Why are LCDs more popular than plasma?

LCD's are rapidly catching plasmas, they have some issues with motion but the newer 120Hz technology is correcting that.

All of you are siting brightness, if both TV's were next to each other and they were calibrated correctly, the differences would be subtle.

That said, every TV seller has the contrast/brightness maxed out so they DO appear brighter in stores, this isn't how you should be watching them, but....

LCDs are a better choice for the average household where background lighting is not controlled. When properly calibrated plasmas are superior, but real world people don't calibrate.

We have a Sharp Aquos LC-52D62U LCD in the Den and a Panasonic TH-50PX60U plasma in the bedroom. The two strike me as ever so slightly different from one another in ways that are hard to put into words and which I wouldn't associate with a difference in quality. We probably would have purchased two of the Panasonics (better price) except for the real or percieved plasma burn in factor (Seems like everyone you ask has a different take on this issue but some variation on the "LCD is less prone to burn in than plasma" tends to come across from 13 to 15 or so of every 20 salespeople you talk to.). The Sharp is being used hooked up to a video gaming console among the other usual inputs...

I think Onhwy61 nailed it. LCD's are simply better in most rooms because most LCD's are non-reflective and, because of this, most stores will push the average joe toward LCD because it will work better in the average room. LCD displays are much better than they used to be and the divide between plasma and LCD has diminished greatly, IMHO. I have a Samsung LCD and with a good source (HDTV/HDDVD/Blu-ray), its an excellent display.

I agree with Rossman, it's all about cost. Cheaper generally is more popular than quality. That's why high end audio is such a small segment of society.

Cheers,
John