Best Buy Dreams Up a $1499 42-Inch 'Apple HDTV' for Customer Feedback

[gatortpk]

Look's like reasonable quotes.

$1499, no thanks. I "could" understand $999, but $1499 for a tiny 42" is too much. Should be:

32": $699
42": $999
47": $1299
55": $1799

LED, 120Hz, and 3D for the 47 and 55 inch models.

Look's like reasonable quotes, it's a little more, by about 50%-100% increase over the least expensive LCD TV at that size. But the other TV's cost more with 120 Hz, LED backlit, Internet Apps. Actually Internet Apps seem to make those TV sizes almost as much as quoted above! (I got lucky and got a VIZIO 42" LCD TV with 120 Hz for $499 last March, 2011 in a store, and they still cost at least $549 today!)

In my opinion, Internet Apps on a TV is not worth the extra $200-$300 price markup, especially when one could do more with a $99 AppleTV. (Actually, I still have an AppleTV still wrapped in cellophane that I bought last December 27, just don't have time, especially since my AT&T DVR keeps recording more shows to watch. I do have another AppleTV in the house, but I don't use it.)

----------

Your right. A 27 inch cinema display is 999 so 2500 is more like it

Let's not forget, a 27" Cinema Display has 78% more pixels than 1080p displays. It's 1440p, so that's why it costs a bit, even the cheapest 1440p monitor I could find is still about $800. If they were $300-$400, I'd buy two. But I'm stuck buying several 1080p displays at $150 each.

 

[duncanapple]

When you buy a plasma you can get better deals, it is an old technology that suffers from problems. LED and LED/LCD TVs are brighter, consume half the amount of power, do not suffer from burn in, are thinner, and have better picture quality. If the Apple TV is an LED or LED/LCD, then the price is worth it. If it is a plasma, then no it should not be $1500. The top TVs of 2011 were LG and Samsung LED TVs.

Again, sorry but this is (almost) all wrong. Brightness does not equal better picture. In fact my brightness is turned pretty far down - look at any pro calibration settings for any TV and pay attention to the brightness - its not at the eye scorching levels best buy demos their sets on.

As for the power needs - yes, plasma uses more power. But then again a mac pro uses more power than a macbook air. Which is better? Low power consumption doesn't ness mean better. Besides, my 55 inch panasonic has an estimated $24/year power consumption based on the sticker on the front. I have no idea what the basis they used for the was (price per watt, hours a day, etc) but my tv is usually on around 15 hours a week so I doubt I am there. $2 a month? Even if its double an LCD, who cares about $1 a month?

With respect to burn in, your just repeating a stereotype of the past. Plasma, besides being more impervious to burn in than the old CRTs (which I never heard much complaining about back then) have a host of tech that will prevent the burn in should you decide to pause your video game for 24 hours, like pixel isolation, screen savers, etc. Burn in isn't an issue for plasma and hasn't been for a long time.

Thickness, sure, LCD wins. But my new set is 1.4 inches thick (other than at the speakers, which are 2.8 thick - a statement of speaker tech not display tech). At that point, who cares? Its hanging on the wall and if its not, its on a cabinet far thicker. Ill take pic quality over a fraction of an inch.

Lastly, plasma is a newer tech than LCD in general, though both technologies have advanced a great deal in the last few years. But to pass off plasma as if it was an 8 track player is pretty funny. Top end plasma sets are comparable in price to top end LCD. And check your reviews again, all the top reviewed sets are plasma. The ONLY lcd that comes close is Pioneers (sharp) new Elite which starts at $6K. Yep, 3x more than almost any other TV. With the exception of that one set, plasmas have more accurate color, better off angle viewing, deal with motion better (all those high hertz LCDs just look fake to me), and in general perform better.

 

[damir00]

Brightness does not equal better picture.

All things being equal, viewer preference is strongly biased towards brighter images over darker images. This is confirmed by many, many perceptual studies. The brighter the ambient conditions, the more pronounced the preference, too.

And the average living room is quite bright, indeed.

 

[Wicked1]

Apple will find a way to sue best buy over this.

Best Buy is already in serious financial trouble, and since they sell a lot of Apple products, I am sure Apple will not hurt them, however that could be a law suit big enough to tip BB out if it were to happen, however I do not think Apple will pursue this, as they did not hurt Apple in any way like the other lawsuits do.

 

[d0vr]

I still think this iteration of 3d is a fad. It will take something revolutionary like holographic imaging. But of course that would be a new medium altogether, so you couldn't even compare the two.

I'd tend to agree with you. When I see 3D movies at the cinema, it always get's me how the cinema logo floating just in front of my face before the movie is the best 3D in the whole movie. Most 3D movies just add more "depth" into the screen. Who cares!? Like you said, my eyes do that pretty well now without light restricting glasses.

Maybe when 3D movies are a more realistic version of CGI IMAX films (actually coming out of the screen like the damn logo) it'll be worth it.

I bet the marketing people would call it 4D then as well....

---

Also, if Siri is supposed to be the next best thing, would a few seconds of delay to switch channels (when it sends the command to Apples servers for interpretation be slightly annoying?

 

[SeaFox]

All things being equal, viewer preference is strongly biased towards brighter images over darker images.

That doesn't mean the brighter image is higher quality, which is what duncanapple said. People prefer to eat bacon double-cheeseburgers over salads but that doesn't mean the cheeseburger is higher quality nutrition, either.

And the average living room is quite bright, indeed.

I work for a cable company. I can tell you from first-hand experience you're wrong.

 

[Ishmumrhmn]

Will it have 3D. Hopefully Apple have cracked 3D tv with no glasses?

LG already made one

 

[ericrwalker]

That doesn't mean the brighter image is higher quality, which is what duncanapple said. People prefer to eat bacon double-cheeseburgers over salads but that doesn't mean the cheeseburger is higher quality nutrition, either.


I work for a cable company. I can tell you from first-hand experience you're wrong.

My living room is too dark. Eight recessed 50 watt bulbs and I am thinking of putting in two Chandeliers. I have a long living room. The only time my living room seems bright is when the sun is low outside in the mornings.

 

[damir00]

That doesn't mean the brighter image is higher quality...

Most people aren't interested in paying a premium for quality - they're interested in paying a premium for ease of use.

 

[SeaFox]

Most people aren't interested in paying a premium for quality - they're interested in paying a premium for ease of use.

That explains all the people I've spoken to who go on about how high-end their HDTV is and how much it cost -- and then aren't able to navigate the menus on it at all.