The general cost of a 3DTV has steadily declined over the past year, thanks in part to Samsung and Panasonic who have been pushing 3D capabilities in a large portion of their TV offerning. However, even though they've got TVs under $1000, the cost of the glasses has remained pretty steep; prices typically average $150 per pair. No typical family of four is going to spend $600 on glasses.

A bunch of passive 3DTVs shown off at CES from makers like Vizio and Toshiba are starting to find their way to market, and thanks to the cheap prices of passive glasses, active shutter companies are now having to compete.

As a result, Samsung has dropped the price of their base model 3D glasses, the SSG-3100GB, to a retail price of $50. That's a 60+ percent drop, folks!

Samsung has been giving away a starter kit, complete with 2 pairs of 3D glasses, with pretty much every 3DTV they've sold. Beginning April 24th, they're making that position official, stating that every Samsung 3DTV will come with two pairs of 3D glasses. D7000 purchasers and up will continue to get the starter kit, which includes some movies and other promo stuff, while models lower than the D7000 will just get the glasses.

I've been trying to get back into music lately, something that's fallen far to the wayside for several years as my listening interests have fallen more and more into talk radio and podcasts. After spinning a few CDs on my home stereo and really enjoying it, I decided to load up my new Windows Phone, complete with built in Zune player, with a bunch of music. 

After listening to a few albums, I was horrified by just how bad my music sounded. I know CDs sound better, but I was shocked at just how significant the difference was.

Then something strange happened. I started playing a rip of one of my newer CDs, a purchase I made last year, and it sounded great - far better than the other digital tracks on my player. So why did this one album sound so much better than the rest?

I've been on board the digital music bandwagon for some time, dabbling with things like recordable MiniDisc far before the iPods and other digital music players hit the scene. As a result, the vast majority of my music collection was ripped nearly 10 years ago. Back then, not only was hard drive space was a concern, forcing me to utilize a lower bit-rate for my rips, but the audio encoders were less advanced than they are today.

Say what you will about Apple, good or bad, but it's hard to deny they've been raking in the dough with one successful product after another. Just about anything put out with an Apple logo sends people into a frenzy, flocking into stores to buy whatever they're selling.

Except the Apple TV that is, Cupertino's little box that connects to TVs and let users buy content online, and play media from a built in hard drive and network devices. First launched in 2006, analysts had high expectations for Apple TV, spouting off ridiculous statements one often hears during Apple product launches like "It's going to change the world!" "It's Magical!" and "I so want one! What does it do, again?" Suffice it to say, it never lived up to any of the hype.

In reality, Apple TV has been more of a success people give it credit for. Any product that sells over six million units and generates decent profits can't be considered a failure, although it isn't nearly the runaway success of other Apple products like the iPhone or iPad. Most importantly, it's proven to Apple that people will pay to rent and stream video content. Where people pay to consume media, Apple will be there to profit.

Whereas Netflix Instant Watch exclusively graced the XBOX 360 for some time, Playstation 3 owners are getting the last laugh now that Hulu's giving them exclusive access to Hulu Plus streaming for the remainder of the year. That dramatically turns the tides, making the Sony's PS3 the most streaming friendly console in the market with access to both Netflix and Hulu Plus.

Anyone with an iPad or iPhone has probably heard about Hulu Plus by now, but if not, let's bring you up to speed. Hulu Plus is a new subscription service from Hulu, a popular video streaming site owned by NBC, Fox, and ABC that's been coughing up free TV content to computer screens (in the USA) for quite a while. Hulu Plus promises a whole lot more of the Hulu goodness you've become accustomed too, like a vastly expanded TV library of full series, advanced search, and HD quality, but with a $10 per month price tag. It also unshackles you from your computer monitor, allowing you to stream to the iPad, iPhone, and now the Playstation 3.

While many of you no doubt want to run to the Playstation Store and download the Hulu app, I'd advise you to wait a little while. Sony is leaning on the Hulu Plus frenzy to sell people on their recently announced "Playstation Plus" subscription service. Basically, if you want guaranteed access to Hulu Plus during this so-called "introductory preview period," you need to shell out an extra fifty bucks on a Playstation Plus subscription. Without it, you have to request an invite and hope you get picked. I wouldn't hold your breath though. My guess is that you won't, and everyone will be let in as soon as Sony satisfies whatever goal they set for new Playstation Plus subscriptions.

So does Hulu Plus PS3 equal TV bliss? (See what I did there?). Well, almost.

In dramatic fashion, Nintendo has officially unveiled the Nintendo 3DS, a new handheld gaming system capable of delivering glasses free 3D visuals to players.

From a hardware perspective, the 3DS is similar to the DS in many physical respects, like the top and bottom two screen design, d pad, four facing buttons, clamshell design etc. Like the original DS, only the bottom screen is touch capable, with Nintendo's Soturu Iwata noting that "3D and touch don't get along very well."

Read the rest at Explore3DTV.com >>

A little less than a week ago, Google, the company known for shaking things up did just that by unveiling their new service called Google TV. Their goal: "combine the TV you know and love with the freedom and power of the Internet."

Now I've been asked several times what my thoughts are when it comes to Google invading the living room TV, because no one is really sure whether or not the search giant can succeed where so many others haven't. The web and the TV united is like the holy grail - whoever manages to pull it off will rule the world.

What is Google TV exactly? Here's their video to try and explain:

Simply put, it's a new software platform from Google derived from their Android OS and Chrome web browser that can be integrated into set top boxes and televisions. With it, you'll (supposedly) be able to call up a search box to find videos and shows, then be able to stream them from the web and play them right on your TV screen (something I haven't seen a compelling demo of as of yet). You'll also be able to use the Chrome browser to view web pages like on your PC screen, Flash support included.

Apple's Puppet Master and CEO published a long and eloquently worded letter (link) explaining, in detail, why he hates Flash and why he (personally) won't ever allow it on his iPhone, iPod Touch, and iPad.

Frankly, I don't give a rats what Steve Jobs thinks.

Don't get me wrong.  His letter contains many thought provoking points no doubt craftily edited by a thousand PR folks, and I applaud him for standing his ground. But in the end, Mr. Jobs is 100% in the wrong, but not for the reasons most would give.

I'll let others take up his contradictory arguments, like claiming to embrace "openness" while he serves as dictator for a closed, totalitarian environment.

I'll let other developers argue his ridiculous statements on how third party development tools are responsible for hindering the progress and usefulness of applications on a platform. He makes so many points(?), but ultimately show that he believes developers are inept; incapable of choosing tools that let them do what they want to do.

This day was inevitable, even if unfortunate. Microsoft is finally pulling the plug on XBOX Live support for original XBOX games. Starting April 15th, you'll no longer be able to hop onto XBOX Live for some nostalgic bouts of Halo 2 multiplayer.

I won't drone on here why I believe Microsoft shouldn't cut game support for a paid service (particularly for games they were selling days ago in digital form), but there are two sides to that argument. According to most stats, few gamers out there are playing XBOX original titles on XBOX Live. And, according to Microsoft, continuing legacy support for original XBOX titles is getting in the way of improving the Live service overall.

What does this mean for you, if you want to still play some old favorites with friends?

Fortunately, it doesn't mean you can no longer get your multiplayer on. Since 2006, we've featured an article from TechLore member Yog-Sothoth,

I've mentioned several times in my blog that I'm not a fan of Apple's "controlling" business practices, even going as far as saying Apple treats their customers like "walking ATMs." Apple's clearly continuing this practice with the new oversized iPod Touch they're calling "iPad", which (like its pocket sized siblings) leaves out things like Flash, expandable memory, and all but basic Bluetooth support in order to keep users in Apple Prison.

Typically, I don't have an issue with it. I certainly don't give Apple any of my money, and I don't really care what other people choose to spend their hard earned cash on. That said, I do start to care once Apple is dishonest about their business practices with consumers... like Apple saying their iPhone/Touch/Pad devices lack Flash because it's buggy. That's complete B.S. 

It has nothing to do with being buggy, but it does severely limit the user's web experience. Without Flash, the iPad's browser can't display a wide variety of web content. Not just online video (which is huge IMO), but in other cases entire websites. It can't play flash games, nor can it utilize flash based apps that exist on various sites. In other words, it lacks Flash because Apple doesn't want a means for developers to circumvent their app store. As a result, none of these devices let you experience the web as it actually is today. To me, that means

Over the coming weeks, you'll no doubt hear more about the Apple iPad from industry pundits, bloggers, fanboys, and probably your next door neighbor than you'd ever want to hear. I'm not going to go into too much depth (others will handle that for me), but I'll give an overview and a semi-realistic viewpoint from someone who doesn't live and die by Apple's hardware.

The iPad is Apple's new tablet, which has been rumored for well over a year.  Today, they finally showed it off, and... well...  take a look:

Notice anything? Go ahead, take a long, hard look. Yep, it's an iPod Touch blown up to tablet size. Apple calls it "revolutionary." I call it "obvious." The iPhone and iPod Touch are one of the most profitable things Apple has done. Is it any surprise they'd capitalize on that?

So what do I think? Here's all the random thoughts that went through my head.