit: A little typo on my subject. The actual subject is supposed to be "Why are LCD Computer monitors expensive?" Sorry for the mistake but I'm unable to edit it and fix it.

You must like cheap products in small sizes, I prefer to buy things that will work and have displays big enough that I can read the text or easily view a digital camera image without scrolling. Enjoy the dead pixels, large dot pitch, and poor color dithering of your $50 LCD you got there buddy.

Maybe it's just me, but I don't remember CRT's ever being that cheap except if they were used. Besides, quality CRT monitors, widescreen CRT's and CRT's larger than 17" were always relatively expensive. You can get a 19" widescreen LCD for $170, you would never find a widescreen 19" CRT for that cheap.

You must like cheap products in small sizes, I prefer to buy things that will work and have displays big enough that I can read the text or easily view a digital camera image without scrolling. Enjoy the dead pixels, large dot pitch, and poor color dithering of your $50 LCD you got there buddy.

A quick example. DVD players when they first came out cost like $500. Now you can get one that has just as good of quality for less than $100. My question is: why doesn't this drop in prices happen with LCDs?

I don't know. They must frown up people buying LCDs by themselves. Like I said in my original post, I just bought a new Dell computer with a 19" widescreen LCD included. It's just more cheaper that way. By buying the LCD separately, you're pretty much paying half the cost of a computer.

Consider a piece of steak. How come steak doesn't drop to like 5 cents? Cows have been around forever! You'd think that since farmers can produce a billion cows in a year these days, steak would be dirt cheap. Yet, a decent 8oz cut still goes for 7-8 bucks.

An LCD isn't a piece of steak, but perhaps the manufacturing process of an LCD just can't get any cheaper than it already is. Just like raising a good cow still requires you to feed it something other than a blade of grass per day, which costs money. That is, until the day they can produce a Dragon Ball Z capsule thing that costs a penny to produce and provides the nutrition of a grass field the size of New Zealand and can sustain the cow for 5 yrs. Most of us on Neowin will probably not be around when that day comes. lol This was probably the dumbest analogy ever.

Those are not $50-60. People always encourage me to wait until LCDs do become that cheap but I can only wait for so long. All this waiting is driving me nuts so I just bought a new computer. I need a new computer anyway. Can you believe my current computer only has 256mb of RAM? Talk about ancient.

I don't know. They must frown up people buying LCDs by themselves. Like I said in my original post, I just bought a new Dell computer with a 19" widescreen LCD included. It's just more cheaper that way. By buying the LCD separately, you're pretty much paying half the cost of a computer.

Thats because

A) The hardware inside of the computer isn't the highest of quality... probably most aspects are integrated into the motherboard, which save Dell money

B) Since dell wants to sell computers, often people buying lower end Dells will want the whole package, so Dell gets the monitor at wholesale and don't mark it up by much if at all, just so they can sell a whole computer as a package and still make their money on the computer itself.

Lets say the same monitor Dell includes is 100$ from the manufacturers. Dell may only value the monitor component at 100$ as part of the package, and not make any profit on that particular part but it helps them sell the rest of the computer since its a package and thats where they make their profit.

Now Best Buy may also pay 100$ for this exact model of monitor, but they will charge 180$ (guesstimate) because thats the only thing they are selling so they need to make their profit.

It's sort of like the same idea as door crasher sales at stores. They sell mass quantities of certain special items at a loss (making no profit or even costing them a little bit) then tons of people go to the store for this item. Many of these people are now in the store and will shop around. They may buy some food or whatever else. That will make the company the money, even if they take a small loss on 1 particular item.

like now a days DDR2 RAM is cheaper than DDR1 so on same note why not LCD cheaper than CRT

DDR2 is more common but there is still a demand for DDR1 by those people who have computer that cannot use DDR2, so it isn't as mass produced and usually stuff that is produced less of is more expensive. As for LCDs and CRTs, well even older computers can use LCD monitors, so its not like people have computers that can only use CRTs (well maybe people on win95 or something but thats another question!).

LCD's are not expensive in my opinion. You can pick up a 19" LCD monitor for less than ?100 - and I think that's really good value.

CRT's are REALLY cheap because the technology is redundant. Nobody in their right mind should buy one.

LCDs are very cheap right now (I picked up a Dell 22" for $220 last month), the only reason CRTs got so cheap is because it's a dead technology, at one point LCDs will be like that too....but it will take a long time

and here was me looking at LCD's the other day and thinking How cheap they'd become.

I was thinking the same thing

Those are not $50-60. People always encourage me to wait until LCDs do become that cheap but I can only wait for so long. All this waiting is driving me nuts so I just bought a new computer. I need a new computer anyway. Can you believe my current computer only has 256mb of RAM? Talk about ancient.

No, they aren't $50-60, and would you really want a LCD so cheaply? I know DVD players are cheap, but I still don't think they have all of the connections of slighty more expensive ones, but I could be wrong. Staples had a 22 inch at $200 within the last month. I consider that almost dirt cheap.

I know DVD players are cheap, but I still don't think they have all of the connections of slighty more expensive ones, but I could be wrong.

My 8 year old DVD player that I bought for $300 at the time is not as good as current ones. It doesn't have any component or HDMI outputs and doesn't read any writable discs. Last year, I bought one for $75 and it has better picture, upconverts to 1080p, has both component and HDMI outputs, and reads discs of all formats. It's way better than the $300 one I paid for long time ago. I was expecting something like this to happen to LCDs, but it looks like it ain't going to happen.

To the OP, If you're looking for really cheap new technology, now is probably the right time to jump on the HD DVD bandwagon ;)

What's the point on getting HD DVDs if Blu-ray was the one that won. All new movies will be released on Blu-ray, not HD-DVD. Even though it's cheap, it would be a complete waste of money.

I understand that. But as time goes, usually the price of technology decreases. What's going on with LCDs?
Jeez, patience. LCD displays in such large quantities are still pretty new technology. Wait about 10 more years.
Maybe it's just me, but I don't remember CRT's ever being that cheap except if they were used. Besides, quality CRT monitors, widescreen CRT's and CRT's larger than 17" were always relatively expensive. You can get a 19" widescreen LCD for $170, you would never find a widescreen 19" CRT for that cheap.
I remember 14" CRTs being standard, with 15" as the "upgrade". 17" units were prohibitively expensive! I'm talking $300 for the 15" CRT, and $900 for the 17 inch models.

Kids these days who only started computing with Win9x have no sense of computing history, sometimes. At least you recall the expensive truths of the not-so-distant past. ;)

Jeez, patience. LCD displays in such large quantities are still pretty new technology. Wait about 10 more years.

I bought my current computer 7 years ago. I wanted to buy it with an LCD at the time, but didn't because they were just so expensive. Now, 7 years later, when my computer becomes ancient, the LCD prices are still sky high. And I know that when I was looking into a new computer 7 years ago, LCDs have been out for a few years already. So, how many decades do you expect me to wait? DVD players never took this long to drop in price.

I bought my current computer 7 years ago. I wanted to buy it with an LCD at the time, but didn't because they were just so expensive. Now, 7 years later, when my computer becomes ancient, the LCD prices are still sky high. And I know that when I was looking into a new computer 7 years ago, LCDs have been out for a few years already. So, how many decades do you expect me to wait? DVD players never took this long to drop in price.

My post clearly states "10 more years". That is precicely, to the day, how long you have to wait. :rolleyes:

This microwave mentality of "need it now" annoys me.

The serious answer is that you must wait for suppliers to out-produce demand. The 'per piece' price of items drops in proportion to the number produced. And technology improves, giving better yield and less scrap costs to manufacturers. Add in any new advances, and the factories producing older tech will need to pretty much give their product away at cost or just close.

And all of these things, grasshopper, take time, like water wearing away at the stone.

This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Posts

    • One of the strangest galaxies in our Universe could help answer some long overdue questions by Sayan Sen Image by Pixabay via Pexels | Not representative An international team of astronomers led by the Department of Astronomy at Tsinghua University has discovered an unusually metal-poor galaxy that may contain signs of first-generation star formation. The galaxy, named Metal-Pristine Galaxy COSMOS Redshift 3 (MPG-CR3), or CR3, was identified using observations from the James Webb Space Telescope (JWST), the Very Large Telescope (VLT), and the Subaru Telescope. The findings, published in The Astrophysical Journal Letters, describe CR3 as the most metal-poor galaxy known from the period known as "cosmic noon," around 11.5 billion years ago. Cosmic noon refers to a period when the universe was producing stars at its highest rate and galaxies were growing rapidly. In astronomy, "metals" refers to all elements heavier than helium, including oxygen, carbon, and iron. Because CR3 contains so few of these heavier elements, researchers say it closely resembles what scientists expect the earliest galaxies in the universe may have looked like. The discovery is significant because it could offer clues about Population III (Pop III) stars, the first generation of stars thought to have formed after the Big Bang. These stars are believed to have formed from gas made almost entirely of hydrogen and helium, before heavier elements were created inside stars and spread across the universe through supernova explosions. Hence this is why CR3 has been referred to as a "living fossil." Scientists have long believed that Population III stars existed only in the very early universe. As more generations of stars formed and died, they enriched surrounding gas with heavier elements, making the conditions needed for metal-free star formation increasingly rare. Because of this, researchers expected the formation of such stars to have largely ended after the epoch of reionization, a period when radiation from the first stars and galaxies transformed the neutral hydrogen filling the universe and made it largely transparent to ultraviolet light. CR3 appears to challenge that idea. The galaxy was observed at a redshift of z = 3.193 ± 0.016. Redshift measures how much light from a distant object has been stretched as the universe expands and helps astronomers determine how far back in time they are looking. In this case, the redshift corresponds to roughly 11.5 billion years ago during cosmic noon. Although the universe was already several billion years old by that point, CR3 shows characteristics more commonly associated with much earlier galaxies. Observations revealed exceptionally strong emissions from hydrogen and helium, including Lyα, Hα, and He I λ10830. Lyα, or Lyman-alpha emission, is a specific wavelength of light produced by hydrogen and is widely used to study distant galaxies. Hα emission is another hydrogen signature commonly used to trace active star formation, while He I λ10830 is produced by helium and can indicate the presence of very hot, young stars. The measured equivalent widths of EW₀(Lyα) = 822 ± 101 Å and EW₀(Hα) = 2814 ± 327 Å are among the highest ever observed in star-forming galaxies. Equivalent width is a measure of the strength of an emission line relative to the surrounding light, and such large values are typically associated with intense and very recent star formation. At the same time, researchers found no statistically significant detections of metal emission lines, including [O III] λλ4959, 5007 and C IV λλ1548, 1550. Emission lines act as chemical fingerprints that reveal which elements are present in a galaxy. Oxygen and carbon lines are commonly seen in galaxies that have already undergone significant chemical enrichment. Their absence in CR3 suggests an unusually pristine environment. Using abundance calibration methods developed with JWST observations, the team placed a 2σ upper limit on the galaxy's gas-phase metallicity of 12+log(O/H)<6.52, corresponding to less than 0.7% of the Sun's metallicity (Z < 7 × 10⁻³ Z⊙). Gas-phase metallicity measures the abundance of heavy elements in a galaxy's gas. A 2σ upper limit indicates that the true value is very unlikely to be higher than the quoted threshold. Even when accounting for uncertainties in the calibration methods, the most conservative limit remains 12+log(O/H)<6.95, making CR3 the most metal-poor galaxy identified at cosmic noon. The galaxy also appears to contain very little dust. Researchers measured a Lyα/Hα flux ratio of 13.9 ± 2.5, a result that suggests negligible dust attenuation, meaning very little of the galaxy's light is being absorbed or scattered by cosmic dust. Because dust is usually produced by earlier generations of stars, this finding further supports the idea that CR3 has experienced very little chemical enrichment. Further analysis using spectral energy distribution modelling, a technique that compares observed light with theoretical models, suggests that CR3 contains an extremely young stellar population only around 2 million years old. The modelling, which used Population III stellar templates, also indicates the galaxy has a stellar mass of approximately 6.1 × 10⁵ M⊙. The symbol M⊙ represents one solar mass, or the mass of the Sun. One of the key questions raised by the discovery is how such a chemically primitive galaxy could exist in a universe that had already spent billions of years producing heavier elements. To investigate this, the researchers examined CR3's surroundings. Their analysis suggests the galaxy may lie in a slightly underdense environment, with a density contrast of roughly δ ≈ −0.12. An underdense region contains less matter and fewer galaxies than average. The team suggests that this relative isolation may have helped preserve pockets of pristine gas. Metal-rich material expelled from nearby galaxies may never have reached CR3, while the lower rate of galaxy mergers and interactions could have slowed the mixing of enriched gas into the system. If future observations confirm these findings, CR3 could provide some of the strongest evidence yet that first-generation star formation continued well after the epoch of reionization. Such a result would challenge the conventional view that pristine star formation ended by z ≳ 6 and suggest that small pockets of metal-free gas survived much longer than previously thought. Researchers stress that more observations will be needed to determine the galaxy's true nature. Future spectroscopic studies with higher resolution and better signal quality could help confirm whether CR3 is genuinely hosting Population III star formation. The discovery is also expected to encourage searches for other similar galaxies, which could help astronomers better understand how the first stars formed and how galaxies evolved in the early universe. Source: Tsinghua University, IOPscience This article was generated with some help from AI and reviewed by an editor. Under Section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976, this material is used for the purpose of news reporting. Fair use is a use permitted by copyright statute that might otherwise be infringing.
    • "I think in the immediate absence of a partner to apply relief" In the words of Sterling Archer... "Phrasing!"
    • For me, the fundamental problems with these "smartglasses" is that they really don't work well for people with significant prescriptions and massively up the price if you use attached lenses if they have displays, and if they don't, then they're not actually "smart" anything, rather just connecting to your phone and relaying voice to an AI. In a few cases like this, they throw in small cameras to feed video to the AI. All around, these feel like both a solution looking for a problem, and the problems it tries to solve seem more easily solved by different approaches and designs. Oddly, if the rumours are true, Apple may actually have invented something for once and it kind of does this right: put cameras in ear buds and manage the interface to AI exactly as most of us do: tapping on an ear bud and saying "Hey Google" or "Hey Siri." That makes them compatible with almost everyone, can double up as a hearing assist device, an impaired vision assist device, a "smart" device... and answer your phone and play music. That just seems like a better solution all around.
    • Usually the bigger ones with many fixes/changes take a few, theyre an exception to the rule most likely
    • If you don’t get lucky with Valve’s Steam Machine reservation system, you can make your own Steam Machine instead. Valve says that “starting with the SteamOS 3.8 release, you can put together your own Steam Machine using whatever PC parts you want.” SteamOS 3.8.10 launched last week with a slew of updates, including “improved compatibility with recent Intel and AMD platforms.” Alongside that improved compatibility, Valve is giving gamers the green light to install SteamOS on their own desktops. In an interview with The Verge, Valve’s Pierre-Loup Griffais said Valve has been “rolling out improvements to [SteamOS] so it’s more compatible with desktop hardware,” including eventual support for Nvidia graphics. Griffais says Valve has “a growing team” working on Nvidia driver support for SteamOS, adding, “We’re collaborating with Nvidia very closely.” While he mentioned that Nvidia support might not come this year, Griffais emphasized that “it’s certainly something that we’re working on in the background.”     Subscription not needed: https://archive.fo/Tssfc Subscription needed: https://www.theverge.com/games/953411/valve-steamos-desktop-nvidia
  • Recent Achievements

    • Dedicated
      HidekoYamamoto94 earned a badge
      Dedicated
    • One Month Later
      timbobit earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • One Month Later
      nates earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • Week One Done
      Almohandis earned a badge
      Week One Done
    • Rookie
      dorf went up a rank
      Rookie
  • Popular Contributors

    1. 1
      +primortal
      452
    2. 2
      +Edouard
      161
    3. 3
      PsYcHoKiLLa
      107
    4. 4
      Michael Scrip
      84
    5. 5
      Steven P.
      70
  • Tell a friend

    Love Neowin? Tell a friend!