While I am not saying that the numbers are wrong, I did find them very interesting.
In my home I have four HDTVs and only one is over 22". There are many places where I can see the typical family having/wanting TVs that they wouldn't want being large. Which, makes me wonder if most people have already fulfilled their small TV needs and thus the reason that only about 10-15% of televisions sold are below 30".
The iSupply numbers certainly line up with my feelings about television. 40-49" is the right size for most living rooms.
I don't see the point in having a small television. If the screen is under 22" you might as well be watching on a computer monitor or iPad.
I cannot imagine having 4 TVs in my house. There's barely enough decent content to justify having cable at all.
I will not buy a "smart" TV with Android or iOS inside. Give me a high quality picture and some inputs so I can choose a source of content for myself.
2012 is the real battle for the living room. Apple will release iTV and like the original ipad, the price will surprise. I'm calling $499 for a 50in w/Siri. Android/Amazon $199, with ads + smaller screen. What's the component cost of a 42in flat screen vs. you doing all your shopping through my store?
2012 is the real battle for the living room. Apple will release iTV and like the original ipad, the price will surprise. I'm calling $499 for a 50in w/Siri. Android/Amazon $199, with ads + smaller screen. What's the component cost of a 42in flat screen vs. you doing all your shopping through my store?
Kind of surprise the article did not point out the fact that Google bought Motorola which does Set Top Boxes and Motorola is one of the largest STB manufactures on the world. They are the largest in the US, it would be easy to assume that Google will have their hands in what the Motorola will be doing in the future. So you could see google software running STB and guess what you will get those cute little google ads showing up on your TV like you see in youtube.
We will never escape watch TV without ads again.
Okay other brought this subject up, and keep in mind Eric said Google TV will be on your TV, that could mean any number of things so it does not mean it will be actually in the TV itself.
Well to be fair, I buy Panasonic Professional Plasma displays. So I am not too worried as those aren't going anywhere but for general consumers, this could be a big negative.
Tell me about it. I try to give Ggle as little info as possible. The last thing I want is a TV powered by their spyware.
Okay other brought this subject up, and keep in mind Eric said Google TV will be on your TV, that could mean any number of things so it does not mean it will be actually in the TV itself.
You are completely wrong with your assumptions. According to iSuppli Research, 39.5% of all TV purchases in Q1 of 2011 were in the 40" - 49" range. 25.5% of all purchases were in the 30"-39" range, and 22.7% of purchases were in the 50" and larger range. This accounts for roughly 88% of all purchases, and the average price paid was $1,022 for LCD's and $2,373 for 3D LCD's.
AND...
what were total sales of TVs in Q1/2011?
did those Q1/2011 sales exceed the total number of TVs ever sold? Put another way, what % do these sales represent in terms of overall TV ownership?
Since I (and most people who bother to stay informed) knew about those things, how is that less than we assumed?
Most people don't delve beyond topic titles. Hence why most people probably still think Schmidt said "I stayed on Apple board until I couldn't stand it" and currently think Schmidt said "in 6 months developers WILL choose Android over iOS whether they like it or not."
What can be gathered from all forums of all kinds is that a majority of the readership doesn't really read or read beyond a particular topic.
i want to compare these "smart tv's" to the one-piece stereo's of the 80's.
anyone who really cared about what they were listening to got a component system with separate amp, tuner, cd player, turntable and [shudder] cassette deck, hi-fi vcr, etc.
STILL if anyone can create a quality all-in-one, it's Apple. just look at the original Mac!
Far-fetched but not implausible. The majority of so-called "smart TVs" have really crappy UI that can't come close to what putting Google TV on them would offer.
They can try and compete with whatever Apple comes out with. But if they can't directly, Google TV might at least save them from extinction. After all, Android did save several OEMs from being steamrolled by Apple.
i want to compare these "smart tv's" to the one-piece stereo's of the 80's.
anyone who really cared about what they were listening to got a component system with separate amp, tuner, cd player, turntable and [shudder] cassette deck, hi-fi vcr, etc.
STILL if anyone can create a quality all-in-one, it's Apple. just look at the original Mac!
Am I the only one who sees the potential of an AppleTV A/V receiver amp with an outgoing HDMI (and power input) for any HDTV you want, an multiple HDMI inputs for your cable/sat, DVR/TiVo, game console, Blu-ray, et al. that would make your TV just a dumb monitor with the iOS AppleTV UI being the main interface and ring able to overlay on any of the other components you have plugged in without having to switch inputs to get to it. Your whole home is connected to an always-on AppleTV UI. TV is set to an input once then ignored. All device switching happens from the AppleTV HW or UI as needed, but it's always the AppleTV running the show. This is cheaper than a TV, gives you more flexibility as you can connect to any TV or projector with HDMI input, and Apple get a healthy profit while controlling this segment of the market.
Google's problem is that you can say "we are doing awesome things" almost with impunity. After all, if you're doing anything at all, you can claim that in your view, it's awesome, so you're not lying. In this case, though, Schmidt made a very specific claim:
.....
When you make a specific claim like that, you're opening yourself up for liability. If by summer of 2012, the majority of TVs in stores do NOT have Google TV, he's just opened themselves up for massive shareholder lawsuits. And if their share price drops between now and then, it could cost them billions.
One of the first things you learn as a CEO is that you NEVER, EVER, EVER make quantitative, factual claims about your future business. Schmidt just violated that major rule.
Wow. Are you nuts? Saying something at a conference does not open you up to shareholder lawsuits. Nothing he said is legally binding. Had his words come in a conference call or an SEC filing that would be another matter.
You can hate Google. But can you stop being irrational and absurd in your analysis? If what you are suggesting is true, then every CEO who ever missed numbers made in a passing comment would be liable for class-action lawsuit. This is clearly not true.
Or if you're going to make such ridiculously broad assertions about executive liability how about adding the disclaimer "IANAL" to your posts?
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta
I'm with you. If every major brand has Google TV except one, I'll buy the one that doesn't have Google TV. And if EVERY suitable TV has GoogleTV, i'll put off buying a TV as long as possible. My current TVs will continue to work for a long time. The LAST thing I want is Google invading my living room.
You're just being paranoid. Not every TV is going to have Google TV. Clearly, TV makers will use the feature to upsell TVs. There will be your regular 40 inch TV and your 40 inch Google TV that will probably cost $100 more. So you'll have the option of buying regular TVs.
The regular AI "Google is evil" paranoia aside, this might actually be a good thing for the average consumer. Smart TVs these days are a confusing mess. Settling on one standard across the board will foster a common understanding of the UI across the board. It'll also make Smart TV app development so much easier than what exists today. And OEMs will have to focus more on hardware or on selling ancillary hardware (home theatre systems, etc.). This is good for the average consumer.
I'm interested in seeing what Apple does for content. To me all this talk of UI is pointless. I may not know how to use every feature of my TV or cable box, but I know enough to channel surf. And that's enough to prevent me from shelling out thousands for an Apple branded TV in the future. So there better be something more than just UI. It's gotta something that changes the way I consume TV content.
Wow. Are you nuts? Saying something at a conference does not open you up to shareholder lawsuits. Nothing he said is legally binding. Had his words come in a conference call or an SEC filing that would be another matter.
You are absolutely, 100% wrong. Any incorrect public statement (or failure to make a public statement of a material fact) which is material can get you in trouble. And speaking at a conference is public.
The SEC provides for civil and criminal penalties for corporate fraud. In September 2002 the SEC filed fraud charges against Dennis Kozlowski, former CEO of Tyco International, for failing to disclose millions of dollars of corporate loans.
Not only was his transgression not in a conference call or SEC filing as you've claimed, but he didn't make any public statement at all.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jetz
You can hate Google. But can you stop being irrational and absurd in your analysis? If what you are suggesting is true, then every CEO who ever missed numbers made in a passing comment would be liable for class-action lawsuit. This is clearly not true.
Not at all. When CEOs publish guidance, there is always a statement that the information is forward looking and is based on current belief but may change. Schmidt made no such statement.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jetz
Or if you're going to make such ridiculously broad assertions about executive liability how about adding the disclaimer "IANAL" to your posts?
I don't need to. As a past corporate officer, I've been well trained in legal requirements. Furthermore, I am able to back my assertions (see above) while you are apparently incapable of anything but whining and bizarre accusations.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jetz
You're just being paranoid. Not every TV is going to have Google TV. Clearly, TV makers will use the feature to upsell TVs. There will be your regular 40 inch TV and your 40 inch Google TV that will probably cost $100 more. So you'll have the option of buying regular TVs.
First, Schmidt says that the majority will have Google inside - and that the number will continue to grow.
More importantly, I never said it was going to happen (personally, I think Schmidt is absolutely wrong). I said what I would do IF it happens. Do you need me to look up a definition of 'if' for you?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jetz
The regular AI "Google is evil" paranoia aside, this might actually be a good thing for the average consumer. Smart TVs these days are a confusing mess. Settling on one standard across the board will foster a common understanding of the UI across the board. It'll also make Smart TV app development so much easier than what exists today. And OEMs will have to focus more on hardware or on selling ancillary hardware (home theatre systems, etc.). This is good for the average consumer.
That's a tautology (look it up). Obviously, if the TVs get better, it's better for consumers. However:
1. I don't believe there's any sign that Google TV is any better than the alternatives.
2. I don't think you can ignore the fact that Google's entire business plan is based on learning everything it can about you and selling that information to the highest bidder. Because of that, even if the UI were better (which isn't likely, considering what we've seen from Google so far), the downside might mean that the entire package is NOT better for the consumer.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jetz
I'm interested in seeing what Apple does for content. To me all this talk of UI is pointless. I may not know how to use every feature of my TV or cable box, but I know enough to channel surf. And that's enough to prevent me from shelling out thousands for an Apple branded TV in the future. So there better be something more than just UI. It's gotta something that changes the way I consume TV content.
Nice one. You have no idea of what an Apple branded TV would look like. You have no idea of any features or benefits. You have no idea what it would cost. But you already know you won't buy one. And you have the gall to call me irrational?
The fact is that I know what a Google TV would look like. There are examples out there. And I know Google's privacy policies and what they do with my data. I've made a reasoned, rational decision not to buy their product. You, OTOH, have made an irrational decision based on a non-product and no information - solely because you hate Apple. I'm glad you proved what a bigot you are.
I'm surprised nobody has brought up the Motorola acquisition here. Motorola makes a good portion of all cable boxes in the US (haven't found a number), and this along with Google's partnerships with many of the major TV manufacturers (the same as their phone manufacturers) makes this statement seem pretty plausible. I don't know how Schmidt thinks they'll have market share quite so quickly, but all of the pieces are in place.
Oh crap. You are right. All the major cable cos are rolling out new boxes this year and near future. special deals! New upgrades! Up to four boxes that record up to four shows simultaneously! I'm sure google will be right there on the cable box, silently tabulating everything you watch. We have ONE cable provider in our neighborhood, why I do not know. Across the street in the other neighborhoods they have four.
I've been thinking about dropping cable altogether, this will hasten my decision. Hell, we just got a new cable box, but not one of the new ones the installers said were coming next year. Every box I've ever seen was a Motorola. The Motorola boxes we have are junk. Ah, well, as somebody pointed out, there's not much on tv anyways. I do hate loathe and despise my cable provider.
Am I the only one who sees the potential of an AppleTV A/V receiver amp with an outgoing HDMI (and power input) for any HDTV you want, an multiple HDMI inputs for your cable/sat, DVR/TiVo, game console, Blu-ray, et al. that would make your TV just a dumb monitor with the iOS AppleTV UI being the main interface and ring able to overlay on any of the other components you have plugged in without having to switch inputs to get to it. Your whole home is connected to an always-on AppleTV UI. TV is set to an input once then ignored. All device switching happens from the AppleTV HW or UI as needed, but it's always the AppleTV running the show. This is cheaper than a TV, gives you more flexibility as you can connect to any TV or projector with HDMI input, and Apple get a healthy profit while controlling this segment of the market.
Nope, about a month ago in one of the Apple TV threads I was speculating nearly the same thing. I was wondering if they could gather the remote codes for each device and consolidate them onto a single apple remote, thus getting rid of the basket 'o remotes. Wouldn't be hard to get the codes to the devices, but getting them on some kind of remote interface would be really interesting. Then, as you say, ATV could be the master component. I hope they go this route. I think they might be being delayed by whatever it is google is up to and trying to stay abreast of that. Very plausible.
Comments
While I am not saying that the numbers are wrong, I did find them very interesting.
In my home I have four HDTVs and only one is over 22". There are many places where I can see the typical family having/wanting TVs that they wouldn't want being large. Which, makes me wonder if most people have already fulfilled their small TV needs and thus the reason that only about 10-15% of televisions sold are below 30".
The iSupply numbers certainly line up with my feelings about television. 40-49" is the right size for most living rooms.
I don't see the point in having a small television. If the screen is under 22" you might as well be watching on a computer monitor or iPad.
I cannot imagine having 4 TVs in my house. There's barely enough decent content to justify having cable at all.
I will not buy a "smart" TV with Android or iOS inside. Give me a high quality picture and some inputs so I can choose a source of content for myself.
Since I (and most people who bother to stay informed) knew about those things, how is that less than we assumed?
You are not we. You are one of them.
I'm calling $499 for a 50in w/Siri.
Sold.
Assuming it has HDMI inputs and SPDIF outputs.
2012 is the real battle for the living room. Apple will release iTV and like the original ipad, the price will surprise. I'm calling $499 for a 50in w/Siri. Android/Amazon $199, with ads + smaller screen. What's the component cost of a 42in flat screen vs. you doing all your shopping through my store?
$500 for a high-end 50" TV Set? Keep dreaming.
We will never escape watch TV without ads again.
Okay other brought this subject up, and keep in mind Eric said Google TV will be on your TV, that could mean any number of things so it does not mean it will be actually in the TV itself.
Well to be fair, I buy Panasonic Professional Plasma displays. So I am not too worried as those aren't going anywhere but for general consumers, this could be a big negative.
Tell me about it. I try to give G
Okay other brought this subject up, and keep in mind Eric said Google TV will be on your TV, that could mean any number of things so it does not mean it will be actually in the TV itself.
Oh, I see, there's going to be a G
You are completely wrong with your assumptions. According to iSuppli Research, 39.5% of all TV purchases in Q1 of 2011 were in the 40" - 49" range. 25.5% of all purchases were in the 30"-39" range, and 22.7% of purchases were in the 50" and larger range. This accounts for roughly 88% of all purchases, and the average price paid was $1,022 for LCD's and $2,373 for 3D LCD's.
AND...
what were total sales of TVs in Q1/2011?
did those Q1/2011 sales exceed the total number of TVs ever sold? Put another way, what % do these sales represent in terms of overall TV ownership?
We could play the numbers game all day long.
Since I (and most people who bother to stay informed) knew about those things, how is that less than we assumed?
Most people don't delve beyond topic titles. Hence why most people probably still think Schmidt said "I stayed on Apple board until I couldn't stand it" and currently think Schmidt said "in 6 months developers WILL choose Android over iOS whether they like it or not."
What can be gathered from all forums of all kinds is that a majority of the readership doesn't really read or read beyond a particular topic.
anyone who really cared about what they were listening to got a component system with separate amp, tuner, cd player, turntable and [shudder] cassette deck, hi-fi vcr, etc.
STILL if anyone can create a quality all-in-one, it's Apple. just look at the original Mac!
They can try and compete with whatever Apple comes out with. But if they can't directly, Google TV might at least save them from extinction. After all, Android did save several OEMs from being steamrolled by Apple.
i want to compare these "smart tv's" to the one-piece stereo's of the 80's.
anyone who really cared about what they were listening to got a component system with separate amp, tuner, cd player, turntable and [shudder] cassette deck, hi-fi vcr, etc.
STILL if anyone can create a quality all-in-one, it's Apple. just look at the original Mac!
Am I the only one who sees the potential of an AppleTV A/V receiver amp with an outgoing HDMI (and power input) for any HDTV you want, an multiple HDMI inputs for your cable/sat, DVR/TiVo, game console, Blu-ray, et al. that would make your TV just a dumb monitor with the iOS AppleTV UI being the main interface and ring able to overlay on any of the other components you have plugged in without having to switch inputs to get to it. Your whole home is connected to an always-on AppleTV UI. TV is set to an input once then ignored. All device switching happens from the AppleTV HW or UI as needed, but it's always the AppleTV running the show. This is cheaper than a TV, gives you more flexibility as you can connect to any TV or projector with HDMI input, and Apple get a healthy profit while controlling this segment of the market.
Hmmm.... When says, the majority ?in stores,? does he means the TVs left sitting in stores because nobody is taking them home?
As Google would say ? "+1"!
Google's problem is that you can say "we are doing awesome things" almost with impunity. After all, if you're doing anything at all, you can claim that in your view, it's awesome, so you're not lying. In this case, though, Schmidt made a very specific claim:
.....
When you make a specific claim like that, you're opening yourself up for liability. If by summer of 2012, the majority of TVs in stores do NOT have Google TV, he's just opened themselves up for massive shareholder lawsuits. And if their share price drops between now and then, it could cost them billions.
One of the first things you learn as a CEO is that you NEVER, EVER, EVER make quantitative, factual claims about your future business. Schmidt just violated that major rule.
Wow. Are you nuts? Saying something at a conference does not open you up to shareholder lawsuits. Nothing he said is legally binding. Had his words come in a conference call or an SEC filing that would be another matter.
You can hate Google. But can you stop being irrational and absurd in your analysis? If what you are suggesting is true, then every CEO who ever missed numbers made in a passing comment would be liable for class-action lawsuit. This is clearly not true.
Or if you're going to make such ridiculously broad assertions about executive liability how about adding the disclaimer "IANAL" to your posts?
I'm with you. If every major brand has Google TV except one, I'll buy the one that doesn't have Google TV. And if EVERY suitable TV has GoogleTV, i'll put off buying a TV as long as possible. My current TVs will continue to work for a long time. The LAST thing I want is Google invading my living room.
You're just being paranoid. Not every TV is going to have Google TV. Clearly, TV makers will use the feature to upsell TVs. There will be your regular 40 inch TV and your 40 inch Google TV that will probably cost $100 more. So you'll have the option of buying regular TVs.
The regular AI "Google is evil" paranoia aside, this might actually be a good thing for the average consumer. Smart TVs these days are a confusing mess. Settling on one standard across the board will foster a common understanding of the UI across the board. It'll also make Smart TV app development so much easier than what exists today. And OEMs will have to focus more on hardware or on selling ancillary hardware (home theatre systems, etc.). This is good for the average consumer.
I'm interested in seeing what Apple does for content. To me all this talk of UI is pointless. I may not know how to use every feature of my TV or cable box, but I know enough to channel surf. And that's enough to prevent me from shelling out thousands for an Apple branded TV in the future. So there better be something more than just UI. It's gotta something that changes the way I consume TV content.
Wow. Are you nuts? Saying something at a conference does not open you up to shareholder lawsuits. Nothing he said is legally binding. Had his words come in a conference call or an SEC filing that would be another matter.
You are absolutely, 100% wrong. Any incorrect public statement (or failure to make a public statement of a material fact) which is material can get you in trouble. And speaking at a conference is public.
Look it up:
http://law.jrank.org/pages/7003/Fraud.html
The SEC provides for civil and criminal penalties for corporate fraud. In September 2002 the SEC filed fraud charges against Dennis Kozlowski, former CEO of Tyco International, for failing to disclose millions of dollars of corporate loans.
Not only was his transgression not in a conference call or SEC filing as you've claimed, but he didn't make any public statement at all.
You can hate Google. But can you stop being irrational and absurd in your analysis? If what you are suggesting is true, then every CEO who ever missed numbers made in a passing comment would be liable for class-action lawsuit. This is clearly not true.
Not at all. When CEOs publish guidance, there is always a statement that the information is forward looking and is based on current belief but may change. Schmidt made no such statement.
Or if you're going to make such ridiculously broad assertions about executive liability how about adding the disclaimer "IANAL" to your posts?
I don't need to. As a past corporate officer, I've been well trained in legal requirements. Furthermore, I am able to back my assertions (see above) while you are apparently incapable of anything but whining and bizarre accusations.
You're just being paranoid. Not every TV is going to have Google TV. Clearly, TV makers will use the feature to upsell TVs. There will be your regular 40 inch TV and your 40 inch Google TV that will probably cost $100 more. So you'll have the option of buying regular TVs.
First, Schmidt says that the majority will have Google inside - and that the number will continue to grow.
More importantly, I never said it was going to happen (personally, I think Schmidt is absolutely wrong). I said what I would do IF it happens. Do you need me to look up a definition of 'if' for you?
The regular AI "Google is evil" paranoia aside, this might actually be a good thing for the average consumer. Smart TVs these days are a confusing mess. Settling on one standard across the board will foster a common understanding of the UI across the board. It'll also make Smart TV app development so much easier than what exists today. And OEMs will have to focus more on hardware or on selling ancillary hardware (home theatre systems, etc.). This is good for the average consumer.
That's a tautology (look it up). Obviously, if the TVs get better, it's better for consumers. However:
1. I don't believe there's any sign that Google TV is any better than the alternatives.
2. I don't think you can ignore the fact that Google's entire business plan is based on learning everything it can about you and selling that information to the highest bidder. Because of that, even if the UI were better (which isn't likely, considering what we've seen from Google so far), the downside might mean that the entire package is NOT better for the consumer.
I'm interested in seeing what Apple does for content. To me all this talk of UI is pointless. I may not know how to use every feature of my TV or cable box, but I know enough to channel surf. And that's enough to prevent me from shelling out thousands for an Apple branded TV in the future. So there better be something more than just UI. It's gotta something that changes the way I consume TV content.
Nice one. You have no idea of what an Apple branded TV would look like. You have no idea of any features or benefits. You have no idea what it would cost. But you already know you won't buy one. And you have the gall to call me irrational?
The fact is that I know what a Google TV would look like. There are examples out there. And I know Google's privacy policies and what they do with my data. I've made a reasoned, rational decision not to buy their product. You, OTOH, have made an irrational decision based on a non-product and no information - solely because you hate Apple. I'm glad you proved what a bigot you are.
Those numbers are interesting. I wonder what the break down is per manufacturer?
If Google happen to get Samsung, Panasonic, Sony and LG (all Android partners) on board I wouldn't be surprised if they make this estimate a reality.
I don't want software on my TV that will track everything I do so that they can sell it to advertisers...or any device for that matter.
I'm surprised nobody has brought up the Motorola acquisition here. Motorola makes a good portion of all cable boxes in the US (haven't found a number), and this along with Google's partnerships with many of the major TV manufacturers (the same as their phone manufacturers) makes this statement seem pretty plausible. I don't know how Schmidt thinks they'll have market share quite so quickly, but all of the pieces are in place.
Oh crap. You are right. All the major cable cos are rolling out new boxes this year and near future. special deals! New upgrades! Up to four boxes that record up to four shows simultaneously! I'm sure google will be right there on the cable box, silently tabulating everything you watch. We have ONE cable provider in our neighborhood, why I do not know. Across the street in the other neighborhoods they have four.
I've been thinking about dropping cable altogether, this will hasten my decision. Hell, we just got a new cable box, but not one of the new ones the installers said were coming next year. Every box I've ever seen was a Motorola. The Motorola boxes we have are junk. Ah, well, as somebody pointed out, there's not much on tv anyways. I do hate loathe and despise my cable provider.
Am I the only one who sees the potential of an AppleTV A/V receiver amp with an outgoing HDMI (and power input) for any HDTV you want, an multiple HDMI inputs for your cable/sat, DVR/TiVo, game console, Blu-ray, et al. that would make your TV just a dumb monitor with the iOS AppleTV UI being the main interface and ring able to overlay on any of the other components you have plugged in without having to switch inputs to get to it. Your whole home is connected to an always-on AppleTV UI. TV is set to an input once then ignored. All device switching happens from the AppleTV HW or UI as needed, but it's always the AppleTV running the show. This is cheaper than a TV, gives you more flexibility as you can connect to any TV or projector with HDMI input, and Apple get a healthy profit while controlling this segment of the market.
Nope, about a month ago in one of the Apple TV threads I was speculating nearly the same thing. I was wondering if they could gather the remote codes for each device and consolidate them onto a single apple remote, thus getting rid of the basket 'o remotes. Wouldn't be hard to get the codes to the devices, but getting them on some kind of remote interface would be really interesting. Then, as you say, ATV could be the master component. I hope they go this route. I think they might be being delayed by whatever it is google is up to and trying to stay abreast of that. Very plausible.