I guess they don't bother using any of their superior picture quality know how in their computer monitors because every Samsung monitor I've ever seen has looked like total shit compared to Apple's monitors... or any decent monitor for that matter.
I'm not sure he does. His comment is about picture quality yet Apple is neither a slouch in display quality or inexperienced. They were sourcing and creating display since they started. Apple and NeXT have pioneered this market for PCs many times.
Even the iPhone and iPad are highly rated and I'm not just talking about the pixel density of the iPhone 4 or the long battery life of the IPS display on the iPad, but talking about color accuracy, brightness and other features that make a difference that aren't on spec sheets and customers typically don't even think about. Even their notebooks which still have TN panels are rated well above other companies for comparable machines.
When you compare Apple stripping Mac OS down then rebuilding it back up for the iPhone while using its experience with the iPod to create a phone with no market history of cellular technologies compared to basically putting an AppleTV in a monitor I can't help but think the iPhone was a more difficult accomplishment.
Samsung TV's don't impress me, my parents bought a new 55" Samsung led tv, I went and bought a sharp aquos 40", there's no comparison [snip]
Agree 100%. The Aquos beats just about any and all competition. Samsung is not known for picture quality. Maybe they should fire some of those 10,000 geniuses.
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.
Interesting comment, so one division is busy selling Apple the latest and greatest, the other condemning them.
Name one Apple product that isn't "break the bank expensive" relative to its competition.
iPod
iPhone
iPad
MacMini
iMac
MacBook Air
MacBook Pro
Name one Apple product that is relative to it's competition
Higher end Apple products have features that competitors don't so be sure to include feature by feature confirmation that what you come up with is not sorely lacking compared to the apple item you select.
Yeah of course this nitwit is wrong. It is about content, usability and experience, not lumens or contrast ratio.
Netflix is proof of this. At best they only offer highly compressed 720p video streams. Nowhere near the pristine quality of 1080p bluray. Does it matter? Nope! To most customers what Netflix offers digitally is good enough, very adequate. What they do have is content and lots of it, adding more all the time. Nowadays most of Netflix's business is digital not disc based, the disc is merely a supplement for most of their customers.
Most customers will not be able to tell the difference between a Samsung panel and an Apple branded one (regardless of who made it). Apple's panel will be competitive and good enough for most people. They will trump Samsung on content, usability and experience, areas that Samsung will likely not be able to compete in. Maybe some videophiles will say they see a difference, but this will not be the guiding factor in sales.
He should've said he has 10,000 monkeys throwing rocks at TV screens. How can Apple possibly compete with 10,000 monkeys!
The Apple TV isn't something that is of interest to me personally, as I wouldn't be getting one, but Samsung must really be freaking desperate to be bashing a product that currently does not exist and has never been announced.
So...if Samsung can do that in the TV market (against an unannounced product), why have they not done it in the phone/tablet market yet (againt available products?
Netflix is proof of this. At best they only offer highly compressed 720p video streams. Nowhere near the pristine quality of 1080p bluray.
Of course Netflix quality does not compare to 1080p bluray, and neither does iTunes movie quality, but I find Netflix to have very decent quality for streaming, especially their HD streams if somebody has a fast enough connection.
I was just watching a movie last night on Netflix, and I'd estimate that if I were to download that movie in the same quality as the stream which I was watching, it'd be 2 - 3 Gbs. I'd say that's pretty good quality for a stream.
Of course Netflix quality does not compare to 1080p bluray, and neither does iTunes movie quality, but I find Netflix to have very decent quality for streaming, especially their HD streams if somebody has a fast enough connection.
I was just watching a movie last night on Netflix, and I'd estimate that if I were to download that movie in the same quality as the stream which I was watching, it'd be 2 - 3 Gbs. I'd say that's pretty good quality for a stream.
Here's the issue: Netflix quality IS good enough for YOU. (And most of my friends.)
But it IS low quality, compressed, and looks bad *TO ME*.
Apple's probably going to aim for your market - not for mine. Unless they produce something better than the sum of a middle of the road TV + the functionality of Apple TV in one box then the product probably isn't for me.
If they stream 1080P Bluray quality (40Mbit/s vs. iTunes 4Mbit/s vs Netflix's 5 Mbit/s.)
Let's not forget Doby TruHD and DT-HD MA for audio too.
I'm torn. On the one hand, I do have to admit that Samsung makes some of the best panels in the world. When Samsung TVs get tested not only for image quality and also the electronics, they typically place at or very near the top of the pack. All of the monitors and TVs in my house are Samsung.
So when it comes to what I visually see, image quality is hugely important to me. But as another reader mentioned, it truly is about the "whole package" and that is where Apple will always be very competitive.
So... do I get a Samsung TV + an AppleTV 3 that replicates all of the same functions? Or do I buy an iTV all-in-one device from Apple? Will they even give me the choice? ARGGHH!!! I'm so torn!!!
Yes, yes? We can see from the abject failure of the iTunes store, YouTube, and ever other attempt to provide online access to video that the market values exquisite picture quality above all else. This is hardly surprising, given the previous failure of home video to have any effect on movie theater ticket sales. What fool imagines that anyone would ever watch anything on less than a football field of perfect fetish pixels?
When will these silly companies realize that what people want is not convenience, flexibility, selection, or quality of content, but picture quality? You tell 'em, Sammy? Given that Apple is already known for the pitiful quality of their displays, no doubt you'll mop up the floor with them.
[More than coke, more than greed, more than humiliating their juniors, hoarding possessions, trophy wives, or more houses than they can count, what the corporatocracy loves best is drinking their own Kool-Aid.]
The picture quality, except for fantastic and fantastically expensive OLEDs
OLEDs???? OLEDs look awful, especially from Samsung. Absolutely terrible color accuracy and contrast control. Sure, gum drops look delicious, but people look like aliens.
Some just dont get it do they..?? It is funny, even the sometimes seemingly apple fans sometimes just cant open up their imagination a little and picture something different than what we are using today.. So many comments bout how "my TV is perfectly fine right now" and such... Surely we must know by now that apple doesnt plan on making a TV and saying, Ok, now off you go, enjoy your cable box setup and bluray player... Come on guys...!! something is in the works here.. Content is probably key, but also think iTV-app store, think Siri integration, think hand movement interactions.... Think of that back to the future movie where they go INTO the future and everything is controlled when you walk into the door, lights, TV, information, whatever you want.... The TV is just the beginning for the rest of the living room for apple... this is going to be HUGE.... lets have a little imagination people....!! Im excited...!!!!!!!
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.
Samsung and Apple are in two very different biz: Samsung is a technology / manufacturing giant. Apple is a product integration / marketing giant.
Quite frankly, it's not about the tube (old school). It's about content, access to content and ease of use.
True. Which then begs the question, why is this fabled device a TV and not a box that connects to the TV? Sure, a TV with an Apple logo on it is probably easier to market and would benefit from the halo effect moreso than a tiny, boring box like AppleTV. Is it because Apple thinks it's success in the all-in-one iMac is equivalent to thinking consumers also want an all-in-one TV? I'm not sure it translates (personally, I think it's wasteful to force us to upgrade a perfectly fine monitor just because we want to upgrade our CPUs, but that's another conversation).
I still think if there is going to be a TV with Apple's logo on it, it will simply be the flagship of an Apple TV line-up that will include "box-only" models, which will make up the bulk of the sales. You are correct that it's about content, and to make the deals they will need for content it would help to have a huge audience base to offer the content providers. And I just don't think they'll get the numbers if they don't sell a $100-150 box as a low-price entry point into Apple's latest walled garden.
All that said, picture quality becomes less important. Apple could go for top-notch and expensive, knowing that the low-priced box option is available for the rest of us. Or they could go for just good enough, knowing that the Apple TV garden isn't going to be judged as a TV (beause there are non-TVs in it) but as a source for TV content.
Comments
He has a point
I'm not sure he does. His comment is about picture quality yet Apple is neither a slouch in display quality or inexperienced. They were sourcing and creating display since they started. Apple and NeXT have pioneered this market for PCs many times.
Even the iPhone and iPad are highly rated and I'm not just talking about the pixel density of the iPhone 4 or the long battery life of the IPS display on the iPad, but talking about color accuracy, brightness and other features that make a difference that aren't on spec sheets and customers typically don't even think about. Even their notebooks which still have TN panels are rated well above other companies for comparable machines.
When you compare Apple stripping Mac OS down then rebuilding it back up for the iPhone while using its experience with the iPod to create a phone with no market history of cellular technologies compared to basically putting an AppleTV in a monitor I can't help but think the iPhone was a more difficult accomplishment.
What picture quality?
Samsung TV's don't impress me, my parents bought a new 55" Samsung led tv, I went and bought a sharp aquos 40", there's no comparison [snip]
Agree 100%. The Aquos beats just about any and all competition. Samsung is not known for picture quality. Maybe they should fire some of those 10,000 geniuses.
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.
Interesting comment, so one division is busy selling Apple the latest and greatest, the other condemning them.
Name one Apple product that isn't "break the bank expensive" relative to its competition.
iPod
iPhone
iPad
MacMini
iMac
MacBook Air
MacBook Pro
Name one Apple product that is relative to it's competition
Higher end Apple products have features that competitors don't so be sure to include feature by feature confirmation that what you come up with is not sorely lacking compared to the apple item you select.
Netflix is proof of this. At best they only offer highly compressed 720p video streams. Nowhere near the pristine quality of 1080p bluray. Does it matter? Nope! To most customers what Netflix offers digitally is good enough, very adequate. What they do have is content and lots of it, adding more all the time. Nowadays most of Netflix's business is digital not disc based, the disc is merely a supplement for most of their customers.
Most customers will not be able to tell the difference between a Samsung panel and an Apple branded one (regardless of who made it). Apple's panel will be competitive and good enough for most people. They will trump Samsung on content, usability and experience, areas that Samsung will likely not be able to compete in. Maybe some videophiles will say they see a difference, but this will not be the guiding factor in sales.
He should've said he has 10,000 monkeys throwing rocks at TV screens. How can Apple possibly compete with 10,000 monkeys!
-kpluck
Just wondering....
Netflix is proof of this. At best they only offer highly compressed 720p video streams. Nowhere near the pristine quality of 1080p bluray.
Of course Netflix quality does not compare to 1080p bluray, and neither does iTunes movie quality, but I find Netflix to have very decent quality for streaming, especially their HD streams if somebody has a fast enough connection.
I was just watching a movie last night on Netflix, and I'd estimate that if I were to download that movie in the same quality as the stream which I was watching, it'd be 2 - 3 Gbs. I'd say that's pretty good quality for a stream.
Of course Netflix quality does not compare to 1080p bluray, and neither does iTunes movie quality, but I find Netflix to have very decent quality for streaming, especially their HD streams if somebody has a fast enough connection.
I was just watching a movie last night on Netflix, and I'd estimate that if I were to download that movie in the same quality as the stream which I was watching, it'd be 2 - 3 Gbs. I'd say that's pretty good quality for a stream.
Here's the issue: Netflix quality IS good enough for YOU. (And most of my friends.)
But it IS low quality, compressed, and looks bad *TO ME*.
Apple's probably going to aim for your market - not for mine. Unless they produce something better than the sum of a middle of the road TV + the functionality of Apple TV in one box then the product probably isn't for me.
If they stream 1080P Bluray quality (40Mbit/s vs. iTunes 4Mbit/s vs Netflix's 5 Mbit/s.)
Let's not forget Doby TruHD and DT-HD MA for audio too.
So when it comes to what I visually see, image quality is hugely important to me. But as another reader mentioned, it truly is about the "whole package" and that is where Apple will always be very competitive.
So... do I get a Samsung TV + an AppleTV 3 that replicates all of the same functions? Or do I buy an iTV all-in-one device from Apple? Will they even give me the choice? ARGGHH!!! I'm so torn!!!
When will these silly companies realize that what people want is not convenience, flexibility, selection, or quality of content, but picture quality? You tell 'em, Sammy? Given that Apple is already known for the pitiful quality of their displays, no doubt you'll mop up the floor with them.
[More than coke, more than greed, more than humiliating their juniors, hoarding possessions, trophy wives, or more houses than they can count, what the corporatocracy loves best is drinking their own Kool-Aid.]
The picture quality, except for fantastic and fantastically expensive OLEDs
OLEDs???? OLEDs look awful, especially from Samsung. Absolutely terrible color accuracy and contrast control. Sure, gum drops look delicious, but people look like aliens.
If they stream 1080P Bluray quality (40Mbit/s vs. iTunes 4Mbit/s vs Netflix's 5 Mbit/s.)
Apple doesn't even offer any 1080 movies to download. I kind of doubt that they're going to have such movies streaming anytime soon.
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.
Samsung and Apple are in two very different biz: Samsung is a technology / manufacturing giant. Apple is a product integration / marketing giant.
Quite frankly, it's not about the tube (old school). It's about content, access to content and ease of use.
True. Which then begs the question, why is this fabled device a TV and not a box that connects to the TV? Sure, a TV with an Apple logo on it is probably easier to market and would benefit from the halo effect moreso than a tiny, boring box like AppleTV. Is it because Apple thinks it's success in the all-in-one iMac is equivalent to thinking consumers also want an all-in-one TV? I'm not sure it translates (personally, I think it's wasteful to force us to upgrade a perfectly fine monitor just because we want to upgrade our CPUs, but that's another conversation).
I still think if there is going to be a TV with Apple's logo on it, it will simply be the flagship of an Apple TV line-up that will include "box-only" models, which will make up the bulk of the sales. You are correct that it's about content, and to make the deals they will need for content it would help to have a huge audience base to offer the content providers. And I just don't think they'll get the numbers if they don't sell a $100-150 box as a low-price entry point into Apple's latest walled garden.
All that said, picture quality becomes less important. Apple could go for top-notch and expensive, knowing that the low-priced box option is available for the rest of us. Or they could go for just good enough, knowing that the Apple TV garden isn't going to be judged as a TV (beause there are non-TVs in it) but as a source for TV content.
"We've not seen what they've done but ? there is no way that anyone, new or old, can come along this year or next and beat us on picture quality."
That is a shockingly arrogant comment.