Sidebar Sidebar
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?

Sevenfeet said:
with the current 27" IPS LED LCD screen Macs the standard bearer for any PC
Click to expand...
Uh, its pretty much the laughing stock, actually.

Colour accuracy struggles to compete even with TN panels at times - and Gamut is quite poor. It does do very bright, but thats also all it does. You don't put WLED backlighting in high quality monitors for a reason.

Response times are on the high side as well, though you'll likely not notice except in specific conditions, and it is a trait which itself is common on these types of displays.
perkj said:
I bet most mobile phone companies prior to the iPhone thought phone sound quality was the number 1 thing people felt was important when purchasing a new phone and where they focused their efforts. How wrong they were.
Click to expand...
Nope. Sound quality was all over the place, something you'd be aware of if you possessed even the most basic of historical technology knowledge.

Phones differentiated themselves by their capabilities. Personalized and custom ringtones, apps, better displays, synchronization, tethering, wi-fi, 3G, EDGE, multi-regional antennas, cameras (up to 8mpx) media players, GPS, with turn-by-turn navigation, and an optimum button placement.

The iPhone still doesn't get the volume buttons right for example (as do quite a few other phones), and many of the 'praised' features that have found themselves onto todays smartphones first in 2011 or 2010 were practically standard on featurephones. Worse yet - most of them are still less user-friendly.
 
Last edited:
fitshaced said:
People do, even if you dont agree with it.

Theres nothign wrong with what I said. Quite a lot of people buy phones outright, every year. And as I said before, Apple may offer a similar subscription plan as you get with iphones. Not impossible.
Click to expand...

Way to not actually address any of the issues at hand. Your "people do" statement reminds me of Fox News's "some say" strategy. It's not actually saying anything at all.

And even if Apple implemented the subscription model and made it financially possible to do what you're saying, that's still ignoring my second and third points.
 
Exhale said:
Uh, its pretty much the laughing stock, actually.

Colour accuracy struggles to compete even with TN panels at times - and Gamut is quite poor. It does do very bright, but thats also all it does. You don't put WLED backlighting in high quality monitors for a reason.

Response times are on the high side as well, though you'll likely not notice except in specific conditions, and it is a trait which itself is common on these types of displays.
Click to expand...

I'm having some SERIOUS ghosting issues on my imac 24" 2 year old one. I haven't seen ANY LCD screen with ghosting effect as bad as my imac does.
 
jsolares said:
At what price? how much will you have to pay for that? this is my only issue with it, and if it the price is difference is small then samsung will be worried.
Click to expand...

I really feel like the TVs will be competitively priced. It's hard to say though considering that Apple 27" Cinema Display is $1000 LOL which is the price of a computer...

I can't picture their tv being less than $1000 though, guess we'll wait and see.
 
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; CPU iPhone OS 5_0_1 like Mac OS X) AppleWebKit/534.46 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.1 Mobile/9A405 Safari/7534.48.3)

Why would Samsung care what apple does? Apple products are based around Samsung flash storage and samsung screens. Samsung makes money either way.

With that said, everyone dissed on the iPod saying it wasn't big enough and didn't play movies so it was going to fail. They've said the iPhone is too expensive and won't work. Samsung is now saying that the tv experience is about the quality not how it works. I think this is where they are wrong.

If/when apple releases a tv, if it's a complete soliton, it will dominate. The fear is what if it's another hobby. The apple tv is nice, but it's not a complete solution. I wish it had the HDTV receiver built in and DVR capabilities. Those two things would be a game changer.
 
ryanw said:
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; CPU iPhone OS 5_0_1 like Mac OS X) AppleWebKit/534.46 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.1 Mobile/9A405 Safari/7534.48.3)
I wish it had the HDTV receiver built in and DVR capabilities. Those two things would be a game changer.
Click to expand...

so apple licensing from tivo maybe?
 
Apple could make a technically good TV. They buy the LCD screens from LG or some other source. Then they add in what is basically an IOS platform and software and sell at double the price of the others. No they don't take over the market but that is never Apple's plan. Apple typically only wants the very top end of any market and ignoes the low end.

Having a 1% market share would be huge if each unit sold for 50% more margin than the competition.

It's kind of like this:
Samsung's plan: Sell 1000 and make $10 on each one
Apple's plan: Sell 100 units and make $100 on each one.
Both plans make the same money
 
Quality?

CNET tweet: Millions of Samsung TVs are defective.

Once again reality strikes vs a marketing rep's hype.

In fact, my brother is one of those that had to replace a defective power supply on his not-that-old TV.
 
krzyglue said:
Way to not actually address any of the issues at hand. Your "people do" statement reminds me of Fox News's "some say" strategy. It's not actually saying anything at all.

And even if Apple implemented the subscription model and made it financially possible to do what you're saying, that's still ignoring my second and third points.
Click to expand...

If you've been here long enough you'd know about the long queues outside Apple stores at every iphone/ipad launch. I'm not making it up, people, plenty of people do it. Get your head out of the sand.


I'd also like to make a point about function. Apple have a history of restricting the amount of function on their devices. When it comes to a phone, I'll stick with my iphone as it integrates well with the information I need on it. If I was to purchase an Apple tv, it would have to be function packed as I doubt there would be a loss of quality in the picture.
 
uknowimright said:
don't forget that Kinect thing that no one buys
Click to expand...

...and something that many posts on the mythical "Apple TV" threads hope that Apple copies.


newyorksole said:
you guys keep talking about picture quality... HELLLO!!

user interface, responsiveness, remote control and content are what Apple is going to revolutionize. how good is the interface on your TV? probably not so good. it's probably choppy, laggy and not fluid.

Apple will excel with picture quality, content, user interface, speed etc.

thought it was obvious...
Click to expand...

But, better that they work on doing this through the Apple TV STB or morph an expanded mini into a real HTPC - and stay out of the big flat panel business.


PadreQuevedo said:
Oh really? What about Apple's Retina display Samsung?
Click to expand...

Samsung's TVs are retina displays at the commonly recommended viewing distances.

And besides, since you can get little content at better than 1080p, and since much content is 720p and heavily compressed - an argument about "retina TVs" is specious.
 
PadreQuevedo said:
"TVs are ultimately about picture quality. Ultimately. How smart they are...great, but let's face it that's a secondary consideration. The ultimate is about picture quality and there is no way that anyone, new or old, can come along this year or next year and beat us on picture quality. "

Oh really? What about Apple's Retina display Samsung?

Samsung, make a better display for you Galaxies and I will believe in you.
Click to expand...

People cling to the retina moniker way too much. Apple just took advantage of LG's research and slapped a marketing name on it. Anyway you're not considering the logistics of scaling something like that up to the size of a television (which typically does not use a pitch as tight as a computer display). It is not Apple that would have to figure out how to manufacture such a device with a reliable yield free of defects. Then of course there's the issue of heat management with so many pixels. It's actually a significant factor if you want stable color.

Sevenfeet said:
And then there's pretty much every iMac that came after. The gooseneck version began the banishment of CRT screens from all computers with great quality. And every all in one Mac raised the level higher, with the current 27" IPS LED LCD screen Macs the standard bearer for any PC.

What I'm saying is that Apple has always cared about picture quality and has since the early days. That is a given with any new Apple television. What Samsung should be scared about are the things it can't duplicate. And Google TV is unlikely to save them.
Click to expand...

You're drinking the kool aid here. Apple has taken some great panels for their imacs and implemented them poorly. You're not seeing what a great display Apple can make. You're seeing LG's efforts there, and other brands have made better use of them. They really do not set a single benchmark in display engineering. Sony, Eizo, Barco, NEC, HP with the Dreamcolor line, Lacie, Quato, Dell (yes Dell although only on a few models), have put out superior displays. Sometimes they cost more, but Apple has been more about pretty packaging and high margins there. This isn't an area where they really shine. The drift is horrible, and they've used tons of cheap parts that break after a year or two, yet some of you don't understand a display beyond an OEMed panel.

dba7dba said:
I'm having some SERIOUS ghosting issues on my imac 24" 2 year old one. I haven't seen ANY LCD screen with ghosting effect as bad as my imac does.
Click to expand...

It's quite common, as is image persistence. They have many other issues. What annoys me is that they drift horribly. Top quality displays often have LUT based systems to provide a smoother level of calibration, and many of them don't exhibit comparable drift. Given Apple's focus on simplicity, engineering a stable display and spending a little more time setting the levels at the factory for a neutral picture should have been a priority.

Exhale said:
Uh, its pretty much the laughing stock, actually.

Colour accuracy struggles to compete even with TN panels at times - and Gamut is quite poor. It does do very bright, but thats also all it does. You don't put WLED backlighting in high quality monitors for a reason.

Response times are on the high side as well, though you'll likely not notice except in specific conditions, and it is a trait which itself is common on these types of displays.

Nope. Sound quality was all over the place, something you'd be aware of if you possessed even the most basic of historical technology knowledge.
Click to expand...

The two things Apple could never make...displays and speakers :rolleyes:. I haven't liked a single Apple display since their crts. Dell and NEC seem to have the sort of midrange (that they share with Apple) nailed on that.
 
Last edited:
BobK60517 said:
CNET tweet: Millions of Samsung TVs are defective.

Once again reality strikes vs a marketing rep's hype.

In fact, my brother is one of those that had to replace a defective power supply on his not-that-old TV.
Click to expand...

Samsung TV's have had one of the highest fail rates for a long while now. This is nothing new.
 
In all honestly, Apple will succeed in television no matter how lame their first tv will be. There will always be those die-hard early adopter fans, giving Apple enough success to come out with a second gen and onward. Then people will forget how lame the first gen was. Later people will claim that Apple tv is the best, specs and picture may not be not be the best, but still people will say its the best.:D
 
I have the Samsung TV pictured and love - the screen is fabulous. But... Just canceled Netflix Blueray rentals (cause U never watched anything) and am now streaming or watching cable. So all that great screen resolution goes to waste just like the crappy mp3s I've been listening to all these years now I have no CD player.
 
fitshaced said:
I think the networks are Apples biggest obstacle but not their biggest competitor in the TV market.
Click to expand...

They can work with Cell Phone Companies to Implement the broadcast channel of LTE allow people to go full wireless final mile. Making the the Cell companies the Cable companies competitor
 
I bet an apple TV would be so expensive that I couldn't afford it anyway...

I almost bought a 55" LED Smart Samsung last year, I'm glad I waited, the 2012's are "updatable" where as the 2011's are not. Or thats my understanding...

So now I have to wait until next year, probably, to get one at a good price...

EDIT: Wouldn't they have to start expanding their stores too? I know we're talking about one or two models probably, but it seems like the stores would be even more crowded...
 
Until OLED becomes cheaper and more mainstream, Plasmas will hold the edge in picture quality and less input lag compared to "Edgelit omfg bbq full array LED".
 
Capt Underpants said:
TV's aren't all about picture quality anymore, Samsung.

We're moving forward.
Click to expand...

Yes they are, I care more about quality of my picture then having little apps on them. Heck Apple TV can't even play quality formats like .mkv's or blu-ray's. If I wanted low quality video I would have an old fat back tube TV still. And I am not paying an extra grand for a Apple TV that just runs IOS on it. I already have a good TV, I don't need another. Just make a apple tv little box that everyone can use. That's all that is needed. Everything that you could do with a all in one TV that costs 2000 dollars you could do with a little box that hooks up to any TV for 100 dollars. There is nothing that little box can't do that could only be done in a stand alone TV with it built in... A full blown Apple TV that costs 1000-2000 dollars is the stupidest thing Apple can do.

Samsung IS right, TV's are about Quality. At least the good ones!
 
I simply disagree picture quality is of ultimate importance. It is pretty important when shopping for a new TV, but most folks are too unsophisticated to know a good picture by scientific standards when they see it, opting for features, price, or preferred vendor first.

I think I own about 8 TV's. One of them is kinda close to HD, but not really by a digital videophile standard.

To me, easy access to content is the ultimate feature. If all the Apple TV does is remove 2 of the 12 or so remotes from my house it will be a success. If it can remove more than 4, I will kiss it.

I don't doubt for a second Samsung has the ultimate TV technically, and thank goodness for their commitment to a bizantyne product segment, but now what?

Rocketman

Here's a /. link
http://entertainment.slashdot.org/s...vision-next-in-line-for-industry-wide-shakeup
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back