Out of interest,since it's introduction,how many "improved"panels has the the BV9 had?

Pity someone who bought the first generation!

Given the rapid advancement in flat panel technology,does it make sense to buy an ultra expensive TV for it's build quality when 12/24 months down the line it's PQ will probably no longer be competetive?

not just that , the connection problems too

ok , now we've got bs3 and it's amazing 4 hdmi's

but before that - it was all scart ! 

I agree with kokomo, but I think there is something missing.

Bang & Olufsen is a luxury brand, I guess that is known. Luis Vuitton is a luxury brand as well. Would anybody complain about a Luis Vuitton bag being overpriced, because you can get a bag for a fraction of the price you have to pay for LV? I guess not.

I find some of the gripes here hard to understand, and think Tom raises an important point. However, more and more consumers are taking a look at their traditional spending patterns and realizing that it's just silly to spend lots of money just to keep up with the Joneses in a status game, and this new awareness is cutting into the traditional luxury market.

The only answer is to marry brand status with unequaled quality, and there LV are in a league of their own and blessed since their bags don't contain electronics. B&O works with the shape of the objects, the craftsmanship and materials -- that will work with some products, such as loudspeakers that have longevity, and is proving near disastrous with TVs, which today have a halflife of two months, judging by some comments.

Last year's brilliant Kuro is this year's gray, washed out image, if one is to go by the comments afforded OLED.

This is a problem for B&O, as pointed out above, in that they have tended to build products that were supposed to last, and last, and last. That equation does not compute any longer, now that techspeed is reaching Warp levels, and may force B&O to rethink their involvement with televisions entirely.
Personally I'm of the opinion that people place too great a focus on the number and kind of connections -- often on the basis of ignorance about what connections can or can't do. HDMI in particular is almost laughably misunderstood and taken to be "the" quality connection, when it's nothing of the sort unless your entire chain (including the source) delivers accordingly. HDMI is a hardware locking system designed to prevent unauthorized playback of illegally acquired material, sugared with a false promise of exceptional image quality that it's proving hard to realize. But that's another matter.

I'm of the opinion that the international A/V industry has done itself an enormous disfavour with the HD-Scam, and that consumers who are now waking up to the fact that there isn't much content for their full-HD screens, and won't be for a long time, have reason to be upset.

BD sales are falling, not rising after HD-DVD dropped out. Why? Consumers have decided with their eyes, and are finding upscaled DVD most satisfactory; in addition, downloading and streaming of content is where you're supposed to be now. (Look at Apple's recent deal to offer movies on iTunes Store on the same day that they are released on DVD, a deal made with all the major studios).

Which means you're not very likely to find many sources that will be able to feed a full-HD screen in the future.

What B&O needs do is make content handily available for its customers, making the most possible use of the opportunities afforded by digital management of same -- and preferably in a package that will make me want the product with a fervour.
 

On the Luis Vuitton point, they are certainly in a league of their own when an estimated 75% + of products sold bearing the name are fakes! I don't think the comparison between them and B&O stacks up. LV products are sold almost exclusively for the name alone. With B&O I think yes, the name has impact amongst many people (although far far fewer than would recognise the LV brand) but B&O is household domestic product  which has to fulfill far more needs than mere brand name. The absence in the market of fake B&O TVs (I hope!) means that they are available only to people paying a premium price and it is at that point that the question of  VFM  comes in for many people.

i do agree the whole freeview omission is symptomatic of bno's bizarre attitude 

one minute they espouse the all in one concept

 the next they expect you to add everything on - nasty boxes hanging off the back with wires everywhere

tbh the man reason i won't buy another bno tv is that their so called system integration is a load of old rubbish 

i found that out when i tried plugging a 3rd party hd recorder into my avant and an unsupported sony freeview box

now i've got 3 remotes for one tv - not very impressed i have to say !!!

If you are happy with a Sony 46 inch that's great. You have not betrayed anybody. You found the product that suits your needs and that's fantastic.

There's a number of people that think otherwise though. I think we are missing a point in this thread. A Beovision is not just a TV set, is an integration center for linked homes. If anybody just got a TV set in the living room, I definitely understand that swapping it out with a new B&O flat panel will be hard to do given the cost/benifit ratio for B&O's current TV lineup. However, if you have invested in a number of beolabs and linked rooms, then buying a B&O TV set is still the only way of keeping the integration advantage. Something many of us won't be willing to compromise.

Another point: Sure if you open a BV9 you'll see Panasonic stickers all over the circuit board. Same goes for Pioneer as of 3Q of this year, which will be using the same panasonic panels.

B&O is a luxury brand that offers design, materials and integration. One should not go for it unless is happy with the three of them, or extremely happy with one of those!