AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPod + iTunes + AppleTV › Samsung says an Apple television won't beat them in picture quality
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Samsung says an Apple television won't beat them in picture quality - Page 2

post #41 of 164
2/14/12 at 2:03pm
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.
Reply
Reply
post #42 of 164
2/14/12 at 2:08pm
Sounds to me more like somebody is looking over their shoulder in fear.
Reply
Reply
post #43 of 164
2/14/12 at 2:12pm
Samsung has nothing to worry about. This is all speculation, guesswork and fantasy from Apple fanatics. No one would be silly enough to pay the Apple premium for a TV. This is just silly talk and Samsung is playing along for fun of course.
Reply
Reply
post #44 of 164
2/14/12 at 2:13pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by yu119995 View Post

Name one Apple product that isn't "break the bank expensive" relative to its competition.

iPad?

Shooting fish in a barrel....
Reply
Reply
post #45 of 164
2/14/12 at 2:15pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by tomhayes View Post

The Samsung 8000 LCD series is a wonderful TV. Only Sony's XBR HX929 series comes close.

And both pale compared to the Mitsubishi LaserVue. LCD's are LCD's - grey goo, slow response time, crappy contrast...
Reply
Reply
post #46 of 164
2/14/12 at 2:15pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by yu119995 View Post

Name one Apple product that isn't "break the bank expensive" relative to its competition.

the iphone since I only paid $200 w/contract and would have paid that much for a comparable android w/contract.

The iPad, no one has yet to offer a comparable tablet. The Kindle Fire isn't comparable.

The MacBook Air. Other companies are having trouble keeping to prices below that level with comparable specs.
Reply
Reply
post #47 of 164
2/14/12 at 2:17pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Freshmaker View Post

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

Only 5% of the TV market per year is tens of billions of dollars.

I doubt what ever Apple does will have a "better picture", I don't think that's what Apple is aiming to do, especially since they don't own any patents or production capability.

I'd say it's all in the UI and access to certain content.

Stupid is as Samsung does.
Reply
Reply
post #48 of 164
2/14/12 at 2:18pm
Samsung is doing what all of Apple's competitors do - they pick one or two specific points of a product spec and challenge Apple on that point. They're missing the big picture - which is a common problem for lots of big businesses. They have mba's (not MacBook Airs) that think they can boil things down in their matrix to the one or two points that drive people to buy and they're not looking at things that aren't there and how they could capitalize on providing something new and maybe even revolutionary.

The consumer does care about more than screen or image quality - just look at all the bad televisions sold each year - ha! I think, if Apple can tie the tv into the rest of their product and process lineup, they will take lots of market share.
Reply
Reply
post #49 of 164
2/14/12 at 2:20pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by raymondinperth View Post

Another Steve ballmer ?

Right, thought the same thing. And add those two comedians from RIM as well as the CEO of Nokia in 2007!
Reply
Reply
post #50 of 164
2/14/12 at 2:20pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by yu119995 View Post

Name one Apple product that isn't "break the bank expensive" relative to its competition.

How about the Mac Mini for $600?
Reply
Reply
post #51 of 164
2/14/12 at 2:20pm
I've never seen a Samsung display that didn't produce garish images. It's hard to believe Apple couldn't do better.
Reply
Reply
post #52 of 164
2/14/12 at 2:22pm
Nokia thought that their expertise would keep them in the game.

Pride comes before a fall.
Reply
Reply
post #53 of 164
2/14/12 at 2:22pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by gwmac View Post

... I can say that picture quality was my #1 consideration when shopping. ...

What you are forgetting is that "picture quality" is in practice primarily a subjective area.

By the numbers it can easily be demonstrated that LED TVs have poorer picture quality than LCD TVs on average, but in the market, the LED TV is currently King and most people that buy them, buy them for their "picture quality."

Any Apple TV will no doubt have an (objectively) great quality screen but Samsung is completely wrong about this being the most important or essential quality that would make a new TV successful. All TVs (except perhaps budget crap), have excellent picture quality, it's the TV with excellent picture quality that does a bunch of things that no other TV does that will stand out, and this is exactly what Apple is likely to make.
Reply
Reply
post #54 of 164
2/14/12 at 2:23pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by gwmac View Post

But then again recently made TV's don't tend to last that long compared to the old CRT sets that seemed to last forever.

Yes, because they are all crappy products with big screens, and cheap components that fail regularly and cannot be repaired, and usually require atrociously designed remote controls and a degree in reading technical jargon to use. We all know that Apple will not follow this crap product strategy.
Reply
Reply
post #55 of 164
2/14/12 at 2:23pm
Geez, Samsung, get a grip. THE PRODUCT DOESN'T EXIST, YOU IDIOTS.

How pathetic do you have to be to publicly tear down alleged competition from a company not even in your market?!

If TV was really about picture quality, you'd shut up, remove all the crap software from your TVs, and just make them beautiful, dumb screens.

That's what I want out of my TV manufacturer: a dumb screen with ports and gorgeous colors and contrast that turns on immediately instead of waiting MINUTES for its stupid software (that no one will ever use, because they'll have an Apple TV plugged into it) to load.
PhilBoogie
That's Google alright. For a stupid company they sure do dumb things.
Reply
PhilBoogie
That's Google alright. For a stupid company they sure do dumb things.
Reply
post #56 of 164
2/14/12 at 2:25pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by slapppy View Post

Samsung has nothing to worry about. This is all speculation, guesswork and fantasy from Apple fanatics. No one would be silly enough to pay the Apple premium for a TV. This is just silly talk and Samsung is playing along for fun of course.

Aye, they said that about tablets as well, didn't they. If Apple wanted to they could roll these out at cost and decimate the market.

I can't believe that you would try predicting anything after your monumental failure predicting sales figures for Apple.
Reply
Reply
post #57 of 164
2/14/12 at 2:26pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by rbonner View Post

Samsung sounds scared. Why release a comment about a product they have not seen.

Quote:
Originally Posted by StLBluesFan View Post

Because he was interviewed and asked?

But, why was he peeing himself while answering??

Quote:
Originally Posted by StLBluesFan View Post

Nothing that guy said that can really be argued with.

He posed an imagined position for Apple, and then shot it down. Pew! Pew! Pew!
Reply
Reply
post #58 of 164
2/14/12 at 2:27pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Slurpy View Post

Hear that, Apple?

Don't even bother competing. Just stick to what you know best, so you don't make a mockery of yourselves. Remember the catastrophe that was getting into the music player market? That was nothing compared to the massive fuckup of entering the phone market- while everyone mocked your efforts. You should have listened. And the tablet market? What were you thinking, Apple? What a disaster.

This time, I hope Apple listens to such visionaries and industry leaders as Samsung, who obviously know better, in order to avoid these past mistakes. I mean, how can Apple beat 10,000 R&D people? How can they hope to match Samsung's pristine picture quality? I for one am glad Samsung is being so generous as to offer this insightful advice, so Apple can avoid the inevitable train-wreck as their previous misguided efforts to enter industries they have no business entering, and to spare consumers their horrendous failure.

Thank you for this. =)
Reply
Reply
post #59 of 164
2/14/12 at 2:28pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by thataveragejoe View Post

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.

The picture quality, except for fantastic and fantastically expensive OLEDs this summer, is not a huge issue. Apple's screens will be good. Retina Display 50"??? Probably, Samsung's will be better, unless Apple buys up a whole bunch of screens... from Samsung.

But the important thing about TV ISN'T hardware. It's software.
Reply
Reply
post #60 of 164
2/14/12 at 2:31pm
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, I love my sharp set so much more the the 55", even the 32" Samsung led we have can't compare..it's all hype.

Hell we have 3 Samsung 3D tv bolted to the wall at work all of them 55" and they didn't wow me either.
White Nexus 7 8GB
Black & Slate iPhone 5 32GB AT&T
Reply
White Nexus 7 8GB
Black & Slate iPhone 5 32GB AT&T
Reply
post #61 of 164
2/14/12 at 2:31pm
My bet is Apple is waiting for TV competitors to spend a lot of money trying to create a friendly TV, and make other changes. Apple waits, analyzes the market of these new expensive failures, then introduces their own version -- maybe.

Apple's version of bait and switch.
Reply
Reply
post #62 of 164
2/14/12 at 2:33pm
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.
Reply
Reply
post #63 of 164
2/14/12 at 2:34pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by gwmac View Post

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.

"Blank! BLANK! You're not looking at the big picture!"

Reply

"Blank! BLANK! You're not looking at the big picture!"

Reply
post #64 of 164
2/14/12 at 2:35pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Flash_beezy View Post

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.
Reply
Reply
post #65 of 164
2/14/12 at 2:35pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by l008com View Post

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.
Reply
Reply
post #66 of 164
2/14/12 at 2:35pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by yu119995 View Post

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.
Reply
Reply
post #67 of 164
2/14/12 at 2:38pm
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!
Reply
Reply
post #68 of 164
2/14/12 at 2:40pm
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.
Reply
Reply
post #69 of 164
2/14/12 at 2:43pm
Anyone that had already made the decision that an LCD is acceptable has already put image quality low on their list of priorities.

-kpluck
Do you use MagicJack?

If so be advised that when you sign up, the default settings will automatically charge your credit card each year for service renewal. You will not be notified or warned in...

Reply
Do you use MagicJack?

If so be advised that when you sign up, the default settings will automatically charge your credit card each year for service renewal. You will not be notified or warned in...

Reply
post #70 of 164
2/14/12 at 2:45pm
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?

Just wondering....
Reply
Reply
post #71 of 164
2/14/12 at 2:45pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by REC View Post


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.
Reply
Reply
post #72 of 164
2/14/12 at 2:48pm
remember when Apple had cracked the HiFi speaker experience and was going to revolutionize speakers?
Reply
Reply
post #73 of 164
2/14/12 at 2:56pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Apple ][ View Post

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.
Reply
Reply
post #74 of 164
2/14/12 at 2:57pm
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!!!
Reply
Reply
post #75 of 164
2/14/12 at 2:59pm
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.]
Reply
Reply
post #76 of 164
2/14/12 at 2:59pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Swift View Post

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.
Reply
Reply
post #77 of 164
2/14/12 at 3:02pm
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...!!!!!!!
Reply
Reply
post #78 of 164
2/14/12 at 3:06pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by tomhayes View Post

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.
Reply
Reply
post #79 of 164
2/14/12 at 3:13pm
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.

Samsung and Apple are in two very different biz: Samsung is a technology / manufacturing giant. Apple is a product integration / marketing giant.
Reply
Reply
post #80 of 164
2/14/12 at 3:13pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sandyf View Post

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.
Reply
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: iPod + iTunes + AppleTV
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPod + iTunes + AppleTV › Samsung says an Apple television won't beat them in picture quality