NPD: Consumers Want Content, Not 'Smart' Features, on Their TVs

Haven't people been preaching about this for years? The problem with TV isn't the physical set (of which Samsung and Panasonic make excellent sets which I don't see most people replacing), but the content delivery system. Put simply, any "holy grail of television" should be 100% doable with the current Apple TV 3, which isn't going to make any investors happy. It also means Apple is making money off of services instead of hardware, so someone is going to have to pay more so they can get their cut. Any belief that people are going to spend thousands of dollars for an Apple-branded television set is ludicrous. People barely use Siri on their phones now, they aren't going to use it on their TVs!!

There isn't any "innovation" to be done in this space, it's 100% about business deals, and there is absolutely no pressure for the current TV industry to change its ways. I don't see anything changing until you start seeing big, popular shows like Game of Thrones, Breaking Bad, and The Walking Dead only on an Apple TV, and even then, it doesn't force ABC, NBC, CBS, or ESPN to play ball when they still have all of the popular broadcast content and live sports.

It's a clusterF(#$ of epic proportions.

RobertoCohen said:

Apple just needs to hurry and release their on TV so they can kick Samsungs ass. They really annoy me by releasing a new model of their 'Smart TV's' like every month. My sammy tv is probably already out of date.

Click to expand...

Yes, Apple should get into the TV market just to kick Samsung's ass. How dare Samsung offer different options for different people by releasing different models frequently

RobertoCohen said:

Apple just needs to hurry and release their on TV so they can kick Samsungs ass. They really annoy me by releasing a new model of their 'Smart TV's' like every month. My sammy tv is probably already out of date.

Click to expand...

They release new TV models once a year, kind of like Apple does the iPhone.

newdeal said:

Eventually Apple will get content, release a device and have massive success and then really **** over the other providers when they are begging to get on board. I am honestly surprised they aren't already all over this with DVRs, commercial skipping and internet that is now fast enough to download high def video easily (aka as fast as when people were stealing songs with dialup)

Click to expand...

This will be a true test for Tim Cook and has the potential to make or break him. Jobs would be fiercely negotiating with the media companies while having a with us or against us mentality to get the absolute best deal available for Apple's interests. The industry heads respected and feared Jobs to where they saw the potential in working with Apple while at the same time realized that going against them could spell future disaster.

Seeing how Cook handles this and what, if any, deal he gets will be interesting. The whole NBC/Comcast thing makes the whole situation that much more complicated for anyone looking to enter the business and compete with cable. Comcast doesn't want to help anyone out that is attempting to compete with traditional cable television. Yet, any service without the vast amount of channels and programs in NBC/Universal's catalog will look lacking and subpar.

MacRumors said:

[url=http://cdn.macrumors.com/im/macrumorsthreadlogodarkd.png]Image[/url]


The Daily Mail is reporting that new NPD research has found that consumers want more access to online video services like HBO Go rather than "smart" features like social networking access on their TVs. The research comes a day after it was reported that Intel was planning to launch a TV service and set top box in 2013 that focused on content.

NPD said that a big problem is that TV owners are confused because too much choice is creating a complex user experience.
Luke Peters, Editor of T3 Magazine, told MailOnline that Smart TVs will only become mainstream when they're as easy to use as changing a channel. Peters also notes that most Smart TV user interfaces are too complex for most people and that the content isn't good enough and that social networking doesn't make a lot of sense on TVs.

Apple has long been rumored to be interested in creating a TV that focuses on content as well in addition to features that could change human-to-TV interaction with Siri, Facetime and motion control. Apple was also rumored to be in talks with cable services like Comcast and Time Warner Cable in mid-2012, although no content deals have materialized yet.

[url=http://cdn.macrumors.com/article-new/2012/05/appletv.jpg]Image​

​

[/url]

Apple, like Intel, has largely had problems negotiating with content providers because of contractual limitations with cable providers, which may be why Apple's TV offering hasn't appeared yet. Although Intel's offering is set to debut January 7 at CES there's no telling if or when Apple's may debut, although recently it's been rumored that Foxconn is currently testing television set designs in the 50 - 55 inch range.

Article Link: NPD: Consumers Want Content, Not 'Smart' Features, on Their TVs

Click to expand...

How about you define who NDP are, or give a link to them? Poor editorial quality

baryon said:

I think the problem of TV is that 99.9999999% of content is complete crap, and most people just watch TV to turn their brain off and don't care about what is actually happening. People can watch celebrities arguing, people who can't sing sining, or people talking about politics for hours.

I don't think TV can be saved at all, or that there is a need for it in today's world. You can do everything on a computer that a TV could do, and much more, so why do you need a TV? Is it just for the big screen? Then why not just get a bigger computer monitor?

Click to expand...

I'm now in my 6th year without a TV set...

Yep, and unless Apple can do something on the content front I think they should stay out of the TV business. Google and Samsung Smart TV's haven't taken off because its not what people really want in the end.

Its like iTunes. Just like Steve negotiated 99c/song deal hoping people will buy the hardware.

All the fancy features and meagre content is a failure. See Google TV. There is only so much you can watch off Youtube.

Nebulance said:

This. I watch only a handful of channels, but I pay $100/month for hundreds of channels I just don't care for. I wish you could pick and chose certain channels a little more freely.

Click to expand...

Walt Disney, NBCUniversal, Comcast, CBS etc. will never allow that.

TV as it is now blows!. Many years ago there was a channel named
Discovery Channel, with science and interesting subjects. Now, i HATE that channel and so goes for the rest. I don't own a tv anymore. Got rid of it one year ago.

MKV support or I don't want it. At least allow third party apps that allow mkv playback.

You mean people want to watch TV on their TV's and use facebook and twitter on their computers and tablets? And here I thought it was the other way around!

dagamer34 said:

Haven't people been preaching about this for years? The problem with TV isn't the physical set (of which Samsung and Panasonic make excellent sets which I don't see most people replacing), but the content delivery system. Put simply, any "holy grail of television" should be 100% doable with the current Apple TV 3, which isn't going to make any investors happy. It also means Apple is making money off of services instead of hardware, so someone is going to have to pay more so they can get their cut. Any belief that people are going to spend thousands of dollars for an Apple-branded television set is ludicrous. People barely use Siri on their phones now, they aren't going to use it on their TVs!!

There isn't any "innovation" to be done in this space, it's 100% about business deals, and there is absolutely no pressure for the current TV industry to change its ways. I don't see anything changing until you start seeing big, popular shows like Game of Thrones, Breaking Bad, and The Walking Dead only on an Apple TV, and even then, it doesn't force ABC, NBC, CBS, or ESPN to play ball when they still have all of the popular broadcast content and live sports.

It's a clusterF(#$ of epic proportions.

Click to expand...

Apple would use content to get people to buy hardware. And since investors/wall street are looking for the next big thing (i.e. the next big revenue generator and they're not going to get it from a $99 set top box alone) I could totally see Apple releasing a television and having an ATV like box for people who don't need a new TV. Not every Apple product has to be something that's replaced frequently.

The sooner that social media dies the better.

What I want is content, all from paying one subscription. Here in the UK to get 'everything' you have to have a Lovefilm subscription, a Netflix subscription, and a Sky subscription... as they each have content from different providers.

blackhand1001 said:

I want a high end tv that focus's on picture quality, number of inputs and controls. Not 3d, smart tv features and other bullcrap.

Click to expand...

Hear, hear. Highest picture quality (color gamut, contrast ratio, response time), simplest controls, a few legacy inputs, and a good number of HDMI inputs, and a game mode (no post-processing) for inputs. Lower power consumption is also a win, as is reducing enclosure thickness and the size of the bezel.

I've said it before and I'll say it again:

I want time shifting.

I want to be able to watch any show I want. At anytime. Anywhere.

I don't want to have to subscribe to cable for this very reason — television companies hate time shifting. They want you to watch TV on their schedule.

I want to subscribe to channels on an a la carte basis. I want to pay a couple bucks per month for an ESPN "app" and a couple others, through my Apple ID. I then want to watch the content live or on-demand, my choice. None of those "package deals" crap. I don't need to pay for 300+ channels I don't watch.

This is the future. Hopefully Apple brings it.

When settling down for TV viewing, people switch into dumb mode. Interface must be familiar, easy and with minimal steps.

For the most part, all the entertainment we consume was recorded in the past. In fact there are very few instances where we need to watch something "live".

Besides sporting events where knowing the winner before you watch the contest "ruins it", is there anything else that can't be consumed later?

So if the current internet paradigm (e.g. YouTube) of users selecting WHAT they want to watch WHEN they want to do so is the future, then won't everything be "on demand"? I would even lump sports into "on demand" in that case because you could buy your "ticket" and then watch the game "live" at the prescribed time from the providers website.

This online on-demand paradigm is where we are heading. The old paradigm is traditional broadcast/cable where the provider streams shows over which they control both content and time. You bend to them. Will this paradigm ever completely go away?

Before we can pull the plug on Comcast there is the question of bandwidth. If EVERYTHING goes online and becomes on-demand, does the current internet have the bandwidth/infrastructure to handle it? The "cable" companies have a dedicated infrastructure (i.e. their own cable, or satellites) so if we suddenly drop all these dedicated content pipes and force EVERYTHING over the internet, can the internet handle it?

When we get to the point where the answer is yes, can we then "finally" sever our ties completely with the old broadcast paradigm and move to a completely "on demand" world? And how do we centralize all this information/choices into a single device that is easy to use, control, and record with? If all the media "pipes" in the world can be fed into this one device, isn't THAT the holy grail of entertainment?

Of course the sticking point is convincing the moguls of all the entertainment empires that the "one device to rule them all", will still be profitable for them. Darn greedy moguls!

As such, the Tech World does not have the leverage to make this happen on its own. There are contractual, legal, and political sides to obtaining rights to content. That is why it is taking so long.

This will take many years (if ever) because of our very nature. We humans love control and ownership and only begrudgingly let others "in on the action".

Content is King <period>

Content is always king regardless of gadget. Its a huge problem with TV because the only real need for one, at least in the U.S. is sports. 99% of TV shows are brain melting garbage which is why ratings, especially in the key demographics are way down and so many people are happy to "cut the cord."

Agreed with most of the comments.

However, if and when I watch TV, I don't necessarily go into "dumb mode". I prefer to be actively engaged, especially when watching political shows and documentaries. Very rarely do I tune out, and I avoid mindless, lowbrow reality shows (that's you Bravo!, you listening Andy Cohen?). Which means I typically watch 4-5 networks out of the hundreds I pay for every month; a complete waste of money. It makes no sense to have a "Favourites" list, needing one is part of the problem. Unfortunately it's not less expensive simply purchasing iTunes content. The cable companies know their reign is ending soon, and they're scrambling to milk out what they can from consumers while holding on with tight fists (I'm looking at you Comcast and Time Warner). I certainly don't want social networking or needless apps on my TV, and I don't need half-baked silly gestures on my Samsung 3D LED "SmartTV".

baryon said:

You can do everything on a computer that a TV could do, and much more, so why do you need a TV?

Click to expand...

Everybody can use the basic functions of their TVs. TV sets are also very low maintenance (no updates, no viruses, no password, no driver issues, etc...) and have no boot time.
Most modern TVs also have a lot more AV I/O ports than PCs. You'll need them if you have an Apple TV, a couple of consoles and a sound system plugged in.

Is it just for the big screen? Then why not just get a bigger computer monitor?

Click to expand...

For one, I haven't seen a lot of 50"+ consumer monitors around. Apple's biggest displays are 27" now, and other manufacturers are about the same. Where are the "bigger computer monitors"?

Exactly

senseless said:

When settling down for TV viewing, people switch into dumb mode. Interface must be familiar, easy and with minimal steps.

Click to expand...

I'd trade social media (much better on a portable or mobile device) and content (I doubt media companies are capable of creating anything but a few good programs per year, anyway) for a decent user interface.

Had to erase several weeks worth of programs from my cable company supplied DVR. The experience was a total PITA. Search sucks, also.

The "smart" GUI on my Samsung telly is an eyesore! And the iplayer app is soooooo slooooow
Rubbish

However, the older apple tv OS was far superior than the new one

Apple should buy both The Daily Mail and NPD Research and let them redo the whole thing.