I see piles of issues with "3D in ten years". For starters, we haven't even fully grasped the ability to shoot genuine 1080p yet. All but the very newest cameras still shoot 1440x1080 anamorphic video instead of true 1920x1080. If the prosumer market can't handle the bandwidth required for a 2D true 1080p, it's not going to be ready for a 3d 1080p experience for some time. Sure, I've seen some prototypes out there, but most of these are actually splitting the image in half as to keep within a respectable bandwidth limit, meaning you're really looking at two 540p frames spliced together. Wait a minute, that's practically SD quality!
Then there are the glasses issues again. I checked the links you offered Hank, and while I have no doubt that someone out there is working on a glasses-free 3D, nobody in the race to pump 3D out by 2010 is even considering that.
Here's the link to Panasonic's site, where a pair of 3D-ready glasses are listed on the page of things you'll need to watch 3D TV. The bottom line is that our human eyes more or less see exactly the same thing, so unless your TV takes up a real amount of space to project the image into, a "virtual theater" if you will, the only way for our eyes to see a 3D image on a 2D surface is to display multiple images and put filters on our eyes. And while the modern 3D glasses are a heck of a lot cooler than the old red and blue ones, they are still a required extra step, and like I said before, I strongly doubt people will be easily convinced to wear special glasses to see 3D TV.
Then there's what the picture will look like to those without the 3D glasses. Nothing is more jarring than trying to watch a 3D image without the glasses. Go to an IMAX show in 3D sometime and take the glasses off. It kinda makes you want to hurl.
Speaking of IMAX, it's a great example of what I see 3DTV as being: a Novelty. IMAX was supposed to be this huge revolution in filmmaking, with quality so great that even on a 5 story tall screen you can see minute details. Well, the quality is spectacular, but to date only a handful of feature films were shot on IMAX, and even then, they were really only shot on IMAX as a novel extra. They knew going into the project that the majority of "Dark Knight" and "Charlie and the Chocolate Factory" moviegoers would prefer to see them in standard cinema. And I see the same going for 3D. Sure it might be a nifty touch for movie night on Fridays, but in the incarnations being discussed in the electronics industry today, I can't see it as becoming the next "standard".
Topping the list is the fact that if HD is still not fully rooted in every home, how will 3D take hold? I mean, I make videos for a living, and the only HDTV in my entire house is the reference monitor in my editing suite. My inlaws, and most of my family (aside from my mother, amusingly enough) all still watch their trusty old SD television sets. And even if you have an HDTV, tons of cable TV channels are still SD-based unless you want to pay a small fortune. Sure, I'm a cheapskate coming from a long line of cheapskates, but my point is that if for a lot of people SD television is still "good enough", what will convince them that 3D is the way to be?
And my last point lies in how long it takes for technology to really become viable. The first High Definition video was being shot in the early 80's. Here we are, 30 years later, and HD is only just now being considered the standard in video. (In some places, SD is still just fine.) John Logie Baird demonstrated the world's first color transmission on July 3, 1928, and it wasn't until the late 1960's when color televisions actually started selling, 40 years later. My point is, this generation of 3D television has only been in development a few years. I would be genuinely surprised if it was standardized in the next decade.
Now, having said that, I'm not saying you're wrong. Heck, I may very well have a 3D television before 2020. But standing right here, I look out, and I see this as being an idea that's still a bit ahead of it's time yet.
