1STnTENDERBITS

[yells loudly] WE STOPPED DOING THAT!!  WE NO LONGER DOING THAT!!
- US telecoms

[whispers furtively] we're doing something else now.
- same US telecoms

mjtomlin said:

hodar said:

I am surprised at the SmartTV market, and how popular it is.

There are so many streaming boxes on the market (RoKu, AppleTV, FireTV, etc) and they pretty much ALL outperform the SmartTV, no only in outright performance, but in the number of Apps available.  Also, when you drop $1-5K USD on a good television, why would you hamstring your streaming capabilities by not buying a $25-$250 streaming box?

It's like buying an expensive sports car, and putting cheap, stale gas in the tank.  I have yet to find a SmartTV with the selection or performance of the cheapest FireTV stick, let alone the AppleTV.

It's a misleading market metric. People aren't buying Smart TV's, they're just buying TV's that happen to be "smart". most people don't care about all those extra "features".

I agree. I'd personally prefer a dumb panel with a quality picture that lets me add the components I want.  Nobody's really making them anymore.  Even the cheapest panels are smart now.  Your pretty much going to get one whether or not that was your intention.

Ars Technica has a pretty good article with more detail about this phone.  It's apparent Samsung had to make some real compromises to get this phone to work.  It is definitely, a phone for a first adopter phone geek.  They had to increase the size of the phone, reduce the metal used and increase the glass, include an SD855 for 4G, the X50 for mmWave, and add 4 5G antennas along the side.  This is a big ass phone.  Bonus: The Ars article does have a video clip of someone in the right place at the right time hitting astronomical mmWave speeds.  Not gonna lie, it is impressive.  Not impressive enough to fork over thirteen hunnit for a limited use speed boost that has to annihilate data at an alarming rate.  Two device generations from now the 5G network should be more fleshed out and the $1300 phone will probably be $450.  Til then somebody's gotta be first I guess.  Not exactly worth it imo. 

corrections said:

1STnTENDERBITS said:

corrections said:

MAU47 said:

TL;DR Marketshare

That's a really dumb comment when the first picture is IHS's claim that Android is "winning" and has the most "market share" in smart TVs. The context of its report:

Dumb comment?  Stay classy.  Is it any dumber than stating IHS claimed that Android is "winning" when that's clearly the author's slanted narrative?  These editorials would be much more informative if the author spent less time trying to be derogatory and more time clarifying his points; some of which are actually salient.  The editorials read as if a reasoned and rational adult is fighting with a teenage fanboy for time on the keyboard.  Far too often, the teen wins.  It's kind of fascinating in a watching a trainwreck sort of way. 

As the author points out in a round about way, Samsung has the largest and most lucrative share of the smart TV market.  That's why Apple chose Samsung.   They didn't choose Android because Google's flavor has a smaller share (10% vs 23%) of the smart TV market... even smaller than WebOS' 13%.  The various forks of Android also had smaller shares, so they weren't worth it either.  Apple chose the company that had the largest market share... just like @MAU47 correctly stated.  So not so dumb after all.

TL;DR is absolutely a dumb comment.

As is offering advice on "class" when you make the types of comments you're making. 

"stating IHS claimed that Android is "winning" when that's clearly the author's slanted narrative"

I highlighted the text in a photo: there was no misrepresentation of IHS statement: "Android is currently the most popular smart TV operating system platform."

And please check out the article again. Apple didn't select Samsung for "unit market share." If Apple were trying to cast a broad net by sheer volume, it could write an Android app and target not only most of 2018's smart TVs but millions of Android tablets used as TVs. Apple was not in any way seeking to target volume. That's the entire point of the article. You could get that from standing across the room and just reading the subheadings. 

It's not a dumb comment.  It strips away all the extraneous content and boils it down to the purest element; hence the tl;dr. Samsung's market share absolutely played a large part in Apple's decision.  

I'm a rando on the internet bud.  You're supposed to be some type of professional writer.  That usually comes with a sense of decorum.  Usually.  I simply addressed you in the same crass manner you often employ when addressing forum members.

Your own words: "That's a really dumb comment when the first picture is IHS's claim that Android is "winning" and has the most "market share" in smart TVs."  IHS reporting that Android in totality has the most market share is not a claim of "winning".  That's 100% DED conflating.  IHS says Android has most market share therefore IHS claims Android is winning.? That's preposterous.  You parsed the text, ignored the original context, and supplanted it with your Android is winning narrative.  The full report is actually about the global increase in smart TV adoption and how the digital assistants (Alexa and GA) will drive consumer decisions.  Anyone reading it will see that to be the case. 'Cept you it seems.

Why would I need to check out your article again?  It's not going to change my opinion of what's in it.  I think it has some good points but the overall narrative is wrong.  You spent too much time trying to disparage anything not Apple and not enough time making sensible connections.  All the information was there for you to do it.  You just chose to go a different direction.  So there's no need for me to read the editorial again.  I get the point you're trying to make. It's just a bad point that's all.  Whether I'm point blank close or standing across the room, the point's bad.  

corrections said:

MAU47 said:

TL;DR Marketshare

That's a really dumb comment when the first picture is IHS's claim that Android is "winning" and has the most "market share" in smart TVs. The context of its report:

Dumb comment?  Stay classy.  Is it any dumber than stating IHS claimed that Android is "winning" when that's clearly the author's slanted narrative?  These editorials would be much more informative if the author spent less time trying to be derogatory and more time clarifying his points; some of which are actually salient.  The editorials read as if a reasoned and rational adult is fighting with a teenage fanboy for time on the keyboard.  Far too often, the teen wins.  It's kind of fascinating in a watching a trainwreck sort of way. 

As the author points out in a round about way, Samsung has the largest and most lucrative share of the smart TV market.  That's why Apple chose Samsung.   They didn't choose Android because Google's flavor has a smaller share (10% vs 23%) of the smart TV market... even smaller than WebOS' 13%.  The various forks of Android also had smaller shares, so they weren't worth it either.  Apple chose the company that had the largest market share... just like @MAU47 correctly stated.  So not so dumb after all.