Ummm... i think he might be right about it being second to last.
Picture Quality is of "Manportance".
Try bringing home an ugly TV and see how it leaves the house without anyone else assessing the picture quality.
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
Ummm... i think he might be right about it being second to last.
Picture Quality is of "Manportance".
Try bringing home an ugly TV and see how it leaves the house without anyone else assessing the picture quality.
I've got a Samsung HDTV. The picture is great, the HDMI communication between the TV and my Samsung BluRay is great, but the "apps" are crap. Slow to respond and generally clunky.
Samsung just proved they don't get it.
iPod - As we know is not about sound quality. CD AIFF files and the like whoop mp3. But it's about having all the content you want when you want it. So content is king here.
TV - Sure you have the minority HD crowd. But the rest (vast majority) don't care if the screen is HD or not. As long as they can watch the content they want. And with things like TV, when they want too. So content is king here.
OS X - The same here too. Most Apple users will tell you they use OS X because it does what they want (ie content) and is easier to use then the alternatives.
So the winner here will be the company who gets the most content out to the customers. Apple's model with cheap content and higher hardware prices is working a treat. But so many other companies can not see this. Samsung especially.
So it seems this article (if you choose to believe it, well it is a MacRumors article) says Samsung underestimates a direction Apple had not gone in, in the past.
***************
"well it is a MacRumors article"
A little footnote. Just to point out the obvious. Which is anything that is a MacRumors article is always taken with a grain of salt cause of their history of terrible articles.
iPod - As we know is not about sound quality. CD AIFF files and the like whoop mp3. But it's about having all the content you want when you want it. So content is king here.
TV - Sure you have the minority HD crowd. But the rest (vast majority) don't care if the screen is HD or not. As long as they can watch the content they want. And with things like TV, when they want too. So content is king here.
OS X - The same here too. Most Apple users will tell you they use OS X because it does what they want (ie content) and is easier to use then the alternatives.
So the winner here will be the company who gets the most content out to the customers. Apple's model with cheap content and higher hardware prices is working a treat. But so many other companies can not see this. Samsung especially.
So it seems this article (if you choose to believe it, well it is a MacRumors article) says Samsung underestimates a direction Apple had not gone in, in the past.
***************
"well it is a MacRumors article"
A little footnote. Just to point out the obvious. Which is anything that is a MacRumors article is always taken with a grain of salt cause of their history of terrible articles.
Samsung does make a good point about picture quality. Our HDTV's are all Samsung since my cousin works for them. They even have these next gen 3DTV screens that is pretty mindblowing to look at in the mall. And I am not a fan of 3D in the first place.
Apple is only going to make easier to use, but they have no real experience with screens. Heck, LG provides the screens for them on their iPhones. It would be really cool to eliminate many remotes but at the end of the day, but what we are looking at mostly and how TV's are judged is the screen and Samsung has this locked up. They surpassed even Sony years ago. Samsung is simply technically superior and more experienced than Apple in this area. And if they can lower the price for their TV's, the better for them. Apple has no real advantage since they can't offer subsidized pricing like they can with their most popular products, the iPhone. Having a fancy OS might seem nice and all on a computer or handheld device, but it may not mean squat with TV when your eyes are doing most of the work over your fingers and mouse clicker.
But I would NOT underestimate Apple in anything they do. Many underestimated them when they got into the cell phone market and look what happened.
Apple is only going to make easier to use, but they have no real experience with screens. Heck, LG provides the screens for them on their iPhones. It would be really cool to eliminate many remotes but at the end of the day, but what we are looking at mostly and how TV's are judged is the screen and Samsung has this locked up. They surpassed even Sony years ago. Samsung is simply technically superior and more experienced than Apple in this area. And if they can lower the price for their TV's, the better for them. Apple has no real advantage since they can't offer subsidized pricing like they can with their most popular products, the iPhone. Having a fancy OS might seem nice and all on a computer or handheld device, but it may not mean squat with TV when your eyes are doing most of the work over your fingers and mouse clicker.
But I would NOT underestimate Apple in anything they do. Many underestimated them when they got into the cell phone market and look what happened.
According ot videophile magazines, the best picture quality on plasma has not been and is not Samsung. Pioneer elite was the gold standard back in 2006 and remained so until 2011 when Sharp produced their own Elite series. I might be mistaken, but I believe they bout the technology from pioneer.
And who is Apple purportedly teaming up with.....Sharp.
So the Samsung rehotoric is full of crap.
And who is Apple purportedly teaming up with.....Sharp.
So the Samsung rehotoric is full of crap.
Links to definitive agreements between Apple and Sharp, or it's BS.
Saying one rumour is false based on what was reported in another rumour just doesn't work.
this guy at Samsung must have formerly run IBM! If you're a real nerd you'll get that one! But seriously, people care about picture quality like they care about sound quality..and we all know how many iPod's, iPhone's, iPad's they have sold.
Very good post - Apple doesn'tneed 10,000 people working on their displays, they have Sharp's people for that. And Sharp displays are much better than Samsung's.
He is absolutely right about picture quality. Everything else is secondary to the quality of the image.
But what he really is saying is look, our top of the line TVs are the product of many, many years of development by the best and brightest in our industry alone with billions invested in the technology and production capability to produce them. Apple, good luck with that.
Like someone already said, thats why Apple has Sharp to carry that load for them.
And if Samsungs People Over take sharps People, then Apple has Samsungs People. If Sony's People overtake both of them Apple has Sony's peoples to.
Apple has 10,000's of R&D people and they only have to pay the successful ones.
The first issue is content, with the supposed new TV made by Apple, will it bring content? My guess is yes, and that is certainly worth a lot to many people.
The second issue, as Samsung puts it is indeed picture quality of displays of a certain size. The larger sizes from 42" - 60+". Samsung does a really does well at it. Yes, Sharp LED based LCD TVs are better, but only in the 60, 70 and 80" sizes. The Sammys are quite good and will give a run for the money. If Apple builds it will consumers come to it? Perhaps so, but maybe not. Because large displays are expensive which you buy every 5-7 years at the most. That is a longer time frame than iPhone, iPod, iPad, and even Macs. Its one thing to run out and get a new iPhone at cost every year, but people won't do that with large TV sets.
The second issue, as Samsung puts it is indeed picture quality of displays of a certain size. The larger sizes from 42" - 60+". Samsung does a really does well at it. Yes, Sharp LED based LCD TVs are better, but only in the 60, 70 and 80" sizes. The Sammys are quite good and will give a run for the money. If Apple builds it will consumers come to it? Perhaps so, but maybe not. Because large displays are expensive which you buy every 5-7 years at the most. That is a longer time frame than iPhone, iPod, iPad, and even Macs. Its one thing to run out and get a new iPhone at cost every year, but people won't do that with large TV sets.
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)
You absolutely missed the point of his comparison. Pioneer Kuro Plasma displays were considered the top of the top in terms of pristine picture quality. For the keen eye, these sets blow away Samsung models. I know. I own one.
The point is, even with the best picture quality on the market, Pioneer continued to lose money and eventually had to shut down their plasma division. It has nothing to do with market share. Consumers kept buying LCDs over plasmas because of cheaper prices and "newer technology" lingo. (And anyone who believes LCDs are superior to Plasmas need to head over to AVSforum.com and get spanked by all the hard core enthusiasts over there and learn a thing or two about picture quality).
So this comparison slaps it in the face for Sammy and just proves the hypocracy in their statement. They never had the best picture quality in the market. That title belonged to Pioneer.
rmwebs said:
You absolutely missed the point of his comparison. Pioneer Kuro Plasma displays were considered the top of the top in terms of pristine picture quality. For the keen eye, these sets blow away Samsung models. I know. I own one.
The point is, even with the best picture quality on the market, Pioneer continued to lose money and eventually had to shut down their plasma division. It has nothing to do with market share. Consumers kept buying LCDs over plasmas because of cheaper prices and "newer technology" lingo. (And anyone who believes LCDs are superior to Plasmas need to head over to AVSforum.com and get spanked by all the hard core enthusiasts over there and learn a thing or two about picture quality).
So this comparison slaps it in the face for Sammy and just proves the hypocracy in their statement. They never had the best picture quality in the market. That title belonged to Pioneer.
So, one probably shouldn't present a rumour that can't be corroborated as fact....
All factors need to be weighed.
My "TV room" has 4m high floor to ceiling windows, and a 5m by 1m skylight.
I can watch my XBR6 during the day - a plasma would be a "night-only" TV.
Purportedly.
And my projector would be fine in that room, to say nothing of a plasma. C'mon, man. God, tell me we aren't going to start LCD vs plasma here. The amount of knowledge/understanding on that topic here could fill a thimble.
Thank you for clarifying my point!
The more I think about his comment though, the more puzzling it is. Yes scaler is important but why mention that first? No mention of color accuracy, contrast and brightness of the panel, backlight quality, etc. Does he mean Samsung has better picture quality because of the scaler and software bits like their picture "enhancements"? Apple has more than its share of video-related expertise and I don't know if those software stuff will help Samsung much.
Exactly why her following sentence was inappropriate - it assumed that the "purported" statement was fact.
Please don't call me god.
...and I've never heard anyone recommend projectors or plasmas for brightly sun-lit rooms.
School Contractors!
I can't think of a worse place to have projectors than in a room where the walls might as well of been made from glass.
Not "might as well of been made from glass", one wall of my TV room is literally a 4m high floor to roof glass wall. Plus, there's a large skylight!
Bottom line, Your average customer cannot tell the difference in picture quality on a mid-level TV compared to a high end TV. Your average viewer who makes up a majority of the buyers out there doesn't sit in a lab comparing black levels. All they do is turn on the TV and watch movies on their bluray player/digital TV/satellite. If content is important to you, get a HTPC.
So in any case, the most popular TV sizes are now 50-60 inch TVs. There is no doubt Apple is greedy and likes to imply a premium product by typically charging more than the competitor. Well Apple and all it's follower can argue all they like that screen size doesn't matter for the iPhone, but guess what? That won't work with TVs. When it comes to TVs, people go as big as they can afford. And we all know, Apple isn't about value, it's about a brand and an image. But unlike your ipad and iphone, you can't carry around your TV showing everyone that your an Apple lover. So no one is going to pay X amount for a 42 inch TV that just sits in your house, when they can pay the same amount for a 50 inch TV. This is fact.
So in any case, the most popular TV sizes are now 50-60 inch TVs. There is no doubt Apple is greedy and likes to imply a premium product by typically charging more than the competitor. Well Apple and all it's follower can argue all they like that screen size doesn't matter for the iPhone, but guess what? That won't work with TVs. When it comes to TVs, people go as big as they can afford. And we all know, Apple isn't about value, it's about a brand and an image. But unlike your ipad and iphone, you can't carry around your TV showing everyone that your an Apple lover. So no one is going to pay X amount for a 42 inch TV that just sits in your house, when they can pay the same amount for a 50 inch TV. This is fact.
Really? I only know one person that has a TV bigger than 46". I don't live in the US though.
Just because Apple hasn't mentioned anything to blogs doesn't mean no one knows anything. You think the best industry insiders work for the blogs or other tech companies. You think a high level exec is responding to mere speculation? Please I'm sure they had been contacted by Apple YEARS ago in regards to buying displays for a potential TV. These things don't happen overnight. Them or LG or any other display supplier.
----------
Yeah that information was incorrect. Average is 30-46 in. range.
----------
So wait...you have eight old tv's of which only one is "near" HD yet all can access apps? Cause I'm guessing that's what you mean by them accessing content. Or do you have a set top box such as roku? Or am I reading that incorrectly? Ever heard of a universal remote?