PDA

View Full Version : Sony 4K TV an indication...




carlgo
Sep 5, 2013, 09:28 AM
...of what the pricing of a similar Apple version might be and that is $4k for I think a 55". The prices for this and similar products will come down fast, but it is high enough to discourage the average buyer. Apple may well offer a normal HD as the default screen, albeit with some Apple garnish, and have a 4K option for now.

I like Sony products and wish that Apple and Sony would collaborate.



Giuly
Sep 5, 2013, 10:08 AM
The range of Sony's W/R-series might be more interesting: 32" (http://amzn.to/161YDEz) ($549-649), 42" ($799; does exist outside of the US), 50" and 60" (http://amzn.to/1a9GnKe) ($999/$1499). Sony also has a 70" of it for $2499, but that one should be the TV equivalent of the 17" MacBook Pro.
http://store.sony.com/wcsstore/SonyStyleStorefrontAssetStore/img/718x407/KDL70R550A.pnghttp://store.sony.com/wcsstore/SonyStyleStorefrontAssetStore/img/718x407/KDL70R550A_1.png

A) They pretty much constitute what we'd call an iTV if they could connect to iTunes (they just connect to Sony's Entertainment Network instead, they have their user manual built-in instead of not requiring one at all and the software they run is decent instead of insanely great).
B) They already come with a slight price premium compared to similar models
C) Except for Sony's Entertainment Network, 4K content is pretty much nonexistent.

However, by the time Apple would actually release something like that, it would probably 4K.

The only problem I have with the whole iTV topic is more general in nature: Sony's pricing doesn't treat €=$, so these TVs actually cost the same in Europe and the US (Apple's $749 = 749€ while Sony's $749 = 569€, taxes factored in). That's just deliberately giving up marketshare.

eecyclone
Sep 5, 2013, 08:11 PM
I hope apple stays away from manufacturing their own TV. They wouldn't be able to get that much market share in that competitive of a market. And what would be their advantage? Including the features that you can get with a $99 ATV? Not only is that not enough margin to make entry into that business worthwhile, but their distribution outlets (retail stores) don't have the space for a selection of TV's.

What am I overlooking?

Giuly
Sep 5, 2013, 10:21 PM
I hope apple stays away from manufacturing their own TV. They wouldn't be able to get that much market share in that competitive of a market. And what would be their advantage? Including the features that you can get with a $99 ATV? Not only is that not enough margin to make entry into that business worthwhile, but their distribution outlets (retail stores) don't have the space for a selection of TV's.

What am I overlooking?

Greetings, Earthling. In the name of the people on the Internets I'd like to welcome you and I hope that you'll enjoy your stay.

Let me introduce you to a selection of our local electronics stores:
• Amazon
• Newegg
• The store at apple.com
And many more...

What I mean is that distribution outlets are not the problem, even if you can't buy them in a physical store at all.

http://www.amplfd.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/apple-store-front.jpeg

Given that this is one of the smaller Apple Stores, the walls already have provisions for TVs.

isomorphic
Sep 5, 2013, 10:46 PM
I'm really hoping Apple comes out with a 4K monitor so I can replace this aging 30" Cinema Display.

Something tells me the rumored TV and 4K monitor may be the same thing. But when, what size, and at what price point?

The 30" debuted at $3299. A 30~32" 4K display at that price point (or lower) would be awesome!

mrmarts
Sep 5, 2013, 11:35 PM
What is the point atm there is still no physical content and no sound codecs finalised yet. Likewise gaming consoles can still only output 1080p. Unless you got cash to burn for a lemon enjoy your 1080p tally or monitor and than change it when it goes mainstream.

boomhower
Sep 6, 2013, 07:39 AM
4K is still in it's infancy. TV's are still expensive and content is very lacking. Apple needs to stay out of the TV business. I just don't see what they can gain from it. It's a fairly low margin business with little upside. They can achieve what they want with the Apple TV box. There's not a lot Apple can do to "Apple" a TV set. I just don't see enough people willing to pay the Apple tax on a TV set that doesn't really offer anything different than styling compared to premium sets from other manufactures. I'd be surprised if they could make enough profit from sales to pay for the R&D needed to make it happen.

Moonjumper
Sep 6, 2013, 08:30 AM
C) Except for Sony's Entertainment Network, 4K content is pretty much nonexistent.

4K is used in cinemas, so there is content, but currently no mainstream delivery method. But with HDMI 2.0 finalised, plus H.265 to bring sizes down, I wouldn't be surprised to see 4K Blu-Ray appear.

With 4K having 4x the number of pixels as 1080p, but H.265 halving files sizes, 4K Blu-Ray would probably use 100GB discs. Which doesn't sound outrageous.

Bishope1999
Sep 6, 2013, 09:04 AM
4K is used in cinemas, so there is content, but currently no mainstream delivery method. But with HDMI 2.0 finalised, plus H.265 to bring sizes down, I wouldn't be surprised to see 4K Blu-Ray appear.

With 4K having 4x the number of pixels as 1080p, but H.265 halving files sizes, 4K Blu-Ray would probably use 100GB discs. Which doesn't sound outrageous.Yes, the BDA is looking to approve this. Also, with the availability of 128 GB BDXL discs, things are set for a 4k Blu-ray movies.


In the mean time, Sony has the 4K Ultra HD Media Player which comes preloaded with 10 4k movies. 4k camcorders and now 4k recording showing up on smartphones, the technology will be available to those that want to take advantage of it.

It all depends if the person is an early adopter or do they wait until it becomes the norm.

CoMoMacUser
Sep 6, 2013, 10:39 AM
I wouldn't be surprised in networks and/or cable/telco TV/sat providers charge extra for 4K programming. For example, the 1080 version of a game or show would be included in whatever you pay, but the 4K version would be an extra fee.

boomhower
Sep 6, 2013, 03:26 PM
I wouldn't be surprised in networks and/or cable/telco TV/sat providers charge extra for 4K programming. For example, the 1080 version of a game or show would be included in whatever you pay, but the 4K version would be an extra fee.

I'm highly interested to see how 4K distribution is going to work. If your talking north of 100GB's for a movie that's a ton of bandwidth. I don't know how much it will be able to carry to the home. Obviously in the immediate future it's not an issue but down the road when the tech gets cheap and a typical family has four TV's plus internet, that's a massive amount of data. Obviously it can be compressed but compress it to much and you'll defeat the whole point of the higher res.

This also has the potential to be a big issue for the satellite folks.

palmharbor
Sep 6, 2013, 05:29 PM
The range of Sony's W/R-series might be more interesting: 32" (http://amzn.to/161YDEz) ($549-649), 42" ($799; does exist outside of the US), 50" and 60" (http://amzn.to/1a9GnKe) ($999/$1499). Sony also has a 70" of it for $2499, but that one should be the TV equivalent of the 17" MacBook Pro.
http://store.sony.com/wcsstore/SonyStyleStorefrontAssetStore/img/718x407/KDL70R550A.pnghttp://store.sony.com/wcsstore/SonyStyleStorefrontAssetStore/img/718x407/KDL70R550A_1.png

A) They pretty much constitute what we'd call an iTV if they could connect to iTunes (they just connect to Sony's Entertainment Network instead, they have their user manual built-in instead of not requiring one at all and the software they run is decent instead of insanely great).
B) They already come with a slight price premium compared to similar models
C) Except for Sony's Entertainment Network, 4K content is pretty much nonexistent.

However, by the time Apple would actually release something like that, it would probably 4K.

The only problem I have with the whole iTV topic is more general in nature: Sony's pricing doesn't treat =$, so these TVs actually cost the same in Europe and the US (Apple's $749 = 749 while Sony's $749 = 569, taxes factored in). That's just deliberately giving up marketshare.
______________________________________
Have you forgotten the UK and Europe have the VAT, TVA in France
and the US does not...that is critical in evaluating prices

----------

I'm highly interested to see how 4K distribution is going to work. If your talking north of 100GB's for a movie that's a ton of bandwidth. I don't know how much it will be able to carry to the home. Obviously in the immediate future it's not an issue but down the road when the tech gets cheap and a typical family has four TV's plus internet, that's a massive amount of data. Obviously it can be compressed but compress it to much and you'll defeat the whole point of the higher res.

This also has the potential to be a big issue for the satellite folks.
___________________________________________________
Well put...and the issue of Dish and Direct are REAL. sony has had many failures in tech...they just keep it up....I would hate to see Bill O'Reilly
or Sean Hannity's widows peak in 4K.
Sony never works out the details before they intro new tech and its why they have lost more money than any other consumer electronic company
and they are NOT the biggest in the industry...Panasonic's parent firm is.

Giuly
Sep 7, 2013, 02:34 AM
______________________________________
Have you forgotten the UK and Europe have the VAT, TVA in France
and the US does not...that is critical in evaluating prices[COLOR="#808080"]

No, actually I haven't. Take the 13" base rMBP for example: $1499 without taxes in the US, but in Europe it's 1259€=$1659.50 without taxes. It costs 10% more, the same price as the rMBP with California tax already applied. Also, the VAT is even higher as you'll have to pay it on the additional $160 as well.

priitv8
Sep 7, 2013, 04:27 AM
Sony never works out the details before they intro new tech and its why they have lost more money than any other consumer electronic companyIf I'm not mistaken, Sony is not just a consumer electronic company? They produce loads of professional gear. I wonder, if your accusation of details not being worked out before intro, also holds in pro segment?
Unfortunately, Sony also holds significant interest in content creation industry.

unfrostedpoptar
Sep 18, 2013, 12:17 AM
What is the point atm there is still no physical content and no sound codecs finalised yet. Likewise gaming consoles can still only output 1080p. Unless you got cash to burn for a lemon enjoy your 1080p tally or monitor and than change it when it goes mainstream.

Why do people keep posting this same question over and over and assuming that 4k is only for watching movies and playing games? I - and tons of other people - want it for more screen area/resolution for programming, graphics/video editing, and other engineering and/or content creation work.

crzdcolombian
Sep 18, 2013, 08:51 AM
we are a good 5-15 years away from 4k. Even then I don't think it will catch on. This is a Mac fan site and we don't have a real picture of what the country looks like.I remember I interned at a CPA firm and we would go on audits. No one had a flat screen tv at the places I'd go to in Boston !! I was like what ??

Not everyone has a 720p TV !!! Much less a 1080P one. What do you know other than the PS3 is 1080p(not all games are even that high either. Now they are trying to sell you something that is 4x better than 1080p when NOTHING but blu rays are that high?

Cable companies show 720p. I just don't see 4k catching on any time soon. Basically because the cost to get into it, and no one offering you that quality. Only game changer Apple can do is allow you to buy certain channels for $10-20 bucks w/o having to deal with a cable company. The Appletv getting you free local channels type of thing. They need to do something about content. Picture quality is pretty much perfect as it is.

I remember when I worked at best buy in High school they told me you don't really even need HD unless your tv is 40inches then you start noticing the quality. Aren't 4k screens like 70 inches +?

I have a 4 year old Samsung LED 46inch and watching sports and Avatar on it is magical. I really can't see someone convincing me and I am a tech nut to upgrade it.

osofast240sx
Sep 18, 2013, 09:10 AM
I

What am I overlooking?
Apple can care less about marke share. 22-32% margin on a tv will awesome.

priitv8
Sep 18, 2013, 10:50 AM
Cable companies show 720p. I just don't see 4k catching on any time soon.In Europe, the Satellite companies are at least providing test transmissions already. Only in Quad-HD format so far, as H.265 professional gear is not available yet (I guess).
http://www.newtec.eu/article/release/leading-broadcast-players-successfully-test-live-satellite-contribution-of-4k-images
http://www.eutelsat.com/en/services/broadcast/ultra-high-definition.html

unplugme71
Sep 18, 2013, 11:08 AM
I hope apple stays away from manufacturing their own TV. They wouldn't be able to get that much market share in that competitive of a market. And what would be their advantage? Including the features that you can get with a $99 ATV? Not only is that not enough margin to make entry into that business worthwhile, but their distribution outlets (retail stores) don't have the space for a selection of TV's.

What am I overlooking?

brand
intuitive use to navigate menu systems and content
no need for additional set top boxes
siri voice support that works much better than current voice activation
integration with iOS devices
integration with Mac and PC using iTunes
iCloud support
PhotoStream support
etc..

Smart phones existed long before Apple came along. Apple just did it better and won the market. Apple will do it again with the TV. The difference is, the pricepoint of TV's are much higher than phones. So Apple needs to have a good strategy.

Since people buy TV's every 5 years on average, and there has been a burst of sales since LED TV's came out ~2 years ago, it may be difficult to get people to jump in after they already spend 2-3k.

(I know LED TV's have been out longer, but not at their current price points)

crzdcolombian
Sep 18, 2013, 11:11 AM
In Europe, the Satellite companies are at least providing test transmissions already. Only in Quad-HD format so far, as H.265 professional gear is not available yet (I guess).
http://www.newtec.eu/article/release/leading-broadcast-players-successfully-test-live-satellite-contribution-of-4k-images
http://www.eutelsat.com/en/services/broadcast/ultra-high-definition.html

I am sure in the US we'd get it 1st :D

I don't know I just don't think there is a market for it or people have the money. Sure you have people with crazy $4,000 buck+ tvs but how many of those are you going to sell? Not enough for a cable company to buy the infrastructure to give that to you. It is going to go the way of HD dvd and 3d. People who think we will download them right to our tbs. Ultra Blu Rays are 100gbs..... my macbook air is only 128 solid state drive....... and my internet is 50mbp/s second(2nd highest offered in my area which Boston)....... :D.

Regardless if it works or not. I really hope that having digital copies of movies will give you free upgrade or cheap upgrade to the higher resolution movie. How many times do they expect me to buy Batman 1989 and Star Wars !!! This is why people pirate stuff !!! I had V for vendetta on DVD, Hd dvd and Blu ray. Finally just downloaded offline to watch it on my ipad. You can only stick it to the customer so many times.

I also think 4k is if you have a Giant screen in your place. Most people can't afford them and 1080p looks great. The jump isn't as noticeable as 480i to 720P was. Even the jump from 720p to 1080p isn't that big.

Most the girls I know don't care. So that takes half the population that doesn't care about HD. Now it cost an extra 10 bucks to just get the cable company to let you have HD channels. You really expect Ultra HD to be any cheaper? In the US we are trying to cut the cord for cable.

unplugme71
Sep 18, 2013, 11:15 AM
I wouldn't be surprised in networks and/or cable/telco TV/sat providers charge extra for 4K programming. For example, the 1080 version of a game or show would be included in whatever you pay, but the 4K version would be an extra fee.

They do that now with SD and HD. You pay more for HD/Digital content

----------

I am sure in the US we'd get it 1st :D

I don't know I just don't think there is a market for it or people have the money. Sure you have people with crazy $4,000 buck+ tvs but how many of those are you going to sell? Not enough for a cable company to buy the infrastructure to give that to you. It is going to go the way of HD dvd and 3d. People who think we will download them right to our tbs. Ultra Blu Rays are 100gbs..... my macbook air is only 128 solid state drive....... and my internet is 50mbp/s second(2nd highest offered in my area which Boston)....... :D.

Regardless if it works or not. I really hope that having digital copies of movies will give you free upgrade or cheap upgrade to the higher resolution movie. How many times do they expect me to buy Batman 1989 and Star Wars !!! This is why people pirate stuff !!! I had V for vendetta on DVD, Hd dvd and Blu ray. Finally just downloaded offline to watch it on my ipad. You can only stick it to the customer so many times.

I also think 4k is if you have a Giant screen in your place. Most people can't afford them and 1080p looks great. The jump isn't as noticeable as 480i to 720P was. Even the jump from 720p to 1080p isn't that big.

Most the girls I know don't care. So that takes half the population that doesn't care about HD. Now it cost an extra 10 bucks to just get the cable company to let you have HD channels. You really expect Ultra HD to be any cheaper? In the US we are trying to cut the cord for cable.

Agreed. I dropped cable a few months ago. My coworker dropped his too and he has a wife and 3 kids.

Cable companies are in for a hurt. I thought it was just a small group doing so, but its not. We actually have a thread on our intranet about the hundreds of people (1,634 out of 14,000 employees) who dropped cable in favor of digital media (itunes, netflix, amazon, etc) and are saving at least half of what they paid to cable companies. Another 400 or so just use antenna instead to catch local tv and save even more by not using netflix or amazon.

If over 10% of the population in our company is doing it, i'm sure its about average with others. 10% is a huge drop in customer base for cable companies.

which can mean only one thing - broadband rates will go up up up

CoMoMacUser
Sep 18, 2013, 11:32 AM
They do that now with SD and HD. You pay more for HD/Digital content


How so? At least with my cable op, HD doesn't extra. Do some charge more?

carlgo
Sep 18, 2013, 11:49 AM
Wouldn't be funny if the only rational way to use the full capabilities of an Apple 4K monitor was to use a BluRay device! It is doubtful the present management hates disks as much as Jobs did. I could see some sort of collaboration with Sony.

Maybe they will call it AppleRay or something.

It might be that regular 720 or 1080 source could be upscaled to look really super, almost as good as a native 4K source.

Those who have seen 4K seem to rave about it, so likely it is superior and not really subject to the old viewing distance arguments.

So, a 4K monitor could be advantageous for viewing a wide variety of sources and people might have a few special movies, slideshows, etc where they can watch native 4K in all of its alleged glory.

whooleytoo
Sep 18, 2013, 12:03 PM
Why do people keep posting this same question over and over and assuming that 4k is only for watching movies and playing games? I - and tons of other people - want it for more screen area/resolution for programming, graphics/video editing, and other engineering and/or content creation work.

Good point, a 4K Apple monitor would be great, though probably quite expensive. If they were to sell a lot of them, that could help break the chicken-and-egg cycle ("Nobody'd buying 4K TVs, because there's no 4K content. There's no 4K content, because no one has 4K TVs").

Knowing Apple though, they wouldn't release this until they can get a deal to deliver future 4K content for the platform.

jnpy!$4g3cwk
Sep 18, 2013, 12:15 PM
Why do people keep posting this same question over and over and assuming that 4k is only for watching movies and playing games? I - and tons of other people - want it for more screen area/resolution for programming, graphics/video editing, and other engineering and/or content creation work.

4K should take off for professional use first, then, "prosumer". Everyone can use more screen pixels even if they are only doing Excel, but, for video production and photography, 4K is the future. And some 4K video content is already there. Once there are enough screens available, companies will start distributing it.

we are a good 5-15 years away from 4k.


There is a big difference between 5 and 15 years. I see significant demand for professional use within a year, and, consumer use about 4-5 years from now. It just depends on price. You don't need it if you can't afford it. When the price comes down, everyone will need it.


Even then I don't think it will catch on. This is a Mac fan site and we don't have a real picture of what the country looks like.I remember I interned at a CPA firm and we would go on audits. No one had a flat screen tv at the places I'd go to in Boston !! I was like what ??


It is a matter of taste. Some people greatly appreciate HD, while others claim that NTSC was/is good enough. At least those people have quit telling me that they can't see the difference-- they just don't care. I'm one of those people for whom the difference between 720p and 1080i is obvious. And who thinks that 1080p isn't good enough (for everything). It is actually quite easy to tell the difference between HD and 4K with the right setup and anyone with good eyesight can see it. But, not everyone will care.


Not everyone has a 720p TV !!! Much less a 1080P one. What do you know other than the PS3 is 1080p(not all games are even that high either. Now they are trying to sell you something that is 4x better than 1080p when NOTHING but blu rays are that high?

Cable companies show 720p. I just don't see 4k catching on any time soon. Basically because the cost to get into it, and no one offering you that quality. Only game changer Apple can do is allow you to buy certain channels for $10-20 bucks w/o having to deal with a cable company. The Appletv getting you free local channels type of thing. They need to do something about content. Picture quality is pretty much perfect as it is.

I remember when I worked at best buy in High school they told me you don't really even need HD unless your tv is 40inches then you start noticing the quality. Aren't 4k screens like 70 inches +?



Actually, the difference between NTSC and HD is obvious with almost any screen at any normal viewing distance. But, you are correct that to see the difference between HD and 4K you will need a large screen at normal viewing distance. Think of it in terms of the visual angle the screen subtends.


I have a 4 year old Samsung LED 46inch and watching sports and Avatar on it is magical. I really can't see someone convincing me and I am a tech nut to upgrade it.

I'm betting that you will happily upgrade it to a 50+ inch 4K when it becomes affordable.

In the meantime, I would like to see some "prosumer" products start to get released. Too bad Apple isn't very interested in that market anymore.

unplugme71
Sep 18, 2013, 12:37 PM
How so? At least with my cable op, HD doesn't extra. Do some charge more?

Time Warner charges more for Digital TV than Standard TV. Digital TV offers HD and on-demand. $10 more

Carlanga
Sep 18, 2013, 03:36 PM
Unless my next TV is 80+" I don't see myself paying the 4K premium.

JoshMKB24
Sep 18, 2013, 04:10 PM
Time Warner charges more for Digital TV than Standard TV. Digital TV offers HD and on-demand. $10 more

Yeah my old cable provider and DirecTV which I currently have charge more. I think for Cable it was 10 bucks like you said and DirecTV doesn't offer SD as far as I know but charges you an extra 5 for HD boxes with no DVR

priitv8
Sep 19, 2013, 12:26 AM
Unless my next TV is 80+" I don't see myself paying the 4K premium.Don't worry, the "premium" will vanish with time! Remember, what first flat panels used to cost? Yes, the 32" plasmas? I bet 4k will fall much faster than those did.
PS 4k panel in a 55" TV has the same visual effect, that Retina screen on Apple's devices. It's just not marketed like that.