Just shows you what focusing your efforts on a few products and doing a good job does...
I wonder what Apple's ROI is on each R&D dollar spent vs other companies.
.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Samsung Underestimating Apple's Potential Impact on Television Market?
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Just shows you what focusing your efforts on a few products and doing a good job does...
I wonder what Apple's ROI is on each R&D dollar spent vs other companies.
.
I'm waiting for a reason to do that.
Oh wait, I'm not. I'm already a satisfied Apple user.
The consumer tech industry outside of Cupertino is ridiculously lame. They either run with the same ideas and structure that hasn't made them or anyone else any profit, or they copy Apple blatantly, or they do nothing for a few years (and *then* copy Apple blatantly.)
Consumers demand a little more these days. Hence, Apple's results.
Nice to have a nice picture. Even better to have content.
I have a nice 1080p TV. Can't say I watch more TV. Still same limited selection in this multi-hundred channel universe. And most of the channels I end up watching are still broadcasting standard def. A clearer picture of marginal stuff just shows off how marginal it is to start with. The hope of an Apple inspired TV is to move beyond the picture and onto content and ecosystem.
I have a nice 1080p TV. Can't say I watch more TV. Still same limited selection in this multi-hundred channel universe. And most of the channels I end up watching are still broadcasting standard def. A clearer picture of marginal stuff just shows off how marginal it is to start with. The hope of an Apple inspired TV is to move beyond the picture and onto content and ecosystem.
I find it fascinating that the people who usually create nothing of value, are the ones who criticise those that do the most.
What? Helped make computers a regular household item, completely conquered the enterprise marketspace, and released a successful home console that's currently transitioning to a rather robust content delivery service?
Yeah. Microsoft has been a failure since day one.
What was there before MP3s? There were LPs. Which have their fans even today, but there were problems. Crackling noises from dust on the LPs, uneven speed. There were tape recorders, and there were cassette recorders. After that came CD and DAT recorders. I'd say 256KBit AAC will easily beat LPs and any tape recorder except for the extreme range that is unaffordable for most. And compared to CD or DAT, you'll need some pretty good equipment to hear the difference.
Nowadays they turn all their TVs to show "3D" images. Obviously without the glasses that you need. So you just get a ridiculously blurry picture.
That's what you would expect. There are different divisions, and each wants to show the best profits. Obviously the price that Samsung's semiconductor business charges Samsung's music player business for Flash memory doesn't affect the profit for the company, so there is no harm done to the company. But the semiconductor business wouldn't want to lower its own profits by charging less than the market rate. (If they charged so much that the music player business could get flash somewhere else for cheaper then you have an interesting situation).
Last edited:
Hate to burst your bubble but the best LED tv on the market atm is the Sharp Elite Pro. Samsung tv's are rubbish tbh....
----------
As a massive AV enthusiast i will always go for better picture quality over form. The thing is Pioneer offered the ultimate picture quality at a premium with the Kuro Plasma tv's but they did not make enough money on them and stopped making tv's. This clearly show most people just want a tv that looks half decent that is really thin and has great features. This is something Apple could do very well but if they hold a pricetag like the Kuro Plasmas did i don't think Apple will succeed, Apple needs to keep the pricetag competitive!!
Yes and they already do because you have a choice of accepting a prepaid order for billions of dollars or see someone else get that order.
Apples supply chain? You mean having to buy every part from another company, whilst Sharp/LG/Samsung have to buy the parts from themselves.
Yes it is that simple
read up on how Apple manages it's supply chain the logistics of projecting sales/buying/storing/moving products are far from trivial.Limited stores compared to Sony or Panasonic. Not everyone will sell them compared to the other manufacturers. There supply chain is very limited.
How is that relevant Apple has a sizable portion of their sales being sold directly through own retail channels Sony and Panasonic do not.
Apple may well pay up front? But why. Set the price and keep the money in the bank earning Apple the interest, not the supplier.
To squeze everyone else out as they have done with countless things like flash memory high DPI panels etc., to defer taxes and get better prices.
None of the main manufacturers make a large profit in the TV business. To think Apple will walk in and make 20% more profit is naive. The only way the would make that much money would be by charging 20% more than everyone else.
It's called margin not profit. Right cause apple has avg industry margin on all their product lines
I specifically outlined how apple achieves their margins.Ability to charge a premium? You mean people are dumb enough to pay extra because it has a etching of a Apple on the back.
How is this relevant? apple has ability to charge premium for their products it's not a matter of opinion.
Yeah? So am I. I like my Apple products. The difference is that I'm able to recognize the achievements other companies have made, and are currently in the process of making. Achievements that helped Apple become the resoundingly successfully company we all know them as, and will help make their products better in the near future.
I see this. Why don't you?
OK. Given that Samsung are probably the pioneers in picture quality, do we really think Apple will come out with a shabby or an unimpressive display given they're investing so much in the particular field.
I don't think so. But one thing is for sure, Apple won't probably win it from Samsung in terms of picture quality but surely will spank them when it comes to content.
I don't think so. But one thing is for sure, Apple won't probably win it from Samsung in terms of picture quality but surely will spank them when it comes to content.
The "EXPERTS" thought an Apple Tablet would START at $1000.
FACT: You have no idea what price Apple would have for this type of product.
Yeah and where's the Wii right now? The clueless one is you.
More on topic though, seriously this is a funny thread. When that stupid Bestbuy survey came up with the $1500 price point for a 42' Apple TV, everyone kept blathering about how the picture quality was going to be superior to a Samsung panel et al.
Now it's all "but picture quality won't need to be as good!!!!!!!'. I'm not so sure about that. I'm not doubting the quality of a hypothetical Apple TV, I'm sure they'll use the best panels they can get (probably Samsung panels :/). They *will* sell at a premium price though, and the question is are consumers willing to pay extra for a similar quality panel?
I quite honestly do not see a need for "smart" functionality integrated into a TV. Yes better sources of content are sorely needed at this point, but the Apple TV (and other competing products) right now are already partially there. It makes no sense for Apple to integrate this into the television; consumers gain nothing by having them in one device. Quite the contrary, it makes it impossible to upgrade the "smart" functioning hardware (relatively fast to become obsolete) while keeping the panel (extremely long useful life).
I prefer Sony Xbr tvs. Of course if apple makes one: I'll take a serious look. Samsung no thanks. I have a white 23" Samsung in my bedroom- I'm on my second in warranty and this one is going bad. 2 years old.
Bottom line, Samsung TVs are some of the finest. LCDs are inferior to Plasmas when it comes to viewing angles and picture quality. This is a FACT!!! Samsung and Panasonic are THE BEST Plasmas out there. So good luck to Apple if they decide to use a Samsung, LG, or Sharp LCD panel, as we know Apple don`t invent anything themselves.
Pioneer Kuros are given way to much weight at this time. Time to move on. It`s not only about black levels, it`s about overall picture quality. That`s where Samsung and Panasonic dominate. Now with OLED TVs just around the corner, I wish Apple even more luck if they decide to go LCD. When it comes to content, forget it, the future is all about HTPCs.
Pioneer Kuros are given way to much weight at this time. Time to move on. It`s not only about black levels, it`s about overall picture quality. That`s where Samsung and Panasonic dominate. Now with OLED TVs just around the corner, I wish Apple even more luck if they decide to go LCD. When it comes to content, forget it, the future is all about HTPCs.
But if you keep pouring, the old, stagnant water will spill over the side, and you'll eventually freshen the cup.
Yeah, I'm an optimist.
First off, Apple hasn't even said diddly about entering the TV market -- HOWEVER -- if you think they would bring a TV to market and not be competitive and then some, you underestimate Apple. They will come out hot, guns blazing with coolness. If you think otherwise, you've been asleep since 2001.
For some, including myself a television has always been about picture quality. I don't need fancy features, I don't need enhancement that actually lowers the overall image quality and throw input lag through the roof and all that nonsense.
But all this might change if Apple is actually coming up with something unique changing the way we all look at the television. That's the whole point, and is the key factor behind the success of Apple. The market doesn't see the point nor the need for whatever Apple comes up with before they throw it into our faces and suddenly the whole market shifts.
And I find it really funny how Samsung pretend like they are the pioneers of todays television market. They are NOT in any stretch of the imagination, they are selling the most televisions on having the best know name and good rumour in the television market (mostly well deserved) but they aren't selling the most televisions because of their image quality, they are selling the most televisions because they offer unites in every price range and therefore get a bigger piece of the market.
When it comes to Samsung's top of the line LED and Plasma models I highly doubt they sell much more than Philips, Panasonic etc..
And what about all the gibberish Samsung is feeding the market with their top of the line LED models having the best image quality on the market? That's plain false, their own top of the line Plasma models actually features better image quality, they simply can't price the Plasmas as high as LED and therefore they go all out on the marketing of their LED series, but the fact still remains that their image quality still can't beat my three year old Pioneer Kuro LX5090, neither can they beat Panasonic's VT series of Plasma, nor Philips's top of the line LED televisions.
I'm not claiming that they are selling ****** televisions, but they are in no shape to claim themselves the king of image quality in todays market, not by a mile.
But all this might change if Apple is actually coming up with something unique changing the way we all look at the television. That's the whole point, and is the key factor behind the success of Apple. The market doesn't see the point nor the need for whatever Apple comes up with before they throw it into our faces and suddenly the whole market shifts.
And I find it really funny how Samsung pretend like they are the pioneers of todays television market. They are NOT in any stretch of the imagination, they are selling the most televisions on having the best know name and good rumour in the television market (mostly well deserved) but they aren't selling the most televisions because of their image quality, they are selling the most televisions because they offer unites in every price range and therefore get a bigger piece of the market.
When it comes to Samsung's top of the line LED and Plasma models I highly doubt they sell much more than Philips, Panasonic etc..
And what about all the gibberish Samsung is feeding the market with their top of the line LED models having the best image quality on the market? That's plain false, their own top of the line Plasma models actually features better image quality, they simply can't price the Plasmas as high as LED and therefore they go all out on the marketing of their LED series, but the fact still remains that their image quality still can't beat my three year old Pioneer Kuro LX5090, neither can they beat Panasonic's VT series of Plasma, nor Philips's top of the line LED televisions.
I'm not claiming that they are selling ****** televisions, but they are in no shape to claim themselves the king of image quality in todays market, not by a mile.
450 million+ copies of Windows 7, 400 million copies of Windows XP, Vista was a complete flop at 180 million+ copies. And then there are the total failures of Office 2003, 2007, and 2010, not to mention that complete flop know as XBox. Yea, it's been a pitiful 12 years for Microsoft. I can't believe even you could make such a ridiculous statement.
What is he supposed to say? "We are running around like a bunch of chickens with our heads cut off over a product that might not even exist"
There is no question about the fact that there will be an Apple television set. It was put in the Steve Jobs biography. Steve himself said that he "finally cracked it" to making the perfect TV.
There is just so much that is wrong with this statement.
1) Most people buy phones with subsidized contracts (oh let's say $200-ish). These contracts expire in around two years. That's not very much money.
2) Even if I had the damn money to buy a new TV year, and considering that I think myself as being quite enthusiastic about new technologies, I still would not do so. Just the inconvenience of replacing a television, all for marginal improvements that should never have been integrated with the TV in the first place, is enough to turn me off.
3) This type of throw-away thinking is precisely why there are so many things horrendously wrong with the environment today.
----------
Yeah and aren't TVs pretty close to "retina" quality anyways? I certainly can't distinguish the pixels from each other on my 46' 1080p Samsung if I'm sitting on my couch.
----------
You lost all credibility with that last statement.
I think there's a ton of potential for this supposed Apple TV. But I also think it's the one endeavor with the most potential for failure. Why? Because the TV isn't something that plays well to Apple's strength. You don't interact with it constantly, a slick UI isn't going to change the experience that much, and having a perfectly closed ecosystem (which Apple LOVES) is more a detriment than an advantage in this space.
It'll have to be something substantially more than a TV set with an Apple TV box built into it that accepts Siri voice commands if they want to catch the world on fire like they did with the iDevices.