The longevity (relative to time in ownership) is relative to the usage and settings of the TV. Good grief, this is ridiculous. RESEARCH! I can't say it enough. Sorry for the seemingly negative attitude, but maybe this will jar the OP into doing a little more of the "R" word next time they decide to get a new TV. I'm not trying to be mean, it's just unbelievable how unreasonable people are at times, especially when it's something that's been brought to consumers' attention on numerous accounts.
I think if you look at the math in my prior post no one should assume that the op ran his TV for 14 hours a day, that is crazy. 1.5 years is way below the average. Why is everyone assuming that this poster had his TV on all the time and his settings cranked. It is more likely that he was using it below the average amount, then whiting out his display.
I think more than likely this guy got a dud of a bulb, and that sometimes we take a hit on products that don't live up to expectations. Has nothing to do with researching an item. Perhaps he did research the item, and found that the bulb should last longer than 1.5 years. I don't necessarily see a lot of posts or information pointing to bulbs burning out in that amount of time, more likely the inverse is true.
If you calculate the cost of a new bulb in, which on the AVERAGE should last much longer than his first bulb, will be getting a great picture for a fairly low price for years to come.