I'm talking about a computer display. Why you keep referring to this as "television" simply because it's in the HEC doesn't change anything I've stated thus far. A "computer" can also have a TV tuner.
Say it was 55", would you position it the same way as a 27" Cinema display when connected to a computer?
IOther PC vendors have tried high-res and IPS displays before and they charged a lot for them. We're talking an additional $600 or more for the upgrade feature and they weren't anywhere near as good as what Apple offered last year with the MBP.
That's the difference though. PC manufacturers sell PCs at low margins. Nobody is willing to pay a lot for them because they are junk. Apple can put better features in their premium machines because they own 2/3 of the premium market.
Can they do this with TVs/Home Entertainment Centers? It's a new market. If they can manage to build a 4K 55" and sell it for $1500 with 40% gross margins and manage to sell 15 million units, they could make $9b gross, possibly $6b net.
Not high volume by any means but it could boost yearly profits 10%. I'd say that's the upper bound though and fairly optimistic as it requires them to top Samsung, Sony and LG in volume at that price point.
How much do you think a 4K Apple Thunderbolt Display would be if it's $999 now for 2880x1440?
I think it would have to stay at $999 but this is a 27" display with a known market volume. The yields might affect costs but they can put it in the iMac too.
I'm not even convinced Apple will make an actual HEC display with their branding on it. I think it's far too limiting by itself. My queries and comments were talking about many things converging to set up the next change in HEC displays in a way that never been better for consumers.
The need for more and smaller pixels in an HEC display will need to happen if they want to sell larger TVs because they aren't going to get people to buy larger living rooms.
I don't think people will always want larger TVs in the same way they don't always want bigger cars. I really don't see 60"+ becoming popular and 1080p looks fine on 60" and under.
Say it was 55", would you position it the same way as a 27" Cinema display when connected to a computer?
I'm sure what you mean by "position it the same way." Each display size gets "positioned" a different way depending on the target market.
That's the difference though. PC manufacturers sell PCs at low margins. Nobody is willing to pay a lot for them because they are junk. Apple can put better features in their premium machines because they own 2/3 of the premium market.
If we define premium as being $999 and up I think it's well above 2/3rds. Apple's well deserved reputation does afford them some leeway in entering premium markets, which they tend to do without having premium prices. They don't have low prices, but you're not going to see Apple release some huge 4K HEC display for $35, 000 just so it can say first. They don't tend to enter a market until they can have a premium market low price that atracts a lot of buyers whilst making a decent profit.
Can they do this with TVs/Home Entertainment Centers? It's a new market. If they can manage to build a 4K 55" and sell it for $1500 with 40% gross margins and manage to sell 15 million units, they could make $9b gross, possibly $6b net.
Based on all their moves with displays I think it's completely possible, but my main focus is looking at how many different technologies are progressing to make this happen in a much smoother way than we had with other changes with TVs.
I think it would have to stay at $999 but this is a 27" display with a known market volume. The yields might affect costs but they can put it in the iMac too.
Has any Mac with the appropriate video-out interface not been able to work with an Apple Display? If so, I guess it's not a big deal, but I'm wondering if that wouldn't change until even the MBAs and Mac minis and run it.
I am expecting an Apple Thunderbolt Display refresh shortly that will add features and match the iMac svelte casing design, but I am not expecting it to be 4K.
Note that if they do go 4K with it or the iMac at some point in the future it will be the first time they don't do a 2x move. It will be 1.5x, just like when we moved from 720p to 1080p. I think it will be fine at 164 PPI but I think they'd have to alter Mac OS X a bit to adopt the new PPI. At 1.5x can they scale that well so that things aren't too small, or too large, and the text looks fine?
So you're saying they won't make a TV?
I am not saying they will or won't, just that I can see a path as how they or others can make this work for consumers.
I don't think people will always want larger TVs in the same way they don't always want bigger cars. I really don't see 60"+ becoming popular and 1080p looks fine on 60" and under.
I think they will and I think 60" is just the top of the iceberg.
I'm sure what you mean by "position it the same way." Each display size gets "positioned" a different way depending on the target market.
Doesn't that distinguish between computer use and entertainment use? You seem to be trying to merge computers and TV using the term HEC but you wouldn't use a 55" display with a productive computer nor would you typically use a 27" display as a TV.
I am expecting an Apple Thunderbolt Display refresh shortly that will add features and match the iMac svelte casing design, but I am not expecting it to be 4K.
It actually makes more sense to do the resolution change next year because I think the Displayport 1.2 this year is pass-through so it may not do both video and data, which isn't much use for a Cinema Display. It needs over 17Gbps of bandwidth so Falcon Ridge in 2014.
Note that if they do go 4K with it or the iMac at some point in the future it will be the first time they don't do a 2x move. It will be 1.5x, just like when we moved from 720p to 1080p. I think it will be fine at 164 PPI but I think they'd have to alter Mac OS X a bit to adopt the new PPI. At 1.5x can they scale that well so that things aren't too small, or too large, and the text looks fine?
They wouldn't be scaling by 1.5x if people run it at 1080p, which I suspect many people would. The MBP has a scaling setting that works at 1680 x 1050 so that would be the equivalent for the iMac's current 2560 x 1440.
I know i'm not him, but yes. Get it thin enough to be able to put it anywhere (say 1/2" for the entire device) and we'll start seeing more of them in more places. Get the accuracy of the colors and contrast in brightness acceptable enough and they could even replace a window (granted, you'd want to use a tech that doesn't die over time).
Doesn't that distinguish between computer use and entertainment use?
Who uses a "computer" today without using it for entertainment. Even if work settings employees are watching YouTube videos, reading Twitter and/or Facebook fairly regular. On personal devices this is considerably more rampant. Phones, tablets, notebooks, desktops are all computers that we use for entertainment purposes. So why can't another monitor in the living room be used for these same kinds of entertainment purposes. I think you limit the potential when you call it a TV and think of it as only being able to play TV shows and movies.
There is so much more we can do with that space. Even with home automation we could make a ring at the door bell pop up an indicator on the display and then you can use a PIP video to see who is at the door and then even talk to them via the microphone in the remote that talks to the TV via Bluetooth. Same for phone calls and video calls. Certain keywords in email, Twitter, Facebook, RSS can show pop-up alerts (if you so desire). Pushing a website to the display via Airplay (looks decent enough now with a low-50" 1080p TV but as you get bigger… not so much).
Then you have apps, an SDK, and an App Store. This is will this can really shine. I have plenty of ideas for this space to make it easier. I've never used a system that made it easy for a family to locate their content with ease. I really like my idea for the fingerprint reader tech Apple bought to be put into the remote, note as a security measure (at least not primarily), but as a way that one can pick up the remote, press a button to get it to acknowledge the 'user", and then adjust the UI and content to match their prescribed and auto-saved settings and content. I think having Siri in a BT remote would be great for something like "find me all movies with Tom Cruise in it" or "record all new episodes of Elementary" with incredible ease and then put these in the category based on those criteria.
Get it thin enough to be able to put it anywhere (say 1/2" for the entire device) and we'll start seeing more of them in more places. Get the accuracy of the colors and contrast in brightness acceptable enough and they could even replace a window (granted, you'd want to use a tech that doesn't die over time).
reduce the price, reduce the thickness, and weight, increase the quality of the view (many things here), and make it more useful than being just a TV and this will be the future.
This would probably need something like flexible OLED. You could get the TV rolled up in a cardboard tube. It would be much harder to damage. If you had a small room, it could perhaps curve around the corners. Samsung showed off some curved panel technology:
[VIDEO]
There's a rumour they might use it in the Galaxy Note 3. Apple can use LG's tech though:
What makes me feel the story is the emotional content...ask yourself this: does a person with one eye experience a Scorsese movie, or Schindler's List, or Batman Begins, an an *emotionally* different way? Is he immersed...less? I don't need physiological experiences to understand a story. In fact, they distract. I already know what being punched feels like, what being passed by a car very closely feels like, what falling feels like...I don't need it simulated with 3D....what I need are good writers and good actors.
I love your long response, and I agree with many parts.
However... I have a good understanding of the tendencies of the Asian audience. They are not very good story-listeners. For them, Hollywood movies are like experiences. These experiences include both the action scenes and just regular plain-old scenes. That's because anything American is an experience to them. They want the stimulation, and they want to "be there." For many conservative losers, they don't actually know what being punched feels like and they have never been passed by a car very closely.
So, it's all relative. I'm more of a story-guy, like you.
Personally I think my37" is too big, even after having a 40" for a few months. Yep, a 32" is my preferred size, for the living room I have, and the little time I watch TV.
Personally I think my37" is too big, even after having a 40" for a few months. Yep, a 32" is my preferred size, for the living room I have, and the little time I watch TV.
That suggests the market audience for a 50"+ TV is under 5% (12.5m units per year worldwide, of which Apple would get 1/3 tops = $400m gross per quarter = not much point). That explains why the average selling price of TVs is around $500 - that's the price of a 40" TV. A 1080p 50" TV can be bought for $700-800 and people have said the most they'd be willing to pay for an Apple television is $1000.
Sony is bringing out 4K professional OLED displays as well as their TV line - they already have 1080p models:
They must be able to get the color accurate enough with their OLED technology but I suspect the brightness will still be quite poor. Their 30" is noted as coming 2014.
Given how thin Apple can make their displays now and considering they are 16:9, it would make more sense to go the multi-purpose route. So instead of making a TV aimed at the tiny 50"+ crowd, they just have to add an HDMI port onto the Cinema displays and put the ?TV hardware inside.
Here's a picture of a 32" TV hooked up to a Mac Pro:
Right now, they use the same panels in the Cinema display as the iMac so that helps boost the volumes. Perhaps making the Cinema display suitable for use as a TV would be an option. That's probably too big for an iMac so having it double as a TV increases the sales volume. It seems quite clear that price drives the sales most but as you said, most people just don't go for a big TV. Would someone pay $1000 for a 32" Cinema/TV if it was 4K? Probably not a lot of people as they'd be used to paying $400 for a 32" but it has a $100 ?TV inside and doubles as a computer display and it would be 4K vs 1080p.
I'd like to see them hit $800 with the Cinema Displays and that would help with the TV crowd but it's never going to be a high volume product. This product could easily co-exist with the ?TV though as it's a Cinema Display.
I think people (mainly analysts) have to move away from the idea that Apple can bring out a 4K 55"+ TV for over $1000 and take over 25% of the worldwide TV market. That's just not going to happen.
That suggests the market audience for a 50"+ TV is under 5% (12.5m units per year worldwide, of which Apple would get 1/3 tops = $400m gross per quarter = not much point). That explains why the average selling price of TVs is around $500 - that's the price of a 40" TV. A 1080p 50" TV can be bought for $700-800 and people have said the most they'd be willing to pay for an Apple television is $1000.
Sony is bringing out 4K professional OLED displays as well as their TV line - they already have 1080p models:
They must be able to get the color accurate enough with their OLED technology but I suspect the brightness will still be quite poor. Their 30" is noted as coming 2014.
Given how thin Apple can make their displays now and considering they are 16:9, it would make more sense to go the multi-purpose route. So instead of making a TV aimed at the tiny 50"+ crowd, they just have to add an HDMI port onto the Cinema displays and put the ?TV hardware inside.
Here's a picture of a 32" TV hooked up to a Mac Pro:
Right now, they use the same panels in the Cinema display as the iMac so that helps boost the volumes. Perhaps making the Cinema display suitable for use as a TV would be an option. That's probably too big for an iMac so having it double as a TV increases the sales volume. It seems quite clear that price drives the sales most but as you said, most people just don't go for a big TV. Would someone pay $1000 for a 32" Cinema/TV if it was 4K? Probably not a lot of people as they'd be used to paying $400 for a 32" but it has a $100 ?TV inside and doubles as a computer display and it would be 4K vs 1080p.
I'd like to see them hit $800 with the Cinema Displays and that would help with the TV crowd but it's never going to be a high volume product. This product could easily co-exist with the ?TV though as it's a Cinema Display.
I think people (mainly analysts) have to move away from the idea that Apple can bring out a 4K 55"+ TV for over $1000 and take over 25% of the worldwide TV market. That's just not going to happen.
I think you're missing some keep points: One , the larger sizes show to be increasing overall while the smaller sizes are decreasing. Two, this trend is probably related to price of the sets.
Doesn't that chart show about an 8% drop in 32" sets in about 1.5 years? If you moved that out to cover, say, a decade and lumped sizes together in more general size categories I bet you'd see a considerably different effect showing that sizes have gotten much bigger over the last decade as the technology has allowed for a given price point. There is probably some plateauing as TV is an electronic cost that would now be competing with the PMP, smartphone, tablet and PC in terms of expense, and likely lose out if any debate of what the consumer wanted to replace first, on top of the typical 5 to 7 year trend for TV sets.
On top of that, there is a 13% increase in 1.5 years for the "new sizes" category which is less than helpful since all but the 43” and 48” sizes are already listed on the chart.
Finally, we're not talking about a TV nor a something for today. In all cases it's about extending the computing experience to a larger HEC display for a future release. Imagine going back years and saying that no one could get a 60" TV because they are too expensive. It's an impractical argument. These Sony 4K sets are about twice what I expect is needed for the market and right at the cusp of the small size to make them viable over 1080p in a standard living room setting.
If you moved that out to cover, say, a decade and lumped sizes together in more general size categories I bet you'd see a considerably different effect showing that sizes have gotten much bigger over the last decade as the technology has allowed for a given price point.
People say that about bigger phones though. Displays will always plateau to the best size for the use case. If they can start rolling them up like a projector screen, they'll be easier to move and install. There's a set of projections here that suggest the shift to 40"-50" screens:
Finally, we're not talking about a TV nor a something for today. In all cases it's about extending the computing experience to a larger HEC display for a future release.
I'm still not clear on the distinction between an HEC and a TV. If you mean what I mentioned about using as both a TV and a monitor then yeah but that's not going to work at more than 30-35". If you mean gaming, apps, presentations, that's still a TV because TVs do that now and are called TVs. What specifically distinguishes an HEC from a TV that means it can't be called a TV?
Also, the timeframe always seems to be quite far into the future. This TV rumour started 4-5 years ago and it gets pushed back every year. When will the market for 50"+ TVs become high enough that it's a good idea for Apple to start doing this?
Imagine going back years and saying that no one could get a 60" TV because they are too expensive. It's an impractical argument. These Sony 4K sets are about twice what I expect is needed for the market and right at the cusp of the small size to make them viable over 1080p in a standard living room setting.
It's still not going to work at $2500. You can buy a 50" TV for $750 today.
In a store, they will have a 1080p and a 4K side by side and the salesman will ask 'can you see the difference?' and the customer will say 'yeah, that 4K one costs 3x more, I'll take the 1080p one thanks, it looks fine to me and all my Blu-Rays are 1080p so they aren't going to look any better on a 4K display anyway'.
People say that about bigger phones though. Displays will always plateau to the best size for the use case. If they can start rolling them up like a projector screen, they'll be easier to move and install. There's a set of projections here that suggest the shift to 40"-50" screens:
The numbers are low for the larger displays but 40" models aren't doing too badly. 65"+ they are projecting no change at all.
Smaller display sales are dropping and larger display sales are growing. That is quite clear in your graph. Saying that there is no interest in larger sets because the 65" shows no growth is a poor argument without any consideration as to why the 65" prices between 2012 and 2013.
Also, as I've stated previously, there isn't much benefit people get from those large 1080p sets as the pixels are considerably larger and they are likely placing the set in the exact same spot as a smaller set. Even a 720p set could have more of a Retina effect over a 1080p set if the size change is extreme enough, hence my comments earlier about 4K displays being needed to make a move to larger sets realistic. Your graph backs up my previous statements.
I'm still not clear on the distinction between an HEC and a TV. If you mean what I mentioned about using as both a TV and a monitor then yeah but that's not going to work at more than 30-35". If you mean gaming, apps, presentations, that's still a TV because TVs do that now and are called TVs. What specifically distinguishes an HEC from a TV that means it can't be called a TV?
HEC stands for Home Entertainment Center. It's usually in the living room and comprises of more than just the monitor. It's the Blu-ray player, console(s), cable/sat digiboxes, stereo equipment, etc.
I use that inclusive term for the display that goes in the HEC because simply calling it a TV as one would do when it was in a big wooden box playing first run episodes of I Love Lucy with rabbit ears connected is not doing the future of this space or technology any justice.
When was the last time you actually pulled your television over rabbit ears? With an HD system you should be pulling from HDMi or component, not from the coax in the back that connects to the tuner that connects to the display. At some point they won't even be required to include a television tuner.
Also, the timeframe always seems to be quite far into the future. This TV rumour started 4-5 years ago and it gets pushed back every year. When will the market for 50"+ TVs become high enough that it's a good idea for Apple to start doing this?
It's still not going to work at $2500. You can buy a 50" TV for $750 today.
The Retina iPhone, iPad, and MBPs all seemed unrealistic until there were too many leaks to make it seem like anything other than a sure thing. We have a 2048x1536 in a 9.7" display. There are now other vendors doing the same thing less than a year later.
Lets remember that in 2010 the projected cost of the iPad was $999 and then 2 years later they have this display with 10 hours of battery life and still with the $499 price point. The HTC One has a 1920x1080 display in a 5" phone.
What I cant imagine is why we expect every small display that runs on a battery to have these resolutions that keep nearing 4K — 2800x1800 for 15" MBP v. 3840x2160 for UltraHD — but we think that a display with much bigger pixels (i.e.: cheaper per pixel), the computer UI having come to the HEC years ago, and having already reached the upper limit of "Retina"-quality with current HDTVs in the HEC.
In a store, they will have a 1080p and a 4K side by side and the salesman will ask 'can you see the difference?' and the customer will say 'yeah, that 4K one costs 3x more, I'll take the 1080p one thanks, it looks fine to me and all my Blu-Rays are 1080p so they aren't going to look any better on a 4K display anyway'.
So people with DVD players and standard cable don't buy HDTVs? They don't like how AirPlay looks on an HD set? They don't like how their console games look on an HD set?
It's a poor argument to suggest that the only way we should ever see a 4K display is if all content from Hollywood has been remade to fit it.
Funny, retina displays don't appeal to people who use their computers like that.
In a store, they will have a 1080p and a 480p side by side and the salesman will ask 'can you see the difference?' and the customer will say 'yeah, that 1080p one costs 3x more, I'll take the 480p one thanks, it looks fine to me and all my VHS are 480p so they aren't going to look any better on a 1080p display anyway'.
That's the same argument as a decade ago, and it's a combination of ignorance and stupidity.
I'm the first to say that yes, there absolutely is a limit to the resolution a television NEEDS to be, and that it should also be illegal to try to manufacture and sell (scam) anything beyond that, but 1080p isn't it. No way.
Funny, retina displays don't appeal to people who use their computers like that.
I don't get his comment since the higher pixel density means people can sit farther away and still get the Retina effect, or in the case of a larger display past 50 or so inches means they can finally get the Retina again after losing it when they upgraded their display.
Comments
Say it was 55", would you position it the same way as a 27" Cinema display when connected to a computer?
That's the difference though. PC manufacturers sell PCs at low margins. Nobody is willing to pay a lot for them because they are junk. Apple can put better features in their premium machines because they own 2/3 of the premium market.
Can they do this with TVs/Home Entertainment Centers? It's a new market. If they can manage to build a 4K 55" and sell it for $1500 with 40% gross margins and manage to sell 15 million units, they could make $9b gross, possibly $6b net.
Not high volume by any means but it could boost yearly profits 10%. I'd say that's the upper bound though and fairly optimistic as it requires them to top Samsung, Sony and LG in volume at that price point.
I think it would have to stay at $999 but this is a 27" display with a known market volume. The yields might affect costs but they can put it in the iMac too.
So you're saying they won't make a TV?
I don't think people will always want larger TVs in the same way they don't always want bigger cars. I really don't see 60"+ becoming popular and 1080p looks fine on 60" and under.
I'm sure what you mean by "position it the same way." Each display size gets "positioned" a different way depending on the target market.
If we define premium as being $999 and up I think it's well above 2/3rds. Apple's well deserved reputation does afford them some leeway in entering premium markets, which they tend to do without having premium prices. They don't have low prices, but you're not going to see Apple release some huge 4K HEC display for $35, 000 just so it can say first. They don't tend to enter a market until they can have a premium market low price that atracts a lot of buyers whilst making a decent profit.
Based on all their moves with displays I think it's completely possible, but my main focus is looking at how many different technologies are progressing to make this happen in a much smoother way than we had with other changes with TVs.
Has any Mac with the appropriate video-out interface not been able to work with an Apple Display? If so, I guess it's not a big deal, but I'm wondering if that wouldn't change until even the MBAs and Mac minis and run it.
I am expecting an Apple Thunderbolt Display refresh shortly that will add features and match the iMac svelte casing design, but I am not expecting it to be 4K.
Note that if they do go 4K with it or the iMac at some point in the future it will be the first time they don't do a 2x move. It will be 1.5x, just like when we moved from 720p to 1080p. I think it will be fine at 164 PPI but I think they'd have to alter Mac OS X a bit to adopt the new PPI. At 1.5x can they scale that well so that things aren't too small, or too large, and the text looks fine?
I am not saying they will or won't, just that I can see a path as how they or others can make this work for consumers.
I think they will and I think 60" is just the top of the iceberg.
Doesn't that distinguish between computer use and entertainment use? You seem to be trying to merge computers and TV using the term HEC but you wouldn't use a 55" display with a productive computer nor would you typically use a 27" display as a TV.
It's higher in the US than it is worldwide.
That's a good point. If they brought out 4K Cinema displays in June without updating the Mini, Air and iMac, they wouldn't support it.
It actually makes more sense to do the resolution change next year because I think the Displayport 1.2 this year is pass-through so it may not do both video and data, which isn't much use for a Cinema Display. It needs over 17Gbps of bandwidth so Falcon Ridge in 2014.
They wouldn't be scaling by 1.5x if people run it at 1080p, which I suspect many people would. The MBP has a scaling setting that works at 1680 x 1050 so that would be the equivalent for the iMac's current 2560 x 1440.
So you think things like this will be the norm?
Originally Posted by Marvin
So you think things like this will be the norm?
I know i'm not him, but yes. Get it thin enough to be able to put it anywhere (say 1/2" for the entire device) and we'll start seeing more of them in more places. Get the accuracy of the colors and contrast in brightness acceptable enough and they could even replace a window (granted, you'd want to use a tech that doesn't die over time).
Who uses a "computer" today without using it for entertainment. Even if work settings employees are watching YouTube videos, reading Twitter and/or Facebook fairly regular. On personal devices this is considerably more rampant. Phones, tablets, notebooks, desktops are all computers that we use for entertainment purposes. So why can't another monitor in the living room be used for these same kinds of entertainment purposes. I think you limit the potential when you call it a TV and think of it as only being able to play TV shows and movies.
There is so much more we can do with that space. Even with home automation we could make a ring at the door bell pop up an indicator on the display and then you can use a PIP video to see who is at the door and then even talk to them via the microphone in the remote that talks to the TV via Bluetooth. Same for phone calls and video calls. Certain keywords in email, Twitter, Facebook, RSS can show pop-up alerts (if you so desire). Pushing a website to the display via Airplay (looks decent enough now with a low-50" 1080p TV but as you get bigger… not so much).
Then you have apps, an SDK, and an App Store. This is will this can really shine. I have plenty of ideas for this space to make it easier. I've never used a system that made it easy for a family to locate their content with ease. I really like my idea for the fingerprint reader tech Apple bought to be put into the remote, note as a security measure (at least not primarily), but as a way that one can pick up the remote, press a button to get it to acknowledge the 'user", and then adjust the UI and content to match their prescribed and auto-saved settings and content. I think having Siri in a BT remote would be great for something like "find me all movies with Tom Cruise in it" or "record all new episodes of Elementary" with incredible ease and then put these in the category based on those criteria.
Absolutely! To add to TS's comment, reduce the price, reduce the thickness, and weight, increase the quality of the view (many things here), and make it more useful than being just a TV and this will be the future. Mildred really wants that 4th wall of TV but first we need to get her a first.
This would probably need something like flexible OLED. You could get the TV rolled up in a cardboard tube. It would be much harder to damage. If you had a small room, it could perhaps curve around the corners. Samsung showed off some curved panel technology:
[VIDEO]
There's a rumour they might use it in the Galaxy Note 3. Apple can use LG's tech though:
http://www.oled-info.com/lg-will-start-mass-producing-flexible-oled-panels-end-2013
Once they figure out the quality issues with OLED:
http://www.techradar.com/news/computing/apple/tim-cook-calls-oled-screens-awful-says-8b-paid-out-to-developers-1130859
The colour accuracy probably wouldn't matter much if it was only for use in a TV but maybe they can add some corrective technology.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sol77
What makes me feel the story is the emotional content...ask yourself this: does a person with one eye experience a Scorsese movie, or Schindler's List, or Batman Begins, an an *emotionally* different way? Is he immersed...less? I don't need physiological experiences to understand a story. In fact, they distract. I already know what being punched feels like, what being passed by a car very closely feels like, what falling feels like...I don't need it simulated with 3D....what I need are good writers and good actors.
I love your long response, and I agree with many parts.
However... I have a good understanding of the tendencies of the Asian audience. They are not very good story-listeners. For them, Hollywood movies are like experiences. These experiences include both the action scenes and just regular plain-old scenes. That's because anything American is an experience to them. They want the stimulation, and they want to "be there." For many conservative losers, they don't actually know what being punched feels like and they have never been passed by a car very closely.
So, it's all relative. I'm more of a story-guy, like you.
Originally Posted by SolipsismX
Sony's 55-inch and 65-inch 4K LED TVs available April 21st for $4,999 and $6,999
LG has an 81" out for $17k.
But that's not what most people buy:
Personally I think my37" is too big, even after having a 40" for a few months. Yep, a 32" is my preferred size, for the living room I have, and the little time I watch TV.
Originally Posted by PhilBoogie
But that's not what most people buy:
All I see are small sizes going down and big sizes going up.
People will buy whatever fits in their rooms.
That suggests the market audience for a 50"+ TV is under 5% (12.5m units per year worldwide, of which Apple would get 1/3 tops = $400m gross per quarter = not much point). That explains why the average selling price of TVs is around $500 - that's the price of a 40" TV. A 1080p 50" TV can be bought for $700-800 and people have said the most they'd be willing to pay for an Apple television is $1000.
Sony is bringing out 4K professional OLED displays as well as their TV line - they already have 1080p models:
http://www.engadget.com/2013/04/07/sony-unveils-professional-4k-oled-monitor-prototypes/
They must be able to get the color accurate enough with their OLED technology but I suspect the brightness will still be quite poor. Their 30" is noted as coming 2014.
Given how thin Apple can make their displays now and considering they are 16:9, it would make more sense to go the multi-purpose route. So instead of making a TV aimed at the tiny 50"+ crowd, they just have to add an HDMI port onto the Cinema displays and put the ?TV hardware inside.
Here's a picture of a 32" TV hooked up to a Mac Pro:
Right now, they use the same panels in the Cinema display as the iMac so that helps boost the volumes. Perhaps making the Cinema display suitable for use as a TV would be an option. That's probably too big for an iMac so having it double as a TV increases the sales volume. It seems quite clear that price drives the sales most but as you said, most people just don't go for a big TV. Would someone pay $1000 for a 32" Cinema/TV if it was 4K? Probably not a lot of people as they'd be used to paying $400 for a 32" but it has a $100 ?TV inside and doubles as a computer display and it would be 4K vs 1080p.
I'd like to see them hit $800 with the Cinema Displays and that would help with the TV crowd but it's never going to be a high volume product. This product could easily co-exist with the ?TV though as it's a Cinema Display.
I think people (mainly analysts) have to move away from the idea that Apple can bring out a 4K 55"+ TV for over $1000 and take over 25% of the worldwide TV market. That's just not going to happen.
I think you're missing some keep points: One , the larger sizes show to be increasing overall while the smaller sizes are decreasing. Two, this trend is probably related to price of the sets.
Doesn't that chart show about an 8% drop in 32" sets in about 1.5 years? If you moved that out to cover, say, a decade and lumped sizes together in more general size categories I bet you'd see a considerably different effect showing that sizes have gotten much bigger over the last decade as the technology has allowed for a given price point. There is probably some plateauing as TV is an electronic cost that would now be competing with the PMP, smartphone, tablet and PC in terms of expense, and likely lose out if any debate of what the consumer wanted to replace first, on top of the typical 5 to 7 year trend for TV sets.
On top of that, there is a 13% increase in 1.5 years for the "new sizes" category which is less than helpful since all but the 43” and 48” sizes are already listed on the chart.
Finally, we're not talking about a TV nor a something for today. In all cases it's about extending the computing experience to a larger HEC display for a future release. Imagine going back years and saying that no one could get a 60" TV because they are too expensive. It's an impractical argument. These Sony 4K sets are about twice what I expect is needed for the market and right at the cusp of the small size to make them viable over 1080p in a standard living room setting.
People say that about bigger phones though. Displays will always plateau to the best size for the use case. If they can start rolling them up like a projector screen, they'll be easier to move and install. There's a set of projections here that suggest the shift to 40"-50" screens:
http://www.displaysearchblog.com/2012/12/big-change-in-2013-lcd-tv-panel-supply/
The numbers are low for the larger displays but 40" models aren't doing too badly. 65"+ they are projecting no change at all.
I'm still not clear on the distinction between an HEC and a TV. If you mean what I mentioned about using as both a TV and a monitor then yeah but that's not going to work at more than 30-35". If you mean gaming, apps, presentations, that's still a TV because TVs do that now and are called TVs. What specifically distinguishes an HEC from a TV that means it can't be called a TV?
Also, the timeframe always seems to be quite far into the future. This TV rumour started 4-5 years ago and it gets pushed back every year. When will the market for 50"+ TVs become high enough that it's a good idea for Apple to start doing this?
It's still not going to work at $2500. You can buy a 50" TV for $750 today.
Originally Posted by Marvin
It's still not going to work at $2500. You can buy a 50" TV for $750 today.
The same improvement as 1080 over 480 and for the same price as early large 1080 screens?
Why wouldn't it work?
It won't be a noticeable difference, unlike the move to HD:
http://reviews.cnet.com/8301-33199_7-57366319-221/why-4k-tvs-are-stupid/
http://reviews.cnet.com/8301-33199_7-57566079-221/why-ultra-hd-4k-tvs-are-still-stupid/
4K appeals to people who watch TV like this:
In a store, they will have a 1080p and a 4K side by side and the salesman will ask 'can you see the difference?' and the customer will say 'yeah, that 4K one costs 3x more, I'll take the 1080p one thanks, it looks fine to me and all my Blu-Rays are 1080p so they aren't going to look any better on a 4K display anyway'.
Smaller display sales are dropping and larger display sales are growing. That is quite clear in your graph. Saying that there is no interest in larger sets because the 65" shows no growth is a poor argument without any consideration as to why the 65" prices between 2012 and 2013.
Also, as I've stated previously, there isn't much benefit people get from those large 1080p sets as the pixels are considerably larger and they are likely placing the set in the exact same spot as a smaller set. Even a 720p set could have more of a Retina effect over a 1080p set if the size change is extreme enough, hence my comments earlier about 4K displays being needed to make a move to larger sets realistic. Your graph backs up my previous statements.
HEC stands for Home Entertainment Center. It's usually in the living room and comprises of more than just the monitor. It's the Blu-ray player, console(s), cable/sat digiboxes, stereo equipment, etc.
I use that inclusive term for the display that goes in the HEC because simply calling it a TV as one would do when it was in a big wooden box playing first run episodes of I Love Lucy with rabbit ears connected is not doing the future of this space or technology any justice.
When was the last time you actually pulled your television over rabbit ears? With an HD system you should be pulling from HDMi or component, not from the coax in the back that connects to the tuner that connects to the display. At some point they won't even be required to include a television tuner.
The Retina iPhone, iPad, and MBPs all seemed unrealistic until there were too many leaks to make it seem like anything other than a sure thing. We have a 2048x1536 in a 9.7" display. There are now other vendors doing the same thing less than a year later.
Lets remember that in 2010 the projected cost of the iPad was $999 and then 2 years later they have this display with 10 hours of battery life and still with the $499 price point. The HTC One has a 1920x1080 display in a 5" phone.
What I cant imagine is why we expect every small display that runs on a battery to have these resolutions that keep nearing 4K — 2800x1800 for 15" MBP v. 3840x2160 for UltraHD — but we think that a display with much bigger pixels (i.e.: cheaper per pixel), the computer UI having come to the HEC years ago, and having already reached the upper limit of "Retina"-quality with current HDTVs in the HEC.
Everything says this will happen.
So people with DVD players and standard cable don't buy HDTVs? They don't like how AirPlay looks on an HD set? They don't like how their console games look on an HD set?
It's a poor argument to suggest that the only way we should ever see a 4K display is if all content from Hollywood has been remade to fit it.
Originally Posted by Marvin
4K appeals to people who watch TV like this:
Funny, retina displays don't appeal to people who use their computers like that.
In a store, they will have a 1080p and a 480p side by side and the salesman will ask 'can you see the difference?' and the customer will say 'yeah, that 1080p one costs 3x more, I'll take the 480p one thanks, it looks fine to me and all my VHS are 480p so they aren't going to look any better on a 1080p display anyway'.
That's the same argument as a decade ago, and it's a combination of ignorance and stupidity.
I'm the first to say that yes, there absolutely is a limit to the resolution a television NEEDS to be, and that it should also be illegal to try to manufacture and sell (scam) anything beyond that, but 1080p isn't it. No way.
I don't get his comment since the higher pixel density means people can sit farther away and still get the Retina effect, or in the case of a larger display past 50 or so inches means they can finally get the Retina again after losing it when they upgraded their display.