"It will have the simplest user interface you could imagine," Jobs said, prompting speculation that an Apple-branded television would use Siri, Apple's voice control software featured on the iPhone 4S, as its primary input method.
I'm extremely eager, I haven't had a TV in years, hate it, but if they make something worth my time then maybe. But PLEAAASE let them leave Siri out of there! In any living room with more than one person talking it will be catastrophic.
You'll see the eBook readers (nook, kindle, etc) being offered for free. Yeah, that's right. Free. Maybe bundled with a "buy 10 ebooks, get the reader free" kinda thing
Maybe not this year, but yeah this does seem inevitable.
If you think OLED TV's don't offer a better picture than the best LCD's, you are mistaken. But there are two problems: 1) Price (the upcoming 55" LG is expected to be about $8,000) LG 55" OLED
2) No content to take advantage of the enhanced screen. Not even Blu Ray can show the detail or color range. So without content no real advantage. Similar to the problem 3D Tv's have.
But like everything else, advances are made and production costs will go down eventually. Sumitomo chemical in fact have announced some major breakthrough that is supposed to cut the costs of production dramatically. Sumitomo Breakthrough
Isn't that "OLED" LG TV an LCD with a OLED back light array? So it isn't really OLED vs LCD... it's LED backlight vs OLED backlight.
An LCD with a pure white back light will have a far better colour range than the current LED models.
An OLED back light is one way around this, although there are also alternatives coming to market (like this one) to get a more pure "white" from LED's.
Incorrect. Plasmas are lit on an individual pixel basis, so a single pixel can be turned off.
if that were true, then the letterboxed area of 2.35:1 aspect films would not be immuninated on my plasma, which they are. And as they are on all plasmas. I wish you were right, because then my plasma would have infinite blacks
Quote:
Originally Posted by Firefly7475
Isn't that "OLED" LG TV an LCD with a OLED back light array? So it isn't really OLED vs LCD... it's LED backlight vs OLED backlight.
Nope, that one is and actual OLED screen, which LG will be showing at CES next week.
How is this different from LED backlit screens with localized dimming? With localized dimming, there are multiple discrete LED's which allow different areas of the screen to be lit at different brightness levels at the same time.
Not sure, but it sounds to me like Apple's innovation may be in the thoroughness of the analysis of the picture and the frequency in making adjustments. I get the impression that the current localized dimming may be done in a very generalized and coarse way (both spatially and temporally.) Meanwhile it sounds like Apple proposes to individually analyze each frame of video primarily for color information, but also for function (black content, black bar, black bar with subtitle, etc.) to then determine the best backlighting setting for each of many backlighting LEDs. Each LED is then dynamically adjusted to the optimal brightness for each frame change (30 or 60 times a second, I assume.)
It's hard to figure out how consumers would react even if they were provided with a TV producing an overall superior picture. Fact is that when it comes to TV, there is a rather substantial lack of knowledge among most consumers. There are more than a few HDTVs out there being fed standard-def signals with owners of the view that they are watching HD. I've run into a few folks who bought an HDTV and then thought it ridiculous to be "wasting" money on an HD satellite receiver or cable box, let alone paying for additional HD content. Sadly decades of being subjected to the bad images produced by standard-def TVs have produced a rather substantial group of consumers who are not especially picky, certainly not overly observant, when it comes to TV picture quality.
This has been a problem for TV manufacturers who are now basically selling TVs at a low price point, even with reasonable quality, because consumers are not prepared to pay prices that not so long ago were commonplace for higher-grade Cathode-Ray NTSC sets.
The challenge is not making a TV that produces a better picture, the challenge is convincing consumers in large numbers that the picture is better. It doesn't help that if you check out the sets running in stores like your friendly neighbourhood Wal-Mart the signal being fed into the sets and the calibration of those sets is nothing short of atrocious. Everything in those settings looks horrible and yet this is being presented to consumers as the state of TV image quality. Feed garbage into even a great TV and odds are it's garbage that you'll get as a result.
Where Apple could have an advantage is that if Apple offers its TV only via Apple Stores, those sets can be properly set up in order to demonstrate what a quality product being fed quality source material can offer. It's that sort of attention to detail that sets Apple apart. I certainly find it doubtful that Apple would allow a retailer like Wal-Mart to sell the Apple TV and badly mangle marketing the device by wiping out whatever quality advantages the product might have thanks to garbage-in-garbage-out display methodology.
The truth is that even if Apple produced a TV delivering a picture of comparable quality to the competition, if set up correctly through their retail network, there was a perception of better quality, Apple could, with a little clever marketing charge a premium and still have a popular product. Competitors have given Apple that opportunity by allowing big-box retailers like Wal-Mart to quite simply do a horrendous job of educating the buying public about TVs and certainly demoing them.
+1 - No other post has come close to pointing out the reason why Apple could, and probably will be, successful with an aventure into TVs.
Using the iPhone as an example, the fact has already been established that iPhone users actually USE their devices, many far beyond thier personal tech abilities. That as opposed to the masses of people with Android phones, who treat them as feature phones. This also is the case with Mac OSX vs. Windows.
Imagine a TV set up that you need only a few minutes to understand how to adjust it beyond flipping channels and sound. Something that a child, grandma, or technically challenged SO can use.
That is what Apple is best at bringing to the table, and I wouldn't expect anything less this time around.
LCD suffers from contrast problems and all 'full led' (actually around 500 leds behind 2 million pixels) does often is create an ugly 'halo' around light objects on a dark background. Until we have really full (O)LED at affordable price, plasma is still image quality king. Even the best Sony's (HX92x) can't come close to plasma yet.
All digital TV suffer from difficulties in fighting the sample & hold effect on the human visual system (HVS). Interpolated frames, injected dark frames all help, but the only thing that would really help is a dramatic increase of the number of real frames per second, to at least around 70fps (research by the makers of 2001 A Space Odyssey already found that out in the early 70s, they found an optimum around 68fps if I remember correctly. 4k images at 30fps are far worse than 2k images at 60fps. We're effectively still at the fps standard that was established 70(!) years ago...
All of this is important in a convincing TV display. I do not expect these breakthroughs from Apple, they are user experience people (especially UI) and not image quality, even if their displays as computer displays are amongst the best. I expect simplification of the user interface. For many, that will be nice.
The true revolution for digital content quality is still quite not there. We need a far higher resolution in audio and video. What would be nice is if iTunes could offer SACD-like quality (which comes close to the resolution of vinyl/analog) and special high-end audio equipment to turn that into a truly beautiful sound. And video could be 2k 70fps to start with.
Or they could just do the sensible thing and use plasma. LCDs still aren't a patch on plasmas for black level, colour reproduction, and refresh rates. All LCDs can do that plasmas can't is burn eyes out with stupid amounts of brightness.
Plasma's are dirt cheap at the moment, especially without (useless) 3D.
Comments
"It will have the simplest user interface you could imagine," Jobs said, prompting speculation that an Apple-branded television would use Siri, Apple's voice control software featured on the iPhone 4S, as its primary input method.
I'm extremely eager, I haven't had a TV in years, hate it, but if they make something worth my time then maybe. But PLEAAASE let them leave Siri out of there! In any living room with more than one person talking it will be catastrophic.
You'll see the eBook readers (nook, kindle, etc) being offered for free. Yeah, that's right. Free. Maybe bundled with a "buy 10 ebooks, get the reader free" kinda thing
Maybe not this year, but yeah this does seem inevitable.
If you think OLED TV's don't offer a better picture than the best LCD's, you are mistaken. But there are two problems: 1) Price (the upcoming 55" LG is expected to be about $8,000) LG 55" OLED
2) No content to take advantage of the enhanced screen. Not even Blu Ray can show the detail or color range. So without content no real advantage. Similar to the problem 3D Tv's have.
But like everything else, advances are made and production costs will go down eventually. Sumitomo chemical in fact have announced some major breakthrough that is supposed to cut the costs of production dramatically. Sumitomo Breakthrough
Isn't that "OLED" LG TV an LCD with a OLED back light array? So it isn't really OLED vs LCD... it's LED backlight vs OLED backlight.
An LCD with a pure white back light will have a far better colour range than the current LED models.
An OLED back light is one way around this, although there are also alternatives coming to market (like this one) to get a more pure "white" from LED's.
Incorrect. Plasmas are lit on an individual pixel basis, so a single pixel can be turned off.
if that were true, then the letterboxed area of 2.35:1 aspect films would not be immuninated on my plasma, which they are. And as they are on all plasmas. I wish you were right, because then my plasma would have infinite blacks
Isn't that "OLED" LG TV an LCD with a OLED back light array? So it isn't really OLED vs LCD... it's LED backlight vs OLED backlight.
Nope, that one is and actual OLED screen, which LG will be showing at CES next week.
How is this different from LED backlit screens with localized dimming? With localized dimming, there are multiple discrete LED's which allow different areas of the screen to be lit at different brightness levels at the same time.
Not sure, but it sounds to me like Apple's innovation may be in the thoroughness of the analysis of the picture and the frequency in making adjustments. I get the impression that the current localized dimming may be done in a very generalized and coarse way (both spatially and temporally.) Meanwhile it sounds like Apple proposes to individually analyze each frame of video primarily for color information, but also for function (black content, black bar, black bar with subtitle, etc.) to then determine the best backlighting setting for each of many backlighting LEDs. Each LED is then dynamically adjusted to the optimal brightness for each frame change (30 or 60 times a second, I assume.)
It's hard to figure out how consumers would react even if they were provided with a TV producing an overall superior picture. Fact is that when it comes to TV, there is a rather substantial lack of knowledge among most consumers. There are more than a few HDTVs out there being fed standard-def signals with owners of the view that they are watching HD. I've run into a few folks who bought an HDTV and then thought it ridiculous to be "wasting" money on an HD satellite receiver or cable box, let alone paying for additional HD content. Sadly decades of being subjected to the bad images produced by standard-def TVs have produced a rather substantial group of consumers who are not especially picky, certainly not overly observant, when it comes to TV picture quality.
This has been a problem for TV manufacturers who are now basically selling TVs at a low price point, even with reasonable quality, because consumers are not prepared to pay prices that not so long ago were commonplace for higher-grade Cathode-Ray NTSC sets.
The challenge is not making a TV that produces a better picture, the challenge is convincing consumers in large numbers that the picture is better. It doesn't help that if you check out the sets running in stores like your friendly neighbourhood Wal-Mart the signal being fed into the sets and the calibration of those sets is nothing short of atrocious. Everything in those settings looks horrible and yet this is being presented to consumers as the state of TV image quality. Feed garbage into even a great TV and odds are it's garbage that you'll get as a result.
Where Apple could have an advantage is that if Apple offers its TV only via Apple Stores, those sets can be properly set up in order to demonstrate what a quality product being fed quality source material can offer. It's that sort of attention to detail that sets Apple apart. I certainly find it doubtful that Apple would allow a retailer like Wal-Mart to sell the Apple TV and badly mangle marketing the device by wiping out whatever quality advantages the product might have thanks to garbage-in-garbage-out display methodology.
The truth is that even if Apple produced a TV delivering a picture of comparable quality to the competition, if set up correctly through their retail network, there was a perception of better quality, Apple could, with a little clever marketing charge a premium and still have a popular product. Competitors have given Apple that opportunity by allowing big-box retailers like Wal-Mart to quite simply do a horrendous job of educating the buying public about TVs and certainly demoing them.
+1 - No other post has come close to pointing out the reason why Apple could, and probably will be, successful with an aventure into TVs.
Using the iPhone as an example, the fact has already been established that iPhone users actually USE their devices, many far beyond thier personal tech abilities. That as opposed to the masses of people with Android phones, who treat them as feature phones. This also is the case with Mac OSX vs. Windows.
Imagine a TV set up that you need only a few minutes to understand how to adjust it beyond flipping channels and sound. Something that a child, grandma, or technically challenged SO can use.
That is what Apple is best at bringing to the table, and I wouldn't expect anything less this time around.
LCD suffers from contrast problems and all 'full led' (actually around 500 leds behind 2 million pixels) does often is create an ugly 'halo' around light objects on a dark background. Until we have really full (O)LED at affordable price, plasma is still image quality king. Even the best Sony's (HX92x) can't come close to plasma yet.
All digital TV suffer from difficulties in fighting the sample & hold effect on the human visual system (HVS). Interpolated frames, injected dark frames all help, but the only thing that would really help is a dramatic increase of the number of real frames per second, to at least around 70fps (research by the makers of 2001 A Space Odyssey already found that out in the early 70s, they found an optimum around 68fps if I remember correctly. 4k images at 30fps are far worse than 2k images at 60fps. We're effectively still at the fps standard that was established 70(!) years ago...
All of this is important in a convincing TV display. I do not expect these breakthroughs from Apple, they are user experience people (especially UI) and not image quality, even if their displays as computer displays are amongst the best. I expect simplification of the user interface. For many, that will be nice.
The true revolution for digital content quality is still quite not there. We need a far higher resolution in audio and video. What would be nice is if iTunes could offer SACD-like quality (which comes close to the resolution of vinyl/analog) and special high-end audio equipment to turn that into a truly beautiful sound. And video could be 2k 70fps to start with.
Or they could just do the sensible thing and use plasma. LCDs still aren't a patch on plasmas for black level, colour reproduction, and refresh rates. All LCDs can do that plasmas can't is burn eyes out with stupid amounts of brightness.
Plasma's are dirt cheap at the moment, especially without (useless) 3D.
Poster seen outside CES:
No doubt the un-inovative Samsung will have copied all of of Apple's high tech iP like the rectangle and the rounding of corners.
PS: If the rumoured Apple TV turns out to use a Samsung OLED panel I will laugh so long and hard...