Linked by David Adams on Tue 14th Feb 2012 17:24 UTC
Apple Today Samsung AV product lead Chris Moseley had comments about Apple's rumored entrance into the television marketplace that sound eerily similar to that which Palm CEO Ed Colligan's said a few years back about how Apple's ability to simply walk into this market and figure it out like they had managed to do after years of research.
Order by: Score:
David
Member since:
1997-10-01

I think I'm not totally susceptible to Apple fanboyism, and I'm not sure that Apple would be successful in the TV biz, but this:

"TVs are ultimately about picture quality."

is just laughably naive . TVs are only about picture quality (and they're not) only because the other features of every TV on the market are all uniformly lousy. Someone has a chance to dramatically improve the TV watching experience, and if someone's going to do it, I'd put my money on Apple.

Really the only question about whether Apple would be successful it this: Are they going to follow their iPhone/iPad pricing model (the same or cheaper than anyone else), or the Mac pricing model (ranging from a little more expensive to wildly more expensive). If an Apple TV costs the same as a comparable TV from Samsung, then Samsung is in trouble.

Reply Score: 3

Neolander Member since:
2010-03-08

I agree that this sentence is wrong, but I would rather say TVs are about picture quality AND having lots of future-proof video inputs.

As has been seen many times in the past, it's best to separate concerns in electronic devices which are supposed to last. In this scheme, TVs are about displaying video input and "standard" broadcasts, but the rest is best left to specialized and most of all replaceable external devices.

How many people have bought these expensive TV sets with an integrated VCR recorder only to discover that DVD was the new king a few years after ?

In my opinion, TV manufacturers should focus on making it easier to plug peripherals in. Like, easing the switch between them, automatically detecting when a new device is plugged in, letting users give a name to each...

Edited 2012-02-14 18:54 UTC

Reply Score: 5

David Member since:
1997-10-01

I agree with you. I think what the TV market needs for "future proofness" might be to have a general-purpose computer built in and a relatively open "app store" model that allows 3rd party developers to provide various services and customizations of the user experience. Unfortunately, broadcast TV is still going to be king, so unless Apple can work out some kind of partnership with, for example, a satellite provider to provide the raw feed of broadcast TV, in much the same way that they "dumb piped" AT&T with the iPhone, then their TV strategy is going nowhere.

But it would be cool if they could figure out a way to replace the interchangable set-top box model of today with a software-based ecosystem.

Reply Score: 1

Neolander Member since:
2010-03-08

I wouldn't hold my breath on Apple providing an open anough "app store" model that other actors would do as they please with it.

Some examples of stuff which I wouldn't see Apple allowing :
-Any kind of adult content
-News that do not praise Apple and Apple products
-Anything that resembles or replaces Apple-provided functionality, even if it does it better

But I may be overly negative on those matters.

Edited 2012-02-14 19:02 UTC

Reply Score: 6

malxau Member since:
2005-12-04

I agree that this sentence is wrong, but I would rather say TVs are about picture quality AND having lots of future-proof video inputs.


We'll have to wait and see, but I'd expect Apple to deliver a highly integrated and simple product that drives users into its content at every opportunity. External inputs are a negative for Apple.

How many people have bought these expensive TV sets with an integrated VCR recorder only to discover that DVD was the new king a few years after ?


IMO that's the challenge Apple has to overcome. Historically they sell devices that are replaced every couple of years. Either they can make TVs disposable, or they need to compete in a market where long term support matters, and Apple haven't done well with that in the past. Fortunately a network-based device won't need to be thrown away due to changes in removable media formats.

Reply Score: 2

clasqm Member since:
2010-09-23

The future of "TV" is about having exactly ONE future-proof input.

Wi-Fi.

If Apple builds a "TV", expect all those inputs at the back of the box to be gone. there will be a power jack (unless that goes inductive). Apple is about reducing holes in the box, not multiplying them.

Reply Score: 2

Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

If Apple builds a "TV", expect all those inputs at the back of the box to be gone.


So... No input for my Xbox360?

Fail.

Reply Score: 2

clasqm Member since:
2010-09-23

No input for your Xbox. No input for your Wii. No input for your Blueray player. No input for your Grandpa's Betamax. No input for ANYTHING. Not even a coax cable from your old rooftop antenna will get in there.

Don't people get it? We're talking a giant iPad hanging on the wall (there's a drinking song in there somewhere). Everything you want to see and do streams from iTunes. Including games. The interface is Siri. And once you've subscribed to a service, you'll be able to see it on your iPad too. Maybe even on your iPhone.

They might keep on using the term "TV" for familiarity's sake. But it won't be TV as we've known it.

No, I have no insider knowledge, I'm extrapolating from how I've seen Apple evolve over the last decade. You don't have to like it. But they will sell millions of the things.

Reply Score: 1

0brad0 Member since:
2007-05-05

No input for your Xbox. No input for your Wii. No input for your Blueray player. No input for your Grandpa's Betamax. No input for ANYTHING. Not even a coax cable from your old rooftop antenna will get in there.

Don't people get it? We're talking a giant iPad hanging on the wall (there's a drinking song in there somewhere). Everything you want to see and do streams from iTunes. Including games. The interface is Siri. And once you've subscribed to a service, you'll be able to see it on your iPad too. Maybe even on your iPhone.

They might keep on using the term "TV" for familiarity's sake. But it won't be TV as we've known it.


With something as crappy as that it would be a pretty big fail product.

Reply Score: 2

darknexus Member since:
2008-07-15

"No input for your Xbox. No input for your Wii. No input for your Blueray player. No input for your Grandpa's Betamax. No input for ANYTHING. Not even a coax cable from your old rooftop antenna will get in there.

Don't people get it? We're talking a giant iPad hanging on the wall (there's a drinking song in there somewhere). Everything you want to see and do streams from iTunes. Including games. The interface is Siri. And once you've subscribed to a service, you'll be able to see it on your iPad too. Maybe even on your iPhone.

They might keep on using the term "TV" for familiarity's sake. But it won't be TV as we've known it.


With something as crappy as that it would be a pretty big fail product.
"

Really? That's what everyone said about the iPad too... and the things are still flying off the shelves, despite the fact that they're nothing more than giant iPod Touches. Don't underestimate the shiny factor when it comes to your average consumer sheep.

Reply Score: 2

Neolander Member since:
2010-03-08

I would argue that Wi-Fi is not a future-proof way to transmit video streams in itself. It all depends on which protocol is used over the Wi-Fi connexion.

If a wifi connexion is used to exchange traffic using a proprietary encrypted protocols whose keys remain the property of Apple (think Airplay), then the system is not future proof because it relies on the good will of a single market actor : if Apple go bust or batshit insane, your TV becomes useless unless you are able to break through the protocol's vendor lock-in.

To the contrary, if one uses a protocol controlled by a relatively independent standard organization, supported by most major TV manufacturers, and whose spec is available for a reasonable price under fair, reasonable, and non-discriminatory licensing terms (think DLNA), then an acceptable level of future-proofness may be reached.

(Well, as far as I'm concerned, the ideal situations would be if the spec was also free for non-commercial use, since not everyone has the industrial budget of $10000/yr that DLNA membership costs, but one can always dream...)

Edited 2012-02-15 08:54 UTC

Reply Score: 2

MOS6510 Member since:
2011-05-12

I doubt they would do that.

Even while an Apple TV would replace those (assuming) people would still want to connect a dvd/bluray player or even a vhs recorder.

Also game consoles like the Wii, Playstation and Xbox aren't replaced by an Apple TV, unless it's also a game console which I would find very strange. iOS games, maybe, but they are not in the same league as console games.

Overall I think Apple would cut out a lot of potential customers if they didn't provide the connectivity.

And I'd like to connect my Atari 2600!

Reply Score: 3

0brad0 Member since:
2007-05-05

The future of "TV" is about having exactly ONE future-proof input.

Wi-Fi.

If Apple builds a "TV", expect all those inputs at the back of the box to be gone. there will be a power jack (unless that goes inductive). Apple is about reducing holes in the box, not multiplying them.


Yay! Way to provide a useless product no one wants not to mention relying on WiFi as "future proof" is doing exactly the opposite.

Reply Score: 2

0brad0 Member since:
2007-05-05


Really the only question about whether Apple would be successful it this: Are they going to follow their iPhone/iPad pricing model (the same or cheaper than anyone else), or the Mac pricing model (ranging from a little more expensive to wildly more expensive). If an Apple TV costs the same as a comparable TV from Samsung, then Samsung is in trouble.


As long as Apple tries to shove locked down walled garden crap which is locked down to iTunes and needs to be rooted to be usable... no thanks Apple.

Reply Score: 1

David Member since:
1997-10-01

Oh, you can guarantee that would be the case.

On the other hand, what other TV has an open platform?

Reply Score: 1

0brad0 Member since:
2007-05-05

Oh, you can guarantee that would be the case.

On the other hand, what other TV has an open platform?


That's exactly why I won't pay a $2500+ premium for such a TV. I'd rather get a standalone media player that isn't locked down, can play whatever I want and is more flexible.

Reply Score: 8

Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

The big issue: iTunes is void of content in many countries.

Reply Score: 5

Lennie Member since:
2007-09-22

It depends, IF Apple has a new Steve Jobs which says YES and NO at the right time. Then sure they can get a large marketshare in a new market.

I didn't perticularly like him or anything, but he strong views about what he wanted to see and what he liked and disliked.

I have to admit I've not had a close look at what Apple has been doing lately. Siri is their biggest thing ? Which might still be something Steve was involved in.

So far I've not seen anything new, but they still have time.

Reply Score: 2

Future of TV...
by Bill Shooter of Bul on Tue 14th Feb 2012 19:28 UTC
Bill Shooter of Bul
Member since:
2006-07-14

Apple ( or anyone else making a better Tv, Google* this includes you) has these options:

1) Add support for a cable card, allowing it direct control over the tv channel control.

2) Be locked to the Tv provider, performing all functionality of a cable box, but inside the tv. You know like you buy a cell phone on contract from At&t, you'd but an apple tv on contract with At&t.

3) Big middle finger to current Tv Provider's and negotiate directly with content producers to provide TV over IP. Only want Food Network & the History channel? That will be $10 a month.


* Isn't it a shame that Google only bought Motorola Mobility? Motorola Solutions is the branch that does the cable boxes.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Future of TV...
by aesiamun on Tue 14th Feb 2012 20:28 UTC in reply to "Future of TV..."
aesiamun Member since:
2005-06-29

Are you sure about that? Everything I see in the news says the motorola mobility also did the set top boxes.

Reply Score: 4

RE[2]: Future of TV...
by Bill Shooter of Bul on Tue 14th Feb 2012 21:52 UTC in reply to "RE: Future of TV..."
Bill Shooter of Bul Member since:
2006-07-14

Nope. A brief search, reveals that I'm wrong. I do remember hearing that from one of my Moto friends. But then again, he's an idiot. Lesson learned.

This being the case, For the love of pete's mittens, DO SOMETHING WITH THE SET TOP BOXES GOOGLE. Their feature set sucks more than the tv's feature set, and that's saying something.

Edited 2012-02-14 21:54 UTC

Reply Score: 2

RE: Future of TV...
by clasqm on Thu 16th Feb 2012 06:00 UTC in reply to "Future of TV..."
clasqm Member since:
2010-09-23

3) Big middle finger to current Tv Provider's and negotiate directly with content producers to provide TV over IP. Only want Food Network & the History channel? That will be $10 a month.


You're on the right track, but more fine-grained, I think. Forget channels, they're so 20th century. Subscribe directly to a SHOW for $0.99 a month ...

Reply Score: 2

RE: Future of TV...
by 0brad0 on Fri 17th Feb 2012 01:54 UTC in reply to "Future of TV..."
0brad0 Member since:
2007-05-05


* Isn't it a shame that Google only bought Motorola Mobility? Motorola Solutions is the branch that does the cable boxes.


Wrong. Motorola Mobility Holdings Inc. produces all of Motorola's consumer devices which includes phones, tablets, DSL/cable modems, STBs, and DVRs.

Motorola Solutions Inc. produces Enterprise gear and Government contracted solutions, etc.

Reply Score: 2

Research
by Moredhas on Tue 14th Feb 2012 20:26 UTC
Moredhas
Member since:
2008-04-10

Apple is entering the market with the benefit of a premade mindless drone fanbase, who'd buy an Apple TV even if it were a 17" black and white CRT, and the benefit of a history of every other company's colossal fuckups and successes. I expect they'll do quite well, even if they release a sub-par product at a premium price, as is clearly evidenced by the iPhone.

Reply Score: 7

RE: Research
by sgtrock on Tue 14th Feb 2012 20:45 UTC in reply to "Research"
sgtrock Member since:
2011-05-13

Heck, Apple could repurpose some original Macs as 9" black and white TVs and still get some people to buy them!

Reply Score: 2

RE: Research
by kristoph on Tue 14th Feb 2012 22:51 UTC in reply to "Research"
kristoph Member since:
2006-01-01

Who, in your opinion, does not have a mindless drone fan base?

Because, you know, research (by comScore) has shown that Windows phone owners are better educated then iPhone owners who are, in turn, better educated then Android owners.

So all those educated people, their the 'mindless' ones?

]{

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Research
by Moredhas on Wed 15th Feb 2012 00:40 UTC in reply to "RE: Research"
Moredhas Member since:
2008-04-10

Obvious selection bias is obvious. Android users are more numerous for the affordability of Android devices. Undereducated people will use them. Windows Phone 7 is the current new big thing, favoured by early adopters and business types.

Reply Score: 3

RE[2]: Research
by Lennie on Wed 15th Feb 2012 01:25 UTC in reply to "RE: Research"
Lennie Member since:
2007-09-22

When talking about studies, it turns out that the real problem (for men atleast) is that women think the guys with an iPhone are the men who make the most money.

Which turns out, is completely off base. They make the least amount of money of all the male smartphone owners.

Reply Score: 4

RE[3]: Research
by Neolander on Wed 15th Feb 2012 06:17 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Research"
Neolander Member since:
2010-03-08

Well, who the hell would be interested in a partner who looks at your cellphone before your face anyway ? ;)

(Fears the answer...)

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: Research
by Lennie on Wed 15th Feb 2012 10:33 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Research"
Lennie Member since:
2007-09-22

People automatically get judged on first encounters, that is just normal instinct.

Reply Score: 2

RE[5]: Research
by Neolander on Wed 15th Feb 2012 11:01 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Research"
Neolander Member since:
2010-03-08

True, but some persons give a second look consciously instead of fully trusting their instinct ;)

Reply Score: 1

RE[6]: Research
by Lennie on Wed 15th Feb 2012 11:33 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Research"
Lennie Member since:
2007-09-22

I always hope so, as first impressions isn't my strong point ;-)

Reply Score: 2

RE[5]: Research
by Lennie on Wed 15th Feb 2012 11:18 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Research"
Lennie Member since:
2007-09-22

[wrong parent post ?]

Edited 2012-02-15 11:32 UTC

Reply Score: 2

RE: Research
by David on Wed 15th Feb 2012 00:40 UTC in reply to "Research"
David Member since:
1997-10-01

Which is why the current AppleTV bixes and all of Apple's other 2nd tier products over the years have all sold so well, with all the "mindless drones" running out and buying them [end sarcasm].

By and large, Apple's good products are successful, and its bad products are forgotten. Hey, maybe those dones have minds after all!

Reply Score: 3

RE[2]: Research
by Moredhas on Wed 15th Feb 2012 00:44 UTC in reply to "RE: Research"
Moredhas Member since:
2008-04-10

That anyone at all bought an Apple TV box is testament to the mindless drone market. That they sold poorly gives me a bit of hope for Apple fans, yet.

Reply Score: 4

RE[3]: Research
by galvanash on Wed 15th Feb 2012 05:08 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Research"
galvanash Member since:
2006-01-25

That anyone at all bought an Apple TV box is testament to the mindless drone market.


Apple TVs are $99 (i.e. cheap), tiny, simple, and capable. If all you are interested in is the out-of-box capabilities then I'll grant you most people would do better with a Roku - but its only slightly more expensive and if you are into the iTunes thing it makes some sense (I'm not personally, but some people love iTunes).

Compared to Google TV? I had a Logitech Revue, and if you ignore the recent update to the software Google made it was more suitably used as a small weapon to bash one's self in the head... I'm sure it will be much better with the new software, but I gave up on mine long ago. I paid $250 for it, and in hind sight I could have bought 2 Apple TVs and had change for lunch the next day.

But... If your willing to hack a bit, there is simply nothing else on the market even close to an Apple TV... A jailbroken Apple TV is a good as it gets short of building your own HTPC - and you could buy 3 or 4 of them for what that ends up costing... Just saying, I own three of them and it isn't because I'm a drone - its because nothing else on the market is even comparable...

Edited 2012-02-15 05:12 UTC

Reply Score: 4

RE[3]: Research
by lindkvis on Wed 15th Feb 2012 12:18 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Research"
lindkvis Member since:
2006-11-21

That anyone at all bought an Apple TV box is testament to the mindless drone market. That they sold poorly gives me a bit of hope for Apple fans, yet.


Typical geek arrogance. If you don't like something, or it doesn't have a feature you prefer, then it is worthless and the people buying it are idiots.

The truth is, Apple products are convenient. Especially together with the whole iTunes ecosystem. And if you already have an iDevice and use iTunes for your music purchases, then the current Apple TV may well make sense. It is cheap enough that it certainly fits the impulse buy category.

I bought an iPhone again at my last upgrade. I could have bought an Android and perhaps got a couple of features that I don't particularly need. But I also would have had to change a working music purchasing/syncing setup that I am happy with.

Reply Score: 1

RE[4]: Research
by spiderman on Wed 15th Feb 2012 13:31 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Research"
spiderman Member since:
2008-10-23

That must explain why the iPhone still does not have HDMI output. They want to sell Apple TV to iDevice owners?

Reply Score: 3

Improvements
by acobar on Tue 14th Feb 2012 21:00 UTC
acobar
Member since:
2005-11-15

Fact is TVs can be very improved on the user experience. And it does not need that much thinking and also does not need to end there.

- Sell it with quality sound;
- It must have a quality image too;
- The usual connections;
- Storage must be included;
- Give it an easy interface to buy content (we know where this will lead us);
- Plug your iDevice directly on it through a dock or cable and control all them over a simple remote (play videos and music contents directly from your iDevice) and allow the iDevice to control, by wireless, the whole stuff too;
- iTunes will be there (I actually hate it);
- Profit from hardware sales and from contents sales.

Apple actually has if not all, most of the infrastructure they need (even the DRM to satisfy the content industry), lots of money and lots of iDevices that can be used as an entertainment and communication center, on use. It is all just logic, just integrate and make it simple.

Apple is actually on a very good position to do that. This may start a whole new level of interactivity and uses.

I hope they don't deliver. They became a control freaky and abusive big company and they may grow even bigger.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Improvements
by No it isnt on Tue 14th Feb 2012 21:18 UTC in reply to "Improvements"
No it isnt Member since:
2005-11-14

It won't have quality sound. Sound depends on moving lots of air, which takes up a lot of space, needs a fair amount of power and weighs a lot. Apple won't sacrifice style for sound. Fanboys will believe it sounds great no matter what.

Reply Score: 5

RE[2]: Improvements
by ilovebeer on Wed 15th Feb 2012 17:11 UTC in reply to "RE: Improvements"
ilovebeer Member since:
2011-08-08

It won't have quality sound. Sound depends on moving lots of air, which takes up a lot of space, needs a fair amount of power and weighs a lot. Apple won't sacrifice style for sound. Fanboys will believe it sounds great no matter what.

Sound and sound quality is not about moving lots of air. Sound quality is determined by the drivers ability to accurately reproduce frequencies. And no speaker does magic tricks -- in other words,... crap in, crap out.

To the guy who said tv isn't about picture quality, you're nuts. Even for the Average Joe it's one of the central most important factors. People care more about what the picture looks like than whether or not they can perform google searched from their remote control.

As far as future-proofing.. There's no such thing as future-proofing when it comes to technology. Even if there were, it would be bad for business anyway.

Regarding Apple throwing their hat into the tv arena.. I'm reserving my judgment until there's something to judge.

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: Improvements
by Neolander on Wed 15th Feb 2012 18:41 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Improvements"
Neolander Member since:
2010-03-08

Sound and sound quality is not about moving lots of air. Sound quality is determined by the drivers ability to accurately reproduce frequencies. And no speaker does magic tricks -- in other words,... crap in, crap out.

You have to agree that current speaker designs need to be of a certain size (among other things) to render basses properly, though. Which is one of the reasons why bundled speakers in current laptops, TVs, and cellphones are doomed to suck from a sound quality point of view.

Edited 2012-02-15 18:45 UTC

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: Improvements
by ilovebeer on Wed 15th Feb 2012 20:24 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Improvements"
ilovebeer Member since:
2011-08-08

Sound and sound quality is not about moving lots of air. Sound quality is determined by the drivers ability to accurately reproduce frequencies. And no speaker does magic tricks -- in other words,... crap in, crap out.
You have to agree that current speaker designs need to be of a certain size (among other things) to render basses properly, though. Which is one of the reasons why bundled speakers in current laptops, TVs, and cellphones are doomed to suck from a sound quality point of view.

As a very general comment, yes bigger speakers have typically been needed to produce accurate bass frequencies. That's not a given though as you can easily have higher quality bass response from smaller (rather than larger) sized speakers. There are a few new designs on the horizon that will reduce it much further with better response.

When you're referring to ultra-small speakers, such as those found in cellphones and laptops... Yes, physical size limitation has an impact on the speakers ability to perform accurately. In other words, quality will always be an issue when you've scaled down that far thanks to physics.

Reply Score: 2

RE[5]: Improvements
by Neolander on Thu 16th Feb 2012 08:39 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Improvements"
Neolander Member since:
2010-03-08

As a very general comment, yes bigger speakers have typically been needed to produce accurate bass frequencies. That's not a given though as you can easily have higher quality bass response from smaller (rather than larger) sized speakers. There are a few new designs on the horizon that will reduce it much further with better response.

There have indeed been new speaker designs trying to get around this issue for some time (e.g. Altec's designs that use the desk as a mid-range speaker or subwoofer), but sadly they have yet to reach widespread adoption. Maybe current small speakers are "good enough" for too many customers...

On a merrier note, a friend of mine who studies acoustics told me that researchers have fun generating audible sounds at specific points of space by making two out of phase ultrasound waves interfere. It still remains to be seen whether this approach can work at a low cost and with several moving users, though.

When you're referring to ultra-small speakers, such as those found in cellphones and laptops... Yes, physical size limitation has an impact on the speakers ability to perform accurately. In other words, quality will always be an issue when you've scaled down that far thanks to physics.

Indeed. I wish someone explained me once how headphones and intra-auricular earphones manage to get excellent frequency response with their ridiculously small drivers though : is the problem of small speakers one of higher sound intensities or larger distance between the listener and the emitter ?

Edited 2012-02-16 08:44 UTC

Reply Score: 1

Comment by zima
by zima on Tue 21st Feb 2012 23:59 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Improvements"
zima Member since:
2005-07-06

You have to agree that current speaker designs need to be of a certain size (among other things) to render basses properly, though

Maybe a better place for woofer is in a separate box, like many ~PC speaker sets do for a long time. Maybe integrated with the power supply unit, for "tidiness" - yeah, possible interference would have to be taken care of, but it shouldn't be too hard generally: for one, I don't think modern LED-backlit TVs need any high voltages anymore.
The screens themselves will only get thinner ...TVs seem to be also about size (also thinness) / sexiness? (yeah, Apple could do good)

Either way, as you say in other post, people are generally satisfied (also about so called "HD" http://www.osnews.com/permalink?508052 )

BTW what you mention nearby: maybe it's better to not give the tool of such interference to ~filmmakers - infrasounds (easy to obtain in such setup, even not-quite-on-purpose) tend to work weird on humans, some "bad" mental states would skyrocket, together with ghost apparitions and such ;) (especially considering how TV is an evening thing, when we're tired, with more propensity for brainfarts)
And yeah, I'd also guess the two problems you mention with small headphones - sound energy should fall with ^3 after all (and maybe it's even better for headphones, comparably - after all, they work in a sort of tunnel)

Edited 2012-02-22 00:19 UTC

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Improvements
by zima on Tue 21st Feb 2012 23:57 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Improvements"
zima Member since:
2005-07-06

To the guy who said tv isn't about picture quality, you're nuts. Even for the Average Joe it's one of the central most important factors. People care more about what the picture looks like [...]

Not really, no. Well, sort of. People think they want quality. Or, alternatively, what they think to be quality (image ramped up to ridiculous contrast & saturation - those are the defaults on all ~my TVs of the past 2 decades; or overkill bass and dynamic compression for audio) really isn't one.

Consider: according to research done by Ofcom, non-trivial part of the population mistakenly thinks they have HD, while they don't.

I couldn't quickly find (BBC, I believe...) article about this specific research, but: http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/bbcinternet/2009/06/hd_masters_conferenc...
only 43% of UK consumers knew that they might need an HD set-top box to watch programmes in HD
[...] they mistakenly think that they are already watching HD simply because they've purchased an HD-ready TV

(it's not quite clear from the wording in this one - but yes, it was about those who got HD-ready TV, just connected it to their old signal source, and mistakenly thought they are watching HD)

Generally, the size & "sexiness" (also thinness) of TV seems to play at least as major role ...yup, I could see Apple doing good here.

Also, how people are taken and impressed by "HD" web videos ...which, really, typically offer worse quality & less detail (due to miserable bitrates) than plain DVD.

Or, related, large megapixel numbers of cheap digicams.


As far as future-proofing.. There's no such thing as future-proofing when it comes to technology. Even if there were, it would be bad for business anyway.

There does seem to be such a thing in this field - half century old TVs can generally still receive present transmissions (yes, assuming digital switchover didn't yet happen in given place - but even then, a simple & inexpensive adapter will do the trick...). Or: take a modern LCD TV back in time, to the 1950s - and it would work.

Edited 2012-02-22 00:17 UTC

Reply Score: 2

Comment by Thom_Holwerda
by Thom_Holwerda on Tue 14th Feb 2012 22:50 UTC
Thom_Holwerda
Member since:
2005-06-29

Setting up my recently bought €1200 Sony Bravia.

1) put it down.
2) shove smart card in the TV.
3) press 'on'.
4) wait 2 minutes.
5) watch HDTV.

Terribly, terribly complicated.

Reply Score: 6

RE: Comment by Thom_Holwerda
by kristoph on Tue 14th Feb 2012 23:00 UTC in reply to "Comment by Thom_Holwerda"
kristoph Member since:
2006-01-01

You know, there used to be an argument that said that 'separate' devices (like camera's and phones) were a better choice and would 'win' over integrated devices.

No one is arguing this anymore.

Similarly, the argument that 'smart' TV's are pointless and it's just all about picture quality and 'watching TV' are flawed.

The TV is - as I think Balmer originally said - just another screen and just like your phone/tablet/computer will have apps and shit that will run on it in addition to making the your TV browsing experience less complex.

Now I appreciate in the Netherlands it might be different but in the US we have 100+ channels, VOD from the ISP, Netflix, Hulu, etc.

That's just crying out for a smarter TV which would, for example, figure things out when you said 'play an episode of the simpsons'.


]{

Reply Score: 3

RE[2]: Comment by Thom_Holwerda
by cyrilleberger on Wed 15th Feb 2012 07:11 UTC in reply to "RE: Comment by Thom_Holwerda"
cyrilleberger Member since:
2006-02-01

You know, there used to be an argument that said that 'separate' devices (like camera's and phones) were a better choice and would 'win' over integrated devices.

No one is arguing this anymore.


Curiously the "point and shoot" market (which is in direct competition with phones, as opposed to DSLR) is still going strong, maybe it has to do with picture quality ? I would say phones have replaced camera for being the camera you have always with you, but if you go somewhere with the intent of taking pictures, then people still relies on real camera.

However, if you replace "camera" by "music player", then I would agree. But for phones to replace camera, they will need to have proper lenses.

Reply Score: 3

RE[3]: Comment by Thom_Holwerda
by rhavyn on Wed 15th Feb 2012 19:02 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by Thom_Holwerda"
rhavyn Member since:
2005-07-06

"You know, there used to be an argument that said that 'separate' devices (like camera's and phones) were a better choice and would 'win' over integrated devices.

No one is arguing this anymore.


Curiously the "point and shoot" market (which is in direct competition with phones, as opposed to DSLR) is still going strong, maybe it has to do with picture quality ? I would say phones have replaced camera for being the camera you have always with you, but if you go somewhere with the intent of taking pictures, then people still relies on real camera.

However, if you replace "camera" by "music player", then I would agree. But for phones to replace camera, they will need to have proper lenses.
"

Compact camera sales were way down last year, I've seen estimates (DCWatch in this case) of a 17% year over year decline. DSLR sales are up. So you are correct in saying when someone really wants to take pictures they get a real camera but the camera they pick up isnt a compact.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Comment by Thom_Holwerda
by acobar on Wed 15th Feb 2012 02:45 UTC in reply to "Comment by Thom_Holwerda"
acobar Member since:
2005-11-15

Thom, perhaps you are ignoring the level of interactivity that can be achieved by integrating TV + iDevice (a powerful pocket computer now) + Internet + software from apps stores + contents store, all under a simple interface. You should have some installed base also but guess what, all this are actually already available to Apple.

- Buy content via Internet while you check emails or search for something more on a big screen;
- Talk to friends with image;
- Share music selections;
- Post things on Facebook (argh!);
- Program the movies and shows your want to see in advance;
- A lot more.

I know all these things can be done on your computer + television, but for most people, an integrated system with an intuitive touch controller and a big screen is a killer solution for their needs of communication and entertainment.

Reply Score: 2

Match Made in Heaven
by backdoc on Wed 15th Feb 2012 03:53 UTC
backdoc
Member since:
2006-01-14

This is *EXACTLY* the market that Apple belongs in, the appliance business. They've been turning computers into appliances for years now.

This market is *NOT* about quality displays, it's about home entertainment. Building quality displays is old hat. "Home entertainment" means watching what you want, when you want, where you want -- integrating this with your laptop, phone and tablet is just a part of it.

Okay. This market was made for Apple. I think that is true. To be honest though, I won't be interested in it if I have to jail break it to make it work the way I want or pay another monthly fee.

So, yeah...made for Apple, made for me....we'll see.

Reply Score: 3

RE: Match Made in Heaven
by Ultimatebadass on Wed 15th Feb 2012 20:28 UTC in reply to "Match Made in Heaven"
Ultimatebadass Member since:
2006-01-08

"watching what you want, when you want, where you want"

Enter Apple.

"watching what they allow you, when they allow you, where they allow you"

;)

Reply Score: 3

RE[2]: Match Made in Heaven
by backdoc on Wed 15th Feb 2012 20:31 UTC in reply to "RE: Match Made in Heaven"
backdoc Member since:
2006-01-14

True.

Reply Score: 2

Comment by MOS6510
by MOS6510 on Wed 15th Feb 2012 06:08 UTC
MOS6510
Member since:
2011-05-12

I don't think quality will be an issue for Apple. If they can't make something good themselves they'll just let someone else do it. But what other statement would you expect from Samsung or any other TV maker?

The way we watch TV is changing. In my household we do not often watch something as it's broadcast. My wife watches stuff using the "on demand" feature of our digital TV provider or records it, while I download my series and watch them using an Apple TV. I never watch the news, as an RSS user it's just a small selection of old news for me.

It all comes down to: we watch what we what, when we want with of bit of where we want.

I believe it is becoming old fashioned to keep an eye on the clock and wait until your favorite TV show starts. Even recording it seems a bit retro, it's a little hassle and you need to do it in advance. When someone asks "Did you see that?", you should be able to say "No, but I'm going to" and do so.

Besides we also want to watch more than just TV, we also want to access YouTube or other video services and show pictures to family and visitors. It's not convenient to grab a different device for different content while it's all about watching media on a screen.

The Apple TV does a fine job, but it has no link to real 'n' live TV and it's another box, even though it's pretty small.

What also sucks is that I like to watch NBA basketball, but this is not an option when I'm signed in to the Dutch iTunes store. When I sign in to the US one I can see highlights and stuff, but if I want to see a whole game I need an "NBA pass" which is too expensive for me as I just want to watch a few selected games. One game a week is plenty. I just want to watch a game, without NBA pass hassle or emptying my wallet.

So on my new generation TV/media set I'd like to get rid of country borders. If they can watch something on the other side of the world I also want to do it now and not much later.

Reply Score: 2

How it is done.
by spiderman on Wed 15th Feb 2012 08:20 UTC
spiderman
Member since:
2008-10-23

If Apple and Google want an hint on how it is done, they should look at Free.fr in France. They got the TV thing right:

* Leave the TV alone, it's all about set-top boxes.
* Give it away for free, sell the service.
* It's not just about TV. Make it a home server with NAS, "media center", and stuff.
* Provide the set-top box along with TV service along with internet access, phone, Video on demmand, mobile phone, and all other data related service for less than half the price of any of the other ISP.
* Profit

I believe Free.fr got it right because they are selling better than Apple and Google combined in a market that is 1/5th that of the US.

Reply Score: 3

Reminds me of Balmer...
by krreagan on Wed 15th Feb 2012 14:51 UTC
krreagan
Member since:
2008-04-08

This is strangely familiar... Remember what Balmer said about the iPhone just before it was originally released...

Reply Score: 1

nicolasgoddone
Member since:
2009-04-20

Samsung Electronics is what Apple used to be in its beginnings, a hardware selling company. Though Apple still at large sells hardware, it's the services/software/ecosystems (apart form design, naturally) that helps sustain and drive their hardware sales unlike Samsung.

So when Samsung says that Apple cannot compete in TV one has to consider the context, Apples hardware is the luring bait (nice bait actually) to hook and lock you in to iTunes and iOS, where they control everything, which certainly isn't at all bad for them or for the customers that enjoy such spoon fed and controlled experience.

When I go to buy a HDTV I will not, EVER! settle for an offer that would not allow me to connect my AVR/Consoles/what-not with the latest connectors, apple will source panels and other components from Samsung and other big companies so the hardware market for TV's will only be eroded by a customer base that's willing to play along with an overpriced apple experience

nothing to see here

move along

move along

Reply Score: 2