Samsung says an Apple television won't beat them in picture quality

2456789

Comments

  • l008coml008com Posts: 163member
    That's a funny thing to say. Many Apple devices have Samsung panels. So Apple's TV won't be better, it will be identical, picture-quality wise. Then most likely superior otherwise.
  • iandangeriandanger Posts: 23member
    Seems like my iPad and iPhone have nicer screens than their Samsung rivals, so I imagine that Apple could beat them if they wanted to. I'm still not convinced Apple would make a TV, embedding your device (which has a 2 year replacement cycle) into a television (which has a 10-15 year replacement cycle in most households) seems like a recipe for product failure. Apple's business is built on repeat customers who want to have the latest gear (iphone, ipads, ipods) but the television market is much slower. Apple may sell a television, but I would be surprised if its anything more than a hobby, much like the cinema displays (which clearly aren't blockbuster products)
  • williamhwilliamh Posts: 280member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by I am a Zither Zather Zuzz View Post


    Apple customers are the people who used to always have "12:00" blinking on their VCR. And Apple makes Billions. Smart.



    I don't expect that many Apple customers HAVE a VCR anymore.
  • naboozlenaboozle Posts: 213member
    All of the people watching Hulu on their desktops/laptops already proves that ultimate picture quality isn't their overriding consideration. Give them a widescreen that's pretty damn good but gives them the interactivity and content reach they want and they'll be happy campers.
  • williamhwilliamh Posts: 280member
    "We've learned and struggled for a few years here figuring out how to make a decent [TV]," [Mosely] apparently laughed about with [] last Thursday morning. "PC guys are not going to just figure this out. They're not going to just walk in."



    Remember when that Palm CEO made wisecracks like that?

    http://www.engadget.com/2006/11/21/p...hs-off-iphone/



    Yeah, we were all just watching that on our Palm Treos and Palm (what were the new ones called? LOL!)
  • thataveragejoethataveragejoe Posts: 830member
    While what this guy says wreaks of arrogance and shortsightedness on the big picture, he's also essentially correct. Apple doesn't make screens, and generally as of now Samsung makes the best TVs. I think it's more a shot across the bow at LG, Sharp and Sony than Apple directly.



    Picture quality doesn't have to be everything but right now that's the largest factor along with cost for a new TV, and if Apple comes up with something that changes how we perceive the TV, that could easily make up for 'best' screen quality.
  • sandyfsandyf Posts: 42member
    Quite frankly, it's not about the tube (old school). It's about content, access to content and ease of use. Plenty of screens that look really good. And depending on how you tweak them, you can make it look wonderful. Honestly, how many pixels does it take to gain bragging rights? However, I was intrigued with the smart evolution concept.
  • micdugmicdug Posts: 1member
    Really disappointing to hear a product manager say something as foolish as "picture quality is all that matters" given how this has been shown to be wrong time after time.



    The move from CD to MP3 (having substantially lower bit rate) showed consumers choose convenience over quality when it comes to technology goods. People were happy with good enough sound quality if they could take more tunes with them.



    The MP3 market itself was dominated by flash until Apple introduced retrograde technology (Hard Disks!) with the first iPod's. Again an example of "better" technology being trumped by the convenience of all your music in your pocket.



    3d - being pushed by Samsung and others is a massive degradation of screen quality. You can't compare 3D and HD. If quality was so important then Samsung would not push 3D. Actually 3D sucks and shows how little innovation is happening in the TV set manufacturing game - using gimmicks instead of genuine game changers...





    I like Samsung, have two of their sets. But if this is the best their product manager can come up with they are in serious danger of a disruptive event happening in their market. I have spent a couple of days out of my life teaching my parents how to use their TV (Samsung)/Satellite dish, DVD player combo. The whole user experience sucks and is getting MUCH worse with the advent of smart (complex) tv's and this is the fault of people like Chris Moseley who just don't get it.



    Roll on apple and show these people how it's done. When my seventy something year old dad does not need to call me to put the sports channel on I'll know we are going in the right direction.
  • alienzedalienzed Posts: 393member
    What a stupid comment, of course Apple won't beat Samsung, they'll be using Samsung's screens, tying them.
  • kaiosliderkaioslider Posts: 47member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by AppleInsider View Post




    But Moseley at Samsung said he believes that television sets are "ultimately about picture quality." He said additional features, like "how smart they are" can be "great," but they're also a "secondary consideration."



    [ View article on AppleInsider ][/URL]



    Yes, that's right, "how smart they are..." [as in how one interfaces with a device] is a "secondary consideration", which is painfully apparent when one attempts to use pretty much any of the current "smart TV" UIs. It will of course remain secondary until Apple shows them how to do it right, as they did with the iPhone and iPad - or not



    Of course picture quality matters, but what Sammy seems to totally miss the ball on is understanding the majority of the consumer market - ease of use coupled with quality trumps my screen is bigger than your screen every time.



    If Apple has indeed "cracked it", then you'll see Sammy and all the others copying it and turn around and claim it was their idea the whole time and sue Apple for using glass on the television screen, Sammy bought that patent...
  • garibagariba Posts: 9member
    When you buy a Samsung TV or monitor?

    When you can't afford any other, like a Panasonic plasma TV or a NEC monitor...
  • yu119995yu119995 Posts: 26member
    "Simplify the tv" LOL!



    Are current TV's too difficult to use?
  • yu119995yu119995 Posts: 26member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Freshmaker View Post


    That said, my 42" TV is about 5 years old. If they make a nice 55" that isn't break-the-bank expensive, I'll be in line with my wallet ready.



    Name one Apple product that isn't "break the bank expensive" relative to its competition.
  • jpellinojpellino Posts: 561member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Naboozle View Post


    10,000 people in vision R&D?



    Well, maybe that is an advantage. But, Apple has done pretty well with smaller groups, and in some areas with just a single genius designer. We'll see.



    If all a TV can do is display content (with some horrid internet functions grafted on), then picture quality is paramount.



    If Apple does define an interface that adds real value, then a display that is "good enough" may not be such a handicap.



    Yeah, I saw that 10,000 R&D personnel number and thought "What a management nightmare." For TVs? Maybe he meant employees involved in "D&D"?



    When we were an external research site for Apple, I visited what as then the ATG. I was told by our champion I could go in without the usual security rigamarole as long as I promised not to exclaim too loudly when I saw some of what they were doing. It was sage advice. Pretty sure it was a lot less than 10,000 people. QuickTime came out of there. Which begat MPEG-4. Which Samsung is darned happy to have in every one of their video products. Just sayin'
  • yu119995yu119995 Posts: 26member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Iandanger View Post


    Seems like my iPad and iPhone have nicer screens than their Samsung rivals, so I imagine that Apple could beat them if they wanted to. I'm still not convinced Apple would make a TV, embedding your device (which has a 2 year replacement cycle) into a television (which has a 10-15 year replacement cycle in most households) seems like a recipe for product failure. Apple's business is built on repeat customers who want to have the latest gear (iphone, ipads, ipods) but the television market is much slower. Apple may sell a television, but I would be surprised if its anything more than a hobby, much like the cinema displays (which clearly aren't blockbuster products)



    "Seems like my iPad and iPhone have nicer screens than their Samsung rivals,"



    Yeah but they don't, that's the thing.
  • raymondinperthraymondinperth Posts: 120member
    Another Steve ballmer ?
  • macinthe408macinthe408 Posts: 1,050member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Freshmaker View Post


    No, not doomed, but I don't see them becoming the #1 TV manufacturer either.



    Assuming the devices in question will still be called a 'TV'.
  • yu119995yu119995 Posts: 26member
    "3d - being pushed by Samsung and others is a massive degradation of screen quality. You can't compare 3D and HD. If quality was so important then Samsung would not push 3D. Actually 3D sucks and shows how little innovation is happening in the TV set manufacturing game - using gimmicks instead of genuine game changers..."



    Except they're not. If you care to actually do some research you'll see that they're getting ready to launch Super OLED TV's and believe me, the picture quality will be impeccable.
  • tomhayestomhayes Posts: 126member
    The Samsung 8000 LCD series is a wonderful TV. Only Sony's XBR HX929 series comes close.



    As for quality - a Bluray player hooked to either of those will be very hard to beat.



    But since most of the people I know can't really tell the quality of a TV or the programming - a decent Apple monitor with a good panel and content that is better looking than 85% of the Netflix streaming titles quality will be more than enough for them.



    Apple has a good shot at the mid-level TV market - but I don't think they're aiming for the top 1% of picture quality.



    The Apple TV will liekly be better than Insignia/Sigmac or Vizios. Think mid range LGs.



    But I bet Apple will make more money per device - and that's how they'll "win."



    (I'd love a Samsung UN65C8000XF or a Sony XBR-65HX929.)
  • grimereapergrimereaper Posts: 5member
    Not quite sure where Chris Moseley gets the impression Samsung TVs have the best picture quality. I have one of their plasma screens and it is good (I was willing to give up some picture quality for the convenience of having such a thin screen) but it is nowhere near as good as the benchmark Pioneer Kuros of a couple of years ago nor Panasonics recent VT series plasmas. I will give him that their upscalers are miles ahead of the competition, but for the best quality native HD pics, I wouldn't describe any of their sets as the best picture. And why is that at CES they were pushing their Smart TV concept much more than picture quality? Now if apple has managed to take a jump ahead and were about to launch an OLED screen, then I think samsung et al may have something to really worry about, as my Sony OLED at work is stunning. Putting that picture technology together with the sort of clever but simple interface apple are so good at, then I'd be tempted, very tempted.
Sign In or Register to comment.