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

1234568

Comments

  • Reply 141 of 165
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by yu119995 View Post


    "Simplify the tv" LOL!



    Are current TV's too difficult to use?



    No. A lot of TV's have remotes with way to many buttons on them, but nobody ever see's the button until they get it home. Some have overy complex menu's but generally you would never go into them anyway, an Apple TV is likely to just not offer these menu options as Apple's version of making things simple is to remove functionality.



    The guy is right, all people look at when buying a TV is what's the picture like and does it have enough ports for my stuff.



    I'll reserve a final opinion until Apple actually announce something, but I can't help but think of what a great success the Apple HiFi was!
  • Reply 142 of 165
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Conrail View Post


    The iPhone was a hit because the "smart" phone marketplace was in its infancy and every competitor who came after pretty much sucked. The television market is not the same.



    Is the 'smart tv' not in it's infancy as well? I would argue that it is and there is a great deal of opportunity for Apple to do to the TV as it did with the smart phone. That is, borrow the ideas that have worked in the first generations of smart tv's, expand on them with the Apple Magic (tm), and bring them into the mainstream.



    The beauty of Apple's position is that a very large base of their users will jump on their new products with little skepticism- people trust that Apple makes products that they will enjoy using- Apple has consistently delivered that experience in the past. I have no doubt that the iTV can gain traction quickly and at least have a very good shot at being a great success.



    Obviously, there are some key differences between the TV industry and the cell phone industry- and I can't see Apple achieving the same success here, but it will certainly be an interesting ride!
  • Reply 143 of 165
    solipsismxsolipsismx Posts: 19,566member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Conrail View Post


    The iPhone was a hit because the "smart" phone marketplace was in its infancy and every competitor who came after pretty much sucked. The television market is not the same. Yeah, a lot of people will say "comcast sucks" or whatever, but they're complaining about the quality of service, not the basic mechanics of watching TV.



    I'm sure this thing will be very clever, but I have a sneaking suspicion that the "problem" with television that Steve Jobs solved was "how do we turn a set monthly charge into a constant revenue stream?"



    No one thought the smartphone industry was nascent until Apple turned it on its head.



    The same could happen to the TV if Apple entered because smart TVs are still new, unpopular, and generally suck. And by suck I mean the HW and OS running the smart TV is not well thought out.
  • Reply 144 of 165
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by StLBluesFan View Post


    Nothing that guy said that can really be argued with.



    Actually, I think his main supposition can be called into question - picture quality is probably not the main concern of most TV buyers. For all the fuss Samsung is making about picture quality, it is both very subjective, and not relevant if no one is watching the set because of difficulty accessing content. If Samsung were that clearly dominant in picture quality and picture quality were that important to the average consumer, they would dominate in a market of very similarly designed, similarly interfaced, similarly priced televisions...but they don't. So, there must be other factors that are just as important in the average consumer's purchasing decision.



    Watching television requires that one be able to find content that they want to watch and then properly configure their TV to watch it. That is becoming increasingly difficult with the multitude of input options, streaming services, set top and cable boxes, etc.



    In my own modest setup, for example, I can watch over the air television, cable (DirectTV), DVR'd Direct TV, streaming/PPV movies from DirectTV, DVDs, DVDs through my Xbox, Netflix or other XBox live video content through my Xbox, photos, video, or audio streamed from my Mac through the XBox, or photos from from the TVs built in card reader. Note, I don't have a Bluray player or other internet streaming device like an AppleTV or Roku, or multiple game systems.



    That's a ridiculous number of options - so many that it's difficult to determine if I already have, have access to, or can get access to content that I may want to see. And even if I can get access, I have to know how to switch inputs and configure the necessary components to watch the show. While I am comfortable doing that, people who are unfamiliar with my system/remotes can't do it without guidance.



    For the reasons outlined above, vastly improving the user experience by increasing ease of accessibility to content/ease of use is where Apple could gain traction in the TV market.
  • Reply 145 of 165
    Well considering the only real company still making plasmas is Sharp - their statement is nothing if not hypocritical.
  • Reply 146 of 165
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by ArtDecoDalek View Post


    Samsung picture quality is great, as long as you want everything to look like a Mexican soap opera.



    So all the women are super hot? I'd sign up for that
  • Reply 147 of 165
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Conrail View Post


    The iPhone was a hit because the "smart" phone marketplace was in its infancy and every competitor who came after pretty much sucked. The television market is not the same. Yeah, a lot of people will say "comcast sucks" or whatever, but they're complaining about the quality of service, not the basic mechanics of watching TV.



    I'm sure this thing will be very clever, but I have a sneaking suspicion that the "problem" with television that Steve Jobs solved was "how do we turn a set monthly charge into a constant revenue stream?"



    Yea, the nerve of someone else making money other than Apple.
  • Reply 148 of 165
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by pondosinatra View Post


    Well considering the only real company still making plasmas is Sharp - their statement is nothing if not hypocritical.



    I have a 6-7 yr old plamsa and the picture quality is still better than the current LCD/LED sets out now.
  • Reply 149 of 165
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by AppleInsider View Post


    If Apple does produce a television set, Samsung officials believe their expertise will allow them to handily beat their rival in terms of picture quality.



    Well, Samsung may win prices (Windows and PC makers also won many prices over the years) but they do not have the best picture quality by far. Sony is reasonably good in LCD and as far as basic picture quality goes before you meddle with algorithms, no LCD yet beats a good Plasma. Full OLED or something like that will be needed for that.



    Still, how can they say this? They have no idea what Apple is up to. Maybe Apple has come up with a superb Plasma screen with top of the line algorithms to handle picture quality. Or something even more wild. Belief in their own superiority is not a good start for competition.
  • Reply 150 of 165
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by pondosinatra View Post


    Well considering the only real company still making plasmas is Sharp - their statement is nothing if not hypocritical.



    Panasonic is making plasmas. And since they also took over the Pioneer plasma (now Panasonic PDP) they have the widest and best range of plasmas, I think. There are quality issues in production afaik, but if you have a good one, the picture beats any LCD.
  • Reply 151 of 165
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by AppleInsider View Post


    But Moseley at Samsung said he believes that television sets are "ultimately about picture quality." He said additional features, like "how smart they are" can be "great," but they're also a "secondary consideration."



    I'm afraid reality proves him wrong. Most TV's sold have in fact terrible picture quality, and they are sold nonetheless. Most people have no idea about picture quality and neither do most consumer organizations that put out tests.



    So, I think that if Apple has reasonable picture quality, they have a shot at 99% of the market, only excluding the few who really care about picture quality.
  • Reply 152 of 165
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by gctwnl View Post


    Panasonic is making plasmas. And since they also took over the Pioneer plasma (now Panasonic PDP) they have the widest and best range of plasmas, I think. There are quality issues in production afaik, but if you have a good one, the picture beats any LCD.



    You're right - I actually mean't to say Panasonic. When (hopefully not for years) my Kuro dies, I'll most likely get one from them.
  • Reply 153 of 165
    b9botb9bot Posts: 238member
    Let's see, competitors were in denial when Apple came out with the iPod, then the Apple Retail stores,then the iPhone, then the iPad, and now we have Samsung already in denial of a product that doesn't even exist yet.

    But I think they will be wrong too. Apple does everything first class. They won't make an HD set if it doesn't have or make a big difference in the consumers experience of using it. This is where Samsung is missing the point. It's not just about picture quality, it's about the total user experience with the product, not just about picture quality which can easily be done. Apple will make a TV will excellent picture quality, that's not what Samsung has to worry about.
  • Reply 154 of 165
    hill60hill60 Posts: 6,992member
    So is there a problem with the TV's that use Samsung panels?



    For some reason they aren't as good as Samsung's own brand.



    Samsung really must like p*ssing off the companies that buy panels from them.



    What an arrogant company.
  • Reply 155 of 165
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by hill60 View Post


    So is there a problem with the TV's that use Samsung panels?



    you'll have to ask the tens of millions of people who own TVs



    Quote:

    Samsung really must like p*ssing off the companies that buy panels from them.



    from where did you hear this?
  • Reply 156 of 165
    jfanningjfanning Posts: 3,398member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by cutykamu View Post


    i meant with the game console which includes ps3, wii and xbox?



    They are all old devices you talk about, a replacement Apple TV device may very well replace them, because they are old. But they are also external devices which you can upgrade (replace) without having to replace your TV, hence an integrated device doesn't make sense



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by cutykamu View Post


    do you seriously upgrades the CPU in your tv? or do you really upgrades the game consoles that often? i think normally to upgrade game console need 3-5 years?



    No, and that is the point. I upgrade the devices attached to my TV, but not the TV itself very often, and you will find that a lot of people do the same. Same goes with monitors, you will tend to upgrade the computer more than the screen it is attached to.



    Who is going to pay thousands to replace a TV just so they can play a different game





    Quote:
    Originally Posted by cutykamu View Post


    that maybe true but timing will be perfect to launch together with iTV if they launch?



    iTV is a trademark in the entertainment industry, Apple won't be using it
  • Reply 157 of 165
    jfanningjfanning Posts: 3,398member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by hill60 View Post


    So is there a problem with the TV's that use Samsung panels?



    For some reason they aren't as good as Samsung's own brand.



    Samsung really must like p*ssing off the companies that buy panels from them.



    What an arrogant company.



    Typical comment from you.



    There is more to a TV display than the panel
  • Reply 158 of 165
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by jfanning View Post


    They are all old devices you talk about, a replacement Apple TV device may very well replace them, because they are old. But they are also external devices which you can upgrade (replace) without having to replace your TV, hence an integrated device doesn't make sense



    i know those are old devices but all i simply meant is that apple can replace all the extra boxes which we people are having today to connect with their tvs and all those wires and boxes looks horrible?



    Quote:

    No, and that is the point. I upgrade the devices attached to my TV, but not the TV itself very often, and you will find that a lot of people do the same. Same goes with monitors, you will tend to upgrade the computer more than the screen it is attached to.





    Who is going to pay thousands to replace a TV just so they can play a different game



    true but if they plan for this i'm sure they won't be making the upgrades the same as iPhone/iPad which you can update every year? i think apple tvs will be like upgrading 5 years once?







    Quote:

    iTV is a trademark in the entertainment industry, Apple won't be using it



    i'm just using iTV for now cos we don't have a name how to call apple tv?
  • Reply 159 of 165
    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..



    Apples successes came off the back of either bringing ideas to market, first (Mac)

    Overhauling a nascent market (mp3, smartphone, tablet)



    Some could say based upon current apple income streams, their best bets are taking nascent ideas and enriching them.



    By producing a TV, in of itself, will not be first to market, or be a new area/scope. TVs, and their panels are 60+years in the making.



    So to innovate, we hhave three main areas of interest.

    1) apperance

    2) picture quality

    3) 'user experience' which includes useablity and content



    They are top knotch on apperance, in a world that all tvs look like the same glossy black monstrosity, it will be interesting to see if they can come up with something differnt.



    The picture quality will be limited by their suppliers ability. Sure 4k 50" screens would be nice, but it aint gonna be a great margin there. Every company manufacturing screens is suffering from low margins. Including those manufacturing screens for apple. If they make a TV, i suspect their picture quality will be good, but not extreme - its just not a worthwhile area to earn lrage margins on.



    finally, its the experience. Thats the winner for apple. They have been working hard with the AppleTV, but its still not quite there - at least outside of USA, which is a stupidly large market for their products. If htey can bring this up a knotch, enrich the content delivery. That is where they win, and where htey continue consumer tie-in, with their content being avialable via their phone, their tablet, their laptop and their TV. TV's are 'simple' but by the time you include content, and content management on to of that, its a pig fit.

    Content will also be a pig, because the other corporates who do not want people to drop large, mostly pointless cable fees, to have a pay as you go busiess. they can see what happened to RIAA once itunes allowed you to purchase tracks, rather than albums. They are hobbling Hulu, Netflix et al are all being throttled to slow down this losses.
  • Reply 160 of 165
    asciiascii Posts: 5,936member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by jpellino View Post


    Yeah, I saw that 10,000 R&D personnel number and thought "What a management nightmare." For TVs? Maybe he meant employees involved in "D&D"?



    When we were an external research site for Apple, I visited what as then the ATG. I was told by our champion I could go in without the usual security rigamarole as long as I promised not to exclaim too loudly when I saw some of what they were doing. It was sage advice. Pretty sure it was a lot less than 10,000 people. QuickTime came out of there. Which begat MPEG-4. Which Samsung is darned happy to have in every one of their video products. Just sayin'



    That's right - Apple invented QuickTime, the world's first computer video player. They have some pedigree of their own in this area. Video compression plays a big part in picture quality.
Sign In or Register to comment.