CNN asks why 3D TVs haven't caught on yet. I agree with the three main points: 3D TVs are expensive, the glasses are uncomfortable and cause headaches, and there is a serious lack of 3D content. But I'd present a few more reasons:
1) There's a format war going on between 3D TVs that support active shutter glasses and those that support passive glasses that just confuses consumers. Will the same 3D content play on both formats? Which one is better? I had the chance to try out a movie with active shutter glasses and I admit the 3D effect was pretty nice. Much better than in the theaters. Speaking of which...
2) 3D movies in the theaters suck. I've seen three so far (Avatar, Clash of the Titans, and Tron: Legacy) and none of them had particularly impressive 3D effects. Not only that, but the movie experience itself sucked. The quality of the glasses is iffy because they're endlessly reused and the glasses dim the screen because you're only seeing half the signal at once. I got suckered three times to shell out more money for 3D movies, but I actively avoid them at this point.
3) Buyer fatigue. Many of us just got an HDTV and now they're expecting us to shell out more money for an all new TV? No way. Too much, too fast.
All this adds up to consumers who just don't care. Although the active shutter glasses seem to work well, it's inconvenient to wear them and content is still lacking. Would Avatar work better with active glasses? Maybe, but I can't see how anything could help the shoddy effects of Clash of the Titans. And I'm not going to get suckered into buying a new TV when I just got a great HDTV a few years ago that has lots of great content going for it.