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.
Thread beginning with comment 507173
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
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 Parent Score: 5

RE[2]: Improvements
by ilovebeer on Wed 15th Feb 2012 17:11 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 Parent Score: 1

RE[3]: Improvements
by Neolander on Wed 15th Feb 2012 18:41 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 Parent Score: 2

RE[3]: Improvements
by zima on Tue 21st Feb 2012 23:57 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 Parent Score: 2