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

[Michael Scrip]

Originally Posted by mantan

A la carte sounds great in theory until people start having to make actual purchase decisions. Love Breaking Bad - sure. Love Breaking Bad enough to pay $39.99 to get it on demand - not so sure.

It all depends on how much of a TV watcher you are.

If TV isn't your primary hobby... and you have other things to occupy your time... but you do like Breaking Bad... just buy a season of Breaking Bad once and be done with it.

However... most people love TV and lots of different shows. To them, paying $100 every month is worth it.

The good thing is... the cable subscription isn't going away anytime soon. Nobody will be forced to start paying for individual shows.

[tekstud]

I don't want a rental that expires in 24 hours.

[paul4339]

Originally Posted by rmwebs

...
A range of content. Not channels, as we really do not need those anymore. It's out of date and pointless.
...

Agreed... and,

Originally Posted by handsome pete

A la carte programming is much more complicated than people make it out to be. Advertising drives programming and content supports other content. If you moved to an a la carte system you will likely see even less choice, with chances being that the stuff you like will never even make it to production. Production campaniles will take even less risk. There's a reason why there's a deluge of crappy cheap reality programming out there.

Also agreed, but, why can't there be both options. (regardless if it's ad supported or not) Some people want bundles (or channels), some people want specific programs. I'm guessing it's just a pricing issue, but if I could (eventually) rent Breaking Bad on DVD anyway, why not offer it as ala carte?

.

[a0me]

Originally Posted by PhilTanny

We just bought a 30 inch flatscreen TV for $200. Works great as a second screen for the laptop too.

Used laptop and 30 inch TV/monitor, total price $600.

It's great if you're OK with watching movies on a 30" TV sitting on your desk, but that's not for everybody.

When you're on your couch 10 feet away from your TV -maybe with a couple of friends- to watch the latest action flick or play some video game, you'll be really glad you have a 50" TV.

And like I said in my comment, "I haven't seen a lot of 50"+ consumer monitors around." Apple only have 27" displays, same thing for HP, Asus, Samsung or LG (Dell has a 30"). I read the other day that the average (TV) screen size sold in 2012 was 42". Unless manufacturers start making similar sized monitors, I don't see anyone ditching their TV for smaller screens.

[cfs112]

My old 50" TV is about 8 years old now, I'm definitely in the market for a new TV and I have a feeling that Apple will revolutionize the TV market like they did with smart phones. I'm waiting for the end of this year to buy my TV

[Dagless]

Originally Posted by baryon

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.

To me that's rather telling of how you watch TV.

I love TV, but I only watch original content made on BBC, or a Channel 4 comedy, plus the annual Idiot Abroad on Sky One. Most of the time my TV is used for gaming or watching blurays, and rarely as an extension of my computer.

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?

Price of a 27" monitor=price of a 55" TV.


I find that TV's (and the devices attached) are all about convenience. A computer must be booted up and have their media centre app launched (why did Apple remove theirs?). TV's are easy to sit back with content playing, remote control in hand. I can't do that with my iMac, even though it's 27" I have to go up to the computer, find my media, press play and then sit back.

[mw360]

Originally Posted by paul4339

Agreed... and,



Also agreed, but, why can't there be both options. (regardless if it's ad supported or not) Some people want bundles (or channels), some people want specific programs. I'm guessing it's just a pricing issue, but if I could (eventually) rent Breaking Bad on DVD anyway, why not offer it as ala carte?

.

You wouldn't want the ala carte price. It would have to be high enough to compensate everyone involved for all the potential lost subscription fees, ad revenue, DVD sales and DVD rental income. TV content loses value over time. People who REALLY want to see it NOW pay more, either in money or ad viewing time. People who don't care so much pay a few cents via Netflix. But the important thing is that people who really want the show are subsidising the cost for everyone else. Without them paying big at the start, either the cost has to go up for everyone else, or the content just doesn't get made at all.

----------

Originally Posted by tekstud

I don't want a rental that expires in 24 hours.

Then you want to pay a little bit more for a rental you can watch any time, as many times as you like. Also known as a purchase.

[samcraig]

Originally Posted by RobertoCohen

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.

Did your Samsung suddenly stop working? If content is "king" then as long as your TV plays content - who cares if there's something newer released by Samsung.

And I doubt your TV is out of date. But please - continue the hyperbole.

[mantan]

Originally Posted by Michael Scrip

It all depends on how much of a TV watcher you are.

If TV isn't your primary hobby... and you have other things to occupy your time... but you do like Breaking Bad... just buy a season of Breaking Bad once and be done with it.

However... most people love TV and lots of different shows. To them, paying $100 every month is worth it.

The good thing is... the cable subscription isn't going away anytime soon. Nobody will be forced to start paying for individual shows.

Exactly....paying $100 a month for an avid TV viewer is worth it. But a la carte pricing would likely be several hundred dollars for all the shows they enjoy....is that going to be worth it?

For 99.9% of TV viewers...probably not. As consumers, more and more people expect things for free/cheap. There is a constant buzz of complaints from viewers about the increasing costs of cable/satellite since the first systems were installed 30 years ago. I think the percentage of people suddenly willing to pay more for things they get for free/relatively cheap (like network shows) is going to be VERY small.

[mw360]

Originally Posted by samcraig

Did your Samsung suddenly stop working? If content is "king" then as long as your TV plays content - who cares if there's something newer released by Samsung.

And I doubt your TV is out of date. But please - continue the hyperbole.

Actually when companies do continue to rapidly release new models it gives the impression they're not concerned with supporting the older ones. This wasn't a problem with mechanical objects, but now with so many software features, many with glitches or bugs, the consumers would be better served with stability and a supply of software updates. I've had DVD players and TVs that needed new firmware that never came because the new models arrived and 'nobody' cared anymore.

These 'smart' TVs with all the imitation App Store garbage are going to go obsolete faster than an iPad1.

Upadte: And I expect, with consumers hanging on to TVs for an average of 10 years, the above is exactly the plan.

[jessica.]

I can't speak for all, but this completely applies to me. I don't care if my TV recognizes me, I would like a seamless way to access content.

[mantan]

Originally Posted by cfs112

My old 50" TV is about 8 years old now, I'm definitely in the market for a new TV and I have a feeling that Apple will revolutionize the TV market like they did with smart phones. I'm waiting for the end of this year to buy my TV

I'll be interested to see how this works out when the rubber hits the road and you're looking at a $999 Samsung vs. a $2,499 Apple TV and the privilege of paying more for content than you do today.

[samcraig]

I've never had a problem with updates on my Samsung TV which I bought 2 years ago. And quite frankly - I don't need all the extra doo-dads of the smart tv hub even if they didn't. Of course everyone is different. But as long as I can hook up my Apple TV, Cable and PS3 to watch blu-rays - the TV is perfect.

Originally Posted by mw360

Actually when companies do continue to rapidly release new models it gives the impression they're not concerned with supporting the older ones. This wasn't a problem with mechanical objects, but now with so many software features, many with glitches or bugs, the consumers would be better served with stability and a supply of software updates. I've had DVD players and TVs that needed new firmware that never came because the new models arrived and 'nobody' cared anymore.

These 'smart' TVs with all the imitation App Store garbage are going to go obsolete faster than an iPad1.

Upadte: And I expect, with consumers hanging on to TVs for an average of 10 years, the above is exactly the plan.

[mw360]

Originally Posted by mantan

I'll be interested to see how this works out when the rubber hits the road and you're looking at a $999 Samsung vs. a $2,499 Apple TV and the privilege of paying more for content than you do today.

Yep, Apple doesn't have any magic dust, they just have (or had) an eye for spotting a stagnant marketplace. Right now all the existing manufacturers are scrambling so hard to beat Apple to it, they may just have covered all the bases already. Albeit with cheap plasticky things.

As for content, what can they really do? All iTunes really did for music was make it legally available online, track by track instead of singles/albums. They didn't try to cut the content creators revenue out from under them, they didn't set out to 'disrupt' anything. If anything they wanted to make more money for the record labels.

TV is different. Its ad driven, its episodic, its vastly more expensive to make, it dates rapidly, and most of all there are plenty of different consumption options already. The only new models any observers advocate are the ones that 'destroy the old dinosaurs'. The old dinosaurs being of course the companies that produce all the good stuff. Apple aren't going to do that. They have more sense. You only need to look at the iBooks court case. Apple got in trouble with the courts because Steve Jobs tried to help the publishers make more money, not less.

[chrf097]

People are starting to get ridiculous. Our living room Vizio has some App Suite, and for the time we've owned it, we've used the apps ONCE, by accident. TVs don't need apps. TVs need content. I want a TV with a DVR and Netflix, not a TV with Facebook and Twitter that tweets and posts everything I watch.

The same goes for a lot of things to! No Samsung, I don't want twitter on my fridge, I don't buy home appliances to update twitter!

"Dude I just got a new fridge to update twitter!"
"Awesome!"
"Yeah and as an extra bonus it can even store food!"

[samcraig]

Also - if Apple makes an actual TV - you have to keep in mind that people have different needs in regards to real estate on their wall/entertainment centers, etc. The market has a LOT of different sizes. Sure Apple can come in with some sizes that target the "biggest" money makers - but they most likely will not be able to "own" the market like they did with MP3 players. But that's ok too. They don't need to OWN the market. As a company - they just have to release something that is profitable and worthwhile. They don't OWN the computer market yet they do just fine.

Some people think that Apple can do a lot of revolutionizing content. I don't see it. Look at their own model. 1.99 or so for a TV show. Yet some people want to pay a couple of bucks per channel. It's not going to happen. Especially since content producers aren't going to invest millions into a show without significant buy in (advertising/etc).

I don't think Cable is perfect by any means. But the model is working because for every channel people love, there are others that are able to exist because of the block/bulk cable subscription. If the model some people suggest existed (at least now) - you're going to look at more of a YouTube scenario than network produced tv shows. Because the content will need to come from those willing to fork over their own money/low budget/etc.

Also - $2 here and there will add up quickly (for those thinking of that model) to the point where you'd still be paying the same rate because ultimately - you still need internet. And the cable companies aren't going to shoot themselves in the foot. If people "cut" their cable - then bandwidth is going to get more expensive.

Originally Posted by mw360

Yep, Apple doesn't have any magic dust, they just have (or had) an eye for spotting a stagnant marketplace. Right now all the existing manufacturers are scrambling so hard to beat Apple to it, they may just have covered all the bases already. Albeit with cheap plasticky things.

As for content, what can they really do? All iTunes really did for music was make it legally available online, track by track instead of singles/albums. They didn't try to cut the content creators revenue out from under them, they didn't set out to 'disrupt' anything. If anything they wanted to make more money for the record labels.

TV is different. Its ad driven, its episodic, its vastly more expensive to make, it dates rapidly, and most of all there are plenty of different consumption options already. The only new models any observers advocate are the ones that 'destroy the old dinosaurs'. The old dinosaurs being of course the companies that produce all the good stuff. Apple aren't going to do that. They have more sense. You only need to look at the iBooks court case. Apple got in trouble with the courts because Steve Jobs tried to help the publishers make more money, not less.

[Kaibelf]

Originally Posted by CReimer

If you're going to reinvent the boob tube, keep it simple for stupid people.

Yes, keep it simple for stupid people, and leave out the features like Twitter and Facebook that are CLEARLY dominated by the intellectual elite...

[powers74]

'Cause you're going to need it.

[Dinø]

This documentary was amazing!

[jimbobb24]

When will this ridiculous statement ever fall out of use? One poorly conducted study that has not been repeated (was it jam they used?) and has been contradicted multiple times and it still has entered the permanent psych. People almost universally do better with more choices and don't become overwhelmed.

I do agree with the smart stuff on TVs. It does not seem that useful to me and recently I went looking for a TV and found out some of the smart ones take 30 seconds to boot up. Clearly, that is a first world problem, but it is a step backward when me current TV starts up in 2 seconds.

[powers74]

Originally Posted by jimbobb24

I do agree with the smart stuff on TVs. It does not seem that useful to me and recently I went looking for a TV and found out some of the smart ones take 30 seconds to boot up. Clearly, that is a first world problem, but it is a step backward when me current TV starts up in 2 seconds.

You're supposed to leave it on 24/7

[a0me]

Originally Posted by jimbobb24

I do agree with the smart stuff on TVs. It does not seem that useful to me and recently I went looking for a TV and found out some of the smart ones take 30 seconds to boot up.

If the TV takes that long to boot up, a PC with a 30" screen almost sounds like a good alternative.

[newdeal]

Originally Posted by haruhiko

then Google will release a free Smart TV OS that is suddenly much easier to use than its current Google TV OS......

The problem with google anything is the "open" eco system. Apples locked down approach makes it much harder to steal content than googles and the providers will like that.

[headfuzz]

Originally Posted by MacRumors

The Daily Mail is reporting

and there goes the credibility of this article.

[newdeal]

Originally Posted by a0me

If the TV takes that long to boot up, a PC with a 30" screen almost sounds like a good alternative.

My HD DVD player from a few years ago takes like a minute to boot up, it is a horrible pain in the ass